backtop


Print 118 comment(s) - last by Major HooHaa.. on Jun 19 at 7:00 AM

Microsoft says the answer to bad models is not to give up on modeling, but to develop better models

New York City is home to some of the world's most attractive models;  it is also home to some of the least attractive ones, presented yearly to the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The current state of global warming modeling has been rather poor, detracting both from research indicating anthropogenic influence and that which contraindicates it.  The result is that the debate about climate control, an issue which effects major economic policy decisions, is monopolized by this distraction.

Microsoft Research ecologist Drew Purves acknowledges that this problem is one of the largest ones confronting global warming researchers.  He and researchers at Princeton University and universities in Madrid, Spain are calling on the international research community to not throw out modeling or focus on the poor current models, but rather to develop new, better models.  In particular, they point out a rather common sense start point -- as forests and other plant populations form the crux of the carbon balance, a better understanding of their effects and how to model them needs to be developed and needs to help form the foundation of future models.

Examining deforestation, forest populations and how they effect the carbon balance is both essential and possible with current technology, believes Purves.  While atmospheric equations are important, it's illogical to leave out one of the most important carbon utilities on Earth, forests.  Atmospheric dynamics are well known, but forests, with over 1 trillion trees, from 100,000 species, are still a mystery for lack of knowledge.  What we do know is that these trees hold as much carbon as is currently in the atmosphere, and additionally support two-thirds of the planet's biodiversity.

Purves and Princeton's Stephen Pacala published a paper "Predictive Models of Forest Dynamics", which explores a new branch of modeling dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), which simulates forests in the past, present, and future and their effects on climate. Purves states:

[DGVMs] have shown that forests could be a crucial part of the way the Earth's climate responds to man-made CO2 emissions, but insufficient understanding of forests, and insufficient data and computing power, have made their predictions highly uncertain.  This kind of uncertainty helps climate skeptics, who erroneously conclude that because the Earth is a complex but poorly understood system, we should not change our behavior. However, we suggest that the convergence of recently developed mathematical models, improved data sources and new methods in computational data analysis could produce more realistic models. That would give us truly invaluable information to help manage the world's forests and understand their impact on our climate.

Indeed, climate change skeptics are quick to pounce on such models.  However, Purves aptly points out that it is counterproductive to merely blast deficient models, rather it is favorable to acknowledge the deficiency and work towards remedying it.

Says Pacala, "Until now, one of the most important pieces of the climate change jigsaw has been missing.  We argue that we can significantly further our understanding of forest dynamics if scientists work together to use new computational techniques and data sources — provided governments and others make more data available in useful forms. We feel that these discoveries could unlock the climate change mysteries of forests on a global scale in as little as five years."

The pair's paper appears in the journal Science.  Also appearing in the journal is a joint study entitled "Animal vs Wind Dispersal and the Robustness of Tree Species to Deforestation," written by Daniel Montoya from the Universidad de Alcalá in Madrid and Purves in Cambridge, with Miguel A. Rodríguez of the Universidad de Alcalá and Miguel A. Zavala of Centro de Investigación Forestal, Instituto Nacional de Investigación y Tecnología Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA-CIFOR) in Madrid.  Both papers are available here, from Microsoft.

The new study provides intriguing insight into forest growth and resiliency based on vast data sets collected from 90,000 tree plots in Spain.  It found that three common species of tree that are wind pollinated are far more vulnerable to deforestation than others.  Also it found that no animal seed disperser existed in the ecosystem anymore, leaving several animal dispersed species very vulnerable.

Montoya explains how this research could be applied to smarter conservation efforts, stating, "By applying various methods in computational data analysis to a large source of forest data, we have confirmed that, in Spain at least, plants with animal-dispersed seeds are less vulnerable to habitat loss, because animals provide trees with an intelligent dispersal mechanism, traveling and distributing seeds between areas of remaining forest. In contrast, a wind dispersal method is more susceptible to habitat loss, as seeds are more likely to fall in inhospitable environments. Using methods like this, conservationists can identify the species at most risk following deforestation, and use this knowledge to develop new strategies to mitigate the effects of widespread habitat loss and help to protect species diversity."

Microsoft's Purves says it's not just about the trees and animals either; he states, "It is imperative that we create the tools and science to accurately understand the reaction of ecosystems to climate change and other forces — not just for plants and animals, but for our children and succeeding generations."

Purves is the leader of the Computational Science Research at Microsoft Research Cambridge.  His multidisciplinary team features ecologists, biologists, neuroscientists, mathematicians and computer scientists.  Their goals is to develop novel theories, better models, and better computational resources to tackle societal challenges such as climate change, declining biodiversity, and gaining an understanding of how life functions on a most basic scale.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The real heart of the issue
By wordsworm on 6/14/2008 11:42:39 AM , Rating: 1
A lot of folks have devoted a lot of words to attacking the whole idea of anthropogenic causes of climate change. I think the whole ozone thing is a definite example of how man can drastically change his environment simply by using those CFCs in the environment. Some environmental scientists are now suggesting that should the ozone close up, it may aid global warming.

Someone once said that a good reason to be a Christian is that if there is no God, then you haven't lost anything. I say if environmentalists are wrong about CO2 causing global warming, then by going to non-pollution-based energy sources, we aren't going to be harming anything at all. If, by contrast, they're right, then the gamble of not doing anything to curb our abuses of the environment is going to cause some catastrophes that we cannot really predict.

Sure, the scientists aren't perfect. Everyone knows that. However, CO2 are a bad pollutant in cities. This is a fact which is unequivocally proven: http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jun252006/1607.pdf is just a tip of many articles which clearly demonstrate the ill effects of CO2.

Hence, it shouldn't be hard to say that the elimination of the cause(s) of CO2 will be beneficial to everyone in cities. This in itself makes the effort and cost worthwhile. The cessation of anthropogenic CO2 contributions to the atmosphere will not adversely affect the environment. Other practices, such as clear cutting of old growth forest, should be prevented. Many argue that there are jobs in old growth harvesting. However, it's inevitable that all old growth forests cannot sustain our practices indefinitely. Therefore, it can be concluded that it is inevitable that we will have to stop - either when the trees are all gone, or we can make a conscious choice and preserve these, now, incredibly rare masterpieces of nature.

Regardless of the climate models that scientists create, we are cooking up a lot of problems that are foreseeable by anyone who isn't blinded by greed either by douche-bag or poop sandwich politicians.

So, let's stop debating over the fallibility of climate models and agree that they're an expensive hobby which may one day lead to a better understanding of our world, but that the data is irrelevant to the question of whether or not we should cease our destructive behavior. I don't doubt that we can't stop ourselves - not at the cost of a McDonald's burger or a logger's job. I'm too pessimistic about the collective intelligence of man to believe that we might actually make the right decisions.




RE: The real heart of the issue
By Lupinicus on 6/14/2008 4:27:39 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for your amazing post. It is often hard for me to read through the comments on a DailyTech global warming article. So many people dismiss what it says out of hand. I totally agree with your points here. I have thought for quite a while that it is silly to assume we are having no effect on the climate. I don't want to debate whether carbon dioxide is THE greenhouse gas to worry about or not, but we are obviously putting various gases into the atmosphere that either were never there before or never there at these concentrations. Why wouldn't we want to fix that problem? We have plenty of examples of what happens when we let pollution run rampant. Why don't we want to try to prevent something like global warming from happening?


RE: The real heart of the issue
By dever on 6/16/2008 2:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Someone once said that a good reason to be a Christian is that if there is no God, then you haven't lost anything. I say if environmentalists are wrong about CO2 causing global warming, then by going to non-pollution-based energy sources, we aren't going to be harming anything at all.
So you're advocating government enforced religion?


RE: The real heart of the issue
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2008 5:16:13 PM , Rating: 5
> "I say if environmentalists are wrong about CO2 causing global warming, then...we aren't going to be harming anything at all."

You mean, other than the tens of trillions of dollars wasted on fighting a problem which doesn't exist -- resources which could have instead been spent to save literally millions of lives?


RE: The real heart of the issue
By wordsworm on 6/14/2008 7:33:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
tens of trillions of dollars wasted on fighting a problem which doesn't exist


See, this is a big mistake that you've made. I know that you're a conservative and a southerner (I believe you've mentioned this fact yourself, though it has been obvious), so I don't think you'll be able to really grasp that learning to become safer and cleaner are worthwhile goals regardless. These millions of dollars are being spent to save, literally, millions of lives. If CO2 and other pollutants can be eliminated in cities, then cities will become much healthier places to live. This is a fact. You can argue global warming either way until you're blue in the face, and due to its great complexity, neither one of us can say we have conclusive evidence. However, the issue of CO2 in city pollution is conclusive: it is harmful for our health. The fact that it may also be causing issues for the globe is a debate I can't win with you since you're not interested in speculation built on facts. I think if it was only China that was creating the CO2, and America wasn't, you'd be only too happy to say that they're causing global warming, rather than feeling unhappy that some people are trying to make people change.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2008 8:01:37 PM , Rating: 4
> "I know that you're a conservative "

No I'm not.

> "and a southerner...so I don't think you'll be able to really grasp that learning to become safer and cleaner are worthwhile goals"

Ah, Southerners are less intelligent than the rest of the nation? In any case, the mistake you're making is in regarding CO2 as "unclean". The fact is its crucial to all life on earth. As CO2 levels have risen, so has plant growth. Research has shown that NPP (Net Primary Production) of all planetary biomass is up dramatically. That's the result of rising CO2 levels.

Still worse, the diatribe against clean and beneficial CO2 has taken focus away from truly toxic pollutants. The belief that fighting the nonexistent problem of global warming has other benefits entirely is fallacy, plain and simple.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By xsilver on 6/14/2008 11:17:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
> "I know that you're a conservative "
No I'm not.


Actually I think what people find a bit irking is that sometimes you speak with a tinge of righteousness, people might find it confronting that they cant get their point across to you as you are a much better speaker/writer than they are.

I also think that a some of the time you're taking the moral high ground in a conservative view which might be geared towards economically safe rather than "gaia earth friendly safe"

I think with a great majority of people not at all understanding the global warming debate, for the meanwhile it may be safer to stay on the liberal side of the fence in terms of actions until we all can come to a semi consensus as to what actions can be taken.

People with "gaia earth friendly safe" intentions may not have the right information but at least their intentions are good. It only takes a little education here whereas if your belief system is totally in the opposite direction, its going to be much tougher.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By ebakke on 6/15/2008 12:12:20 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It only takes a little education....

It also doesn't take much to teach people that "global warming is destroying the earth" is a hoax.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By wordsworm on 6/15/2008 2:53:22 AM , Rating: 1
Didn't you say at some point that you hate liberal politics and that you're a Republican?

It's not that Southerners are less intelligent, it's just that they seem to care less about the environment, and seem ready to disregard the harmful effects that their lives have on the general public whenever it they feel that any part of their way of life is threatened. We have folks like that in Canada too. They are most strongly concentrated in Alberta and are virtually indistinguishable from southern Americans. They too have a lot of oil, don't really care about Natives unless it means stealing more of their land, and favor old growth profits over old growth forests.

In any case, you therefore support the idea that gasoline based automobiles shouldn't have to change, that they should continue to degrade our environment? My opinion is that they're terrible polluters to our environment. The money being spent to find less toxic sources of energy is well worth it if we're able to find solutions, even if it does take billions of tax dollars to make it happen.

I don't doubt that there are many other problems in addition to CO2. Ozone creation and CO in cities are other problems.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2008 12:09:38 PM , Rating: 3
> "Didn't you say at some point that you hate liberal politics and that you're a Republican?"

No. It's clear your own biases are coloring your perceptions.

> "In any case, you therefore support the idea that gasoline based automobiles shouldn't have to change, that they should continue to degrade our environment? "

You can't seem to grasp the point. The $45 trillion dollars the IAE is proposing doesn't include one red cent for eliminating our reliance on "gasoline-based automobiles". In fact, the vast majority of all AGW "solutions" have nothing whatsoever to do with actually reducing pollution.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By barjebus on 6/16/2008 12:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
Agree'd.

wordsworm:

It's called pascal's wager and fails terribly. With regards to the religious pascal's wager, the reason it fails is that there are far too many religions out there that could possibly be correct. If we look at past religions, God's or Deities vary widely; and indeed, we cannot make any assumptions as to whether this God or God's is actually personally interested in our worship of that God or God's, and thus we cannot exclude any single previous religion on this planet.

Since it's impossible to make any assumptions as to whether God has revealed himself yet, or that we're still just searching for him, we can't conclude with any certainty that even our current religions meet any criteria for attaining an afterlife, let alone whether there's an afterlife at all! Without assumptions, we become open to an infinite number of possibilities as to the nature and character of God or the Gods. So if we can't even quantify the number of religions out there, the number of ways that might be the wrong way to worship God, it's infinitely impossible to be right. I don't think I'm explaining this well, but whatevs.

This same theory holds true for global warming. There are so many factors that can be causing this, so many future variables that are unforeseeable that can negate any changes we make (i.e. if we get new sunspots, volcanic explosions, new technology that isn't based on fossil fuels) that it is in fact not better to believe (or in this case) act on the current knowledge but rather to wait until we have some real data that supports it. As it stands there are piles of contradictory evidence that is particularly damning, and yet the common refrain from the global warming community is that the models are "improving" or can't "factor everything in yet".

So until that time, count me in the camp that doesn't chase down infinitely impossible probabilities.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 6/14/2008 11:23:11 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
See, this is a big mistake that you've made. I know that you're a conservative and a southerner (I believe you've mentioned this fact yourself, though it has been obvious), so I don't think you'll be able to really grasp that learning to become safer and cleaner are worthwhile goals regardless.


Ok. You make a nice opening +5 rated post sharing your opinion in a mature manner. Then you follow it up showing your true colors. This statement is completely assumptive, insulting, and inflammatory.

quote:
These millions of dollars are being spent to save, literally, millions of lives.


There is ZERO, repeat, ZERO evidence, proof, or observational method to even make such a claim. How dare you. Millions of people will die from global warming ?

quote:
If CO2 and other pollutants can be eliminated in cities, then cities will become much healthier places to live.


But they can't be. Can they ? No, they can't. CO2 is something every living thing breathes out. Its something water vapor produces. In fact, even calling this a deadly pollutant is stretching the truth in anything less then heavy quantities. Which we are so far away from right now its not even funny. 30 parts per MILLION is not deadly !

quote:
However, the issue of CO2 in city pollution is conclusive: it is harmful for our health.


Another lie. It is POTENTIALLY harmful to our health at extremely high levels. Nothing even remotely CLOSE to what we're breathing now. And by " close " I mean thousands of times more. Know what else is harmful to your health in large doses over an extended time ? Pure oxygen ! Are you going to ban that ?

Only Al Gore actually believe that CO2 directly drives our global climate. Fact is, the past three years were colder than the models predicted, and guess what ? CO2 levels went UP slightly during that same period.

quote:
I think if it was only China that was creating the CO2, and America wasn't, you'd be only too happy to say that they're causing global warming, rather than feeling unhappy that some people are trying to make people change.


You just really don't get it. This isn't about making the world a better place or making people change. This is about socialism, fear, and control. If you don't think these people are out there then just take a good hard look at the ones behind the global warming movement.

Do you really think a few dollars here and there is what we're against ? Without economic freedom we have NO freedoms. These people won't stop until you are eating as much food as THEY think you should. Driving the cars THEY think you should. Buying the clothes THEY think you should. And you will go along with it, like an lamb to slaughter, because you honestly believe they are doing it so save the world ?

Paranoid conspiracy theory ranting ? Think again. Its already starting. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7419724.stm

quote:
Under the scheme people would be given an annual carbon limit for fuel and energy use - which they could exceed by buying credits from those who use less.


So basically if the " Environmental Audit Committee " has their way, everyone in the UK will be given set yearly " carbon limit " to purchase fuel and power with. Once you go over that, you have to buy more " carbon points " from someone else. Or what ? I don't know. I guess you just can't buy gas or power your house anymore.

Are you reading this Wordswrom ? Do you understand yet ? If reading this story doesn't anger you, you have lost something as a human.

This is about POWER ! Thats it. Who decides how many " carbon points " someone gets ? The government, thats who. Bingo ! Under the guise of " saving the earth " you would be willing to sell your rights ? Your economic freedom. Your quality of life !! The ability to even CHOOSE how you power and heat your home. How much you can drive. What vehicle you drive because, god forbid, you get a big car and eat up all your " carbon points ". Forget the fact that you make plenty of money, can afford it, and its YOUR choice. Not anymore its not.

Forget socialism. This is downright communism ! If something like this were to even be allowed to pass in the UK BILLIONS of people will suffer. Suffer ! How can you use potential health risks to justify the economic OPPRESSION of billions ?


RE: The real heart of the issue
By ebakke on 6/15/2008 12:10:23 AM , Rating: 2
I don't have access to a "Worth Reading x15" button, so all you get is this measly post.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 6/15/2008 2:28:18 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you :) Your post is far from measly.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Nyamekye on 6/15/2008 3:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
Great discussion, however... ripping each others post to shreds in a viscous manner does not make you seem more informed on the subject.

And, an after thought. Since we don't even fully understand how many cycles in the planet work it will be impossible to understand which direction to follow. The planet is billions of years old, we have only around 5000 years (we may have more) of precisely recorded history - and science can only tell so much.

Sadly, the decisions we make about global warming will be educated guesses until we know exactly what is happening. But, it will be supposedly to late by that time if there is danger is global warming, and we will waste money now if there isn't.

Reducing poisonous gasses and cutting our energy dependence is good though, gas have gone up, up, up in the USA.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By xsilver on 6/15/2008 12:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
wow you seem to have a supreme fear of government; I hear they have a cream for that but I doubt it works ;)

you say economic oppression, some say economic shift/diversity.

Maybe you have your life savings invested in redundant services?

quote:
Once you go over that, you have to buy more " carbon points " from someone else. Or what ? I don't know. I guess you just can't buy gas or power your house anymore.


a bit hypocritical no? you're painting a picture that a guy that drives a hummer is going to have to leave it in his garage and go cold in winter. Thats not going to be true, its just going to cost more to do so.
The freedoms you enjoy are not absolute, I am not allowed to buy a tank and drive it around your street nor am I allowed to drive a quarry lorry down to the shops, are my freedoms being oppressed?
Its just a form of taxation where those who use more should pay more, it already exists now in some places in the form of parking. If you drive a SUV in the city, there is an extra charge for parking; a gentle form of suggestion that you shouldn't be driving a large SUV in the city.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 6/15/2008 2:07:10 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
wow you seem to have a supreme fear of government; I hear they have a cream for that but I doubt it works ;)


Governments are just a body of people who are usually, notably, UNgoverned. You should not live in fear of your government, but you damn sure should watch closely what they are doing. Power corrupts, its inescapable. And while modern day democracies are the best solution, they are far from perfect.

quote:
a bit hypocritical no? you're painting a picture that a guy that drives a hummer is going to have to leave it in his garage and go cold in winter. Thats not going to be true, its just going to cost more to do so.


Who said anything about a Hummer ? Screw the details, did you not read the link I posted ? They are trying to take economic decisions and freedoms out of your hands. This isn't about punishing SUV owners. Is that how small minded you are ?

quote:
The freedoms you enjoy are not absolute, I am not allowed to buy a tank and drive it around your street nor am I allowed to drive a quarry lorry down to the shops, are my freedoms being oppressed?


Dumbest. Counterpoint. Ever.

Basic civil liberties ARE absolute. But they mean nothing if you don't have economic freedom. Without purchasing power you might as well have NO power at all. Because when you buy things, just like when you vote, you are exercising force.

You never COULD buy a tank. How is this a relevant example ? So because you can't buy a tank the government is within their rights to also limit everything and anything you can purchase ? Including power to your home, which last time I checked was a NEED not a want.

quote:
Its just a form of taxation where those who use more should pay more, it already exists now in some places in the form of parking. If you drive a SUV in the city, there is an extra charge for parking; a gentle form of suggestion that you shouldn't be driving a large SUV in the city.


"Environmentalist George Monbiot applauded the scheme. "It's more progressive than taxation, it tends to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor; it's transparent; it's easy for everyone to understand, you all get the same carbon ration."

Sound like just " taxation " to you now ? Hell the guy actually USED the term " redisribution of wealth ", a classic goal of socialism/communism. This is NOT about the environment !

Its just a form of socialism brought forth by communists. In fact, the radical environmentalist movement is nothing but communism with a new name : Climate Change Crisis.

I weep for you if you can't see what they are trying to do. How evil and manipulative this is. And how, because of simple minded trusting individuals as yourself, they might very well succeed. If you think this is only going to effect those " SUV " drivers you keep talking about, then your way in over year head debating this with me.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By xsilver on 6/15/2008 4:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
sigh, you make it sound like tomorrow everybody is going to wake up in eurasia, oceania or russia circa early 20th century.

Power does corrupt but a government is formed by the people and for the people; if there is anything that the people dont like the people will change it, just because in this instance the pendulum is swinging left it doesnt mean that we're going to be swinging to the left wing fence of communism.

quote:
Basic civil liberties ARE absolute. But they mean nothing if you don't have economic freedom.


I dont agree, freedom of speech? what about flag burning? hotly contested in many countries.
right to bear arms? carry an ak47 to work?
name a liberty and there will be an example for an exception. It is absolute on paper but not in real life, the people in the specific society make allowances and shift what is accepted.
If purchasing power was removed, it would be a society that has no need for money, thats a mighty huge leap from reality.

quote:
You never COULD buy a tank. How is this a relevant example ? So because you can't buy a tank the government is within their rights to also limit everything and anything you can purchase ? Including power to your home, which last time I checked was a NEED not a want.

My point about a tank was an obvious exaggeration although I do believe you can buy decommissioned tanks; if not what about an APC? a large tractor? something highly discruptive is my point. I would be flagged by the police and asked what I am doing on the road. A large tractor has number plates just like any other vehicle.
Carbon output in a way is ALREADY used as a form of taxation in britan, higher CO2 output in a vehicle = more tax dollars. If you can afford to drive a vehicle in the highest tax bracket; good for you, no one is going to stop you as long as you pay.
How you extrapolate exaggerated my example of this to the government cutting power to your home because they're communist I dont know.
Also if you're talking absolutes power (electricity) is not a need, its a want. People in africa dont have it, they survive. Is there something wrong with saving some of this precious electricity?

In the exact article you reference they specifically say "you can buy more credits" nowhere does it say "xxxx will be limited and you wont be able to buy any more"


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 6/15/2008 11:58:56 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
sigh,
quote:
Carbon output in a way is ALREADY used as a form of taxation in britan, higher CO2 output in a vehicle = more tax dollars. If you can afford to drive a vehicle in the highest tax bracket; good for you, no one is going to stop you as long as you pay.
you make it sound like tomorrow everybody is going to wake up in eurasia, oceania or russia circa early 20th century.


Likewise, you make it sound like tomorrow we'll all be dying from toxic CO2 levels and world wide heat exhaustion.

quote:
If purchasing power was removed, it would be a society that has no need for money, thats a mighty huge leap from reality.


Purchasing power doesn't need to totally be removed to have drastic negative effects on peoples lifestyles and global economies. It only needs to be interfered with by the Government just enough.

quote:
Carbon output in a way is ALREADY used as a form of taxation in britan, higher CO2 output in a vehicle = more tax dollars. If you can afford to drive a vehicle in the highest tax bracket; good for you, no one is going to stop you as long as you pay.


I can see I'm wasting my time with you. Because your ok with any measure they take under the lie of global warming. You honestly believe these people care about the planet and thats their motivation. Believe me, I sometimes wish I WAS that ignorant.

quote:
In the exact article you reference they specifically say "you can buy more credits" nowhere does it say "xxxx will be limited and you wont be able to buy any more"


Everyone gets the same credit amount. So a family with 8 kids will be expected to live within the same allocation as a single couple. Did you read the quote I posted ? The goal is that the " rich " will buy unused credits from the " poor" once they run out. Hence redistribution of wealth. Its a SCHEME ! Why can you NOT understand the goal of this ? Are you that dense !?

We're just going to have to agree to disagree. You believe global warming is a real impending doom with little to no proof. And your okay with any measures up to and including socialist redistribution of wealth under an oppressive " carbon credit " scheme. I can't win, nor do I want to anymore.

By the way I don't live in the UK or Europe. Doesn't mean I don't care what happens there.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By xsilver on 6/15/2008 8:24:38 PM , Rating: 2
lol you are funny, nowhere does it state that I think co2 is going to kill the world. I'm not one of those greenies, you just branded me that way. I merely just stated what carbon trading principles are being used now. You are much closer to the right side of the fence than I am on the left.

I totally understand your viewpoint, what Im trying to get across is that not all liberals want to swing for the fence of communism. However you seem to think so and Im just saying that its in your head.

This so called scheme you're discussing is in its infant planning stages with no concrete variables set and you're already yelling "i hate big brother"

quote:
Believe me, I sometimes wish I WAS that ignorant.

In this case I believe the word you're searching for is paranoia.

quote:
Everyone gets the same credit amount. So a family with 8 kids will be expected to live within the same allocation as a single couple.


Um, since when are kids not people? even if kids are not given 1x value 8 kids should equal at least 6x adults??
Also Im not sure if you're branding taxes as a "distribution of wealth" as well.
To me the "scheme" is going to be set up such that there are going to be way more credits than people need (in the pool). If you're just a regular family driving the kids to school in a minivan and whatnot, you're not going to run out of credits. The people that are going to run out are single rich people who indulge. That is exactly how the tax system works now. Earn more pay more (in taxes on income and luxury goods)
Finally people that use much less arent expected to pay these excess taxes, so they get concessions.
All this debate over a hypothetical "scheme" and you're just making up scenarios in your head.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 6/16/2008 12:01:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I totally understand your viewpoint, what Im trying to get across is that not all liberals want to swing for the fence of communism. However you seem to think so and Im just saying that its in your head.


Maybe not Communism. But Liberal beliefs are grounded in socialism. Even if they don't realize it. What makes someone a Liberal ? What are their beliefs ? How do they suggest problems be solved ?

Liberals believe in " economic equality ", taxing the " rich " to give to the " poor ". They believe in ever increasing and pervasive government. They believe every single problem in society can and should be solved by the government. How am I being paranoid ? Just listen to a Liberal talk for five minutes, the socialism based ideals bleed through clear as day. All in my head ? Please don't insult my intelligence. You're in denial.

quote:
This so called scheme you're discussing is in its infant planning stages with no concrete variables set and you're already yelling "i hate big brother"


It was just an example. I don't even live in the UK, its not my " big brother " I'm talking about.

quote:
All this debate over a hypothetical "scheme" and you're just making up scenarios in your head.


And you are equally making up scenarios to white wash the social and economic effects of such a scheme and paint a rosy picture of the results. Your argument is basically " Well, people are taxed like this anyway, so heap more on them its no big deal "

Also you're completely missing my point that such measures are too drastic given the fact that we cannot prove for certain that man made global warming exists.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By xsilver on 6/16/2008 8:14:51 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, I typed a whole bunch of stuff before deleting it but I've come to realize something. You said that liberals believe that all problems can be solved through governance, I dont actually believe that - does that make me a non liberal? I dont know.

Sure some things can be solved through governance, its what we use right now in real life when common sense differs from person to person. Thats what governance is isnt it? What you're saying is that when liberals want to propose new forms of governance than infringe on freedoms, rather than just shooting down that specific topic, you want to deconstruct all government?
Being too liberal in the case of global warming means that we've wasted money on solving a problem that doesnt exist; being too conservative means doomsday doesnt it?
Hey in america you're already enjoying the liberties of paying for your own healthcare, education and private ownership of utilities (maybe more but I dont know what, Im not from the USA).
I dont argue that some of those have been good things but your argument of not letting the government have an inch of anything and letting the people just be is just too much of a risk to me. I'd rather just try and figure out how better we can use the money that the government collects. Some of it is going to be wasted no doubt, but that is the price of a safety net.

America is already the most "free" industrialized nation in the world; just because it is shifting slightly in the socialist direction it doesnt mean that its going to start on a slippery slope to communism. Ask your friends in canada, or anywhere else where their government "imposes" their will on its people. They dont bow down to big brother just yet.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 6/16/2008 10:32:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I dont actually believe that - does that make me a non liberal? I dont know.


I never called you a lib. I don't know your views on anything other than the GW debate. You could be a moderate, I don't know.

quote:
Sure some things can be solved through governance, its what we use right now in real life when common sense differs from person to person. Thats what governance is isnt it? What you're saying is that when liberals want to propose new forms of governance than infringe on freedoms, rather than just shooting down that specific topic, you want to deconstruct all government?


Liberals want to use, and have in many cases, the government to enforce social engineering and restructuring where the goal is one equal economic class. If you notice, 'class warfare' is a big selling point of liberalism. " Such and such CEO/Company makes a lot of money off of your suffering ". People buy into it because its easy to be ignorant and blame the " rich " when your life is going poorly.

Liberals also want to use the government to take most decisions out of your hands and incorperate them into the government. They can raise your children, do your job, protect your home, and provide healthcare better than you can, is the message. All thats required from you is giving them most of your money, crippling small business and free enterprise with oppressive taxation, and of course keeping them in office.

Thats what I'm trying to get across to you guys. Global Warming was a GODSEND to these people. Finally now they could accomplish their socialist goals and you would WANT it to happen because it would be " saving the planet ". Its not a conspiracy, these people aren't even being subtle about it. When you have GW activist committee members saying things like " the goal is redistribution of wealth " its hard to miss. I thought the " goal " was saving the planet buddy ? Guess not.

quote:
Being too liberal in the case of global warming means that we've wasted money on solving a problem that doesnt exist; being too conservative means doomsday doesnt it?


Liberals don't believe in global warming any more than a Conservative does. If doomsday was coming, for a fact, a Conservative wouldn't advocate sitting on our asses though.

The belief that we could cause a rampant unavoidable doomsday event on earth from industry and driving cars is simply not justified or backed in any objective scientific manner.

quote:
I dont argue that some of those have been good things but your argument of not letting the government have an inch of anything and letting the people just be is just too much of a risk to me.


I understand your point. And I respect the way you get it across. I think unless there is proof, the risks of not letting the people be could be far greater. You want to err on the side of caution right ? Nothing wrong with that. But in this case err'ing on the side of caution means a great number of people will have their lives altered, in most cases for the worst, because of the threat of man made GW. But its not real !

quote:
Ask your friends in canada, or anywhere else where their government "imposes" their will on its people.


Oh god. Canada is a prime example of socialism running wild in a democracy. Their 'New Democratic Party' was formed from the failed Socialist Party of Canada, and has called for the abolishment of capitalism. Lately they have toned it down and merely want to " reform capitalism ", but its the same thing.

Actually Canada is just really screwed up. And lets not even get into their country wide state run healthcare. Which has a horrible track record and is just a bad way to run things.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By barjebus on 6/16/2008 12:11:45 PM , Rating: 2
While I agree with you that I think Global Warming is a godsend for the liberals, and is a crutch for their poor policy decisions, I find that the depth that you've stuck your head up your ass regarding Canada is refreshing; it's been awhile since an ignorant American has posted here.

I refer you first to the following study:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/11/1399

The results of the study are to report that mortality rates in for-profit hospitals are higher than those which are not for-profit. Next:

http://www.pnhp.org/single_payer_resources/CAN_Com...

Is a paper that goes into some detail about Canadian mortality rates in hospitals being compared or better in pretty much every category. Next:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/328/11/77...

A paper that shows that American health care costs significantly more than Canadian health care, and after viewing numerous other papers regarding mortality rates between our respective nations, goes to show that American's pay more money, and yet appear to die just as often as Canadians do in Hospitals. Other papers go on to show definitively that richer American families receive proportionately much better health care than those without money, something which I disagree with fervently, due to the strong belief that the right to health care is a universal one.

I am perfectly happy to live here in Canada, and receive the health care that I currently receive.

"Actually Canada is just really screwed up. And lets not even get into their country wide state run healthcare. Which has a horrible track record and is just a bad way to run things."

Right...so that's why your entire country is facing an economic recession while ours is....doing so....awesome? Why would that be exactly? Perhaps an extremely unregulated and greed-driven housing market? I disagree with heavy regulation, but none at all is foolish in the extreme, and people did in fact see this coming; but were shouted down as socialists, or communists, or whatever other rhetoric major banking institutions could come up with.

The funny thing about being so ethnocentric Reclaimer is that nobody wants to be like you...nobody wants to live in your country, nobody wants your healthcare, nobody wants your government, your wars, your slow erosion of civil rights. I'm sorry for the rant against America; I have nothing against it as a people, nor do I have an prejudices against American's, nor stereotypes to their religious beliefs or political persuasions. I just don't appreciate people insults my country without an informed opinion.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 6/16/2008 1:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
My problem with state run healthcare likes yours is that its NOT free like many Canadians tell me it is. Its paid for by yours and everyone else's tax dollars.

Why can't YOU be allowed to keep more money, and choose your own private health care plans ? Because at its heart, state run health care is socialism.

You can post all the Canadian studies which I'm sure are biased anyway, that you want. Its not going to change the simple fact that I don't agree with state run health care. Its not that it CAN'T be done right, but if waiting five days to get treated at a Canadian hospital is your idea of superior healthcare, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Yes, the American healthcare system is having problems. But so is socialized state run health care like Canada. To contain rising costs socialized health care naturally has to restrict the health care supply. You might remember the recent controversy in Britain where their government run system has more than 200,000 people waiting longer than six months for care ! Or in France during the 2003 heat wave where 15,000 elderly died because doctors were on state ordered vacation and the hospitals were beyond capacity.

Thats the dirty little truth isn't it ? Your care might indeed be of high or higher quality, but how long do you have to wait to get it ? Like the 1.5 million Ontarians that can't find family physicians. Or how health officials in Nova Scotia actually used a LOTTERY to see who would get doctors appointments !!

Did you know the average wait time in Canada for receiving an MRI, something that could be life saving, is four months ! I could walk into my doctors office TODAY and set one up for next week. Or sooner if my life was in danger.

State run ANYTHING cannot provide you with better care than the private industry. Because they are not MOTIVATED to do so. If you can't understand this simple fact then I'm sorry.

Maybe thats why the biggest event in Canadian healthcare has been the boom of PRIVATE sector health options. Oh, didn't think this 'ignorant American' knew about that did you ? Canadians are fed up with state run healthcare and are looking to the private sector for a better option.

“This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.” A quote from Brian Day, the president of the Canadian National Doctors association.

Sir William Wells, a senior British health official, recently said: “The big trouble with a state monopoly is that it builds in massive inefficiencies and inward-looking culture.”


quote:
Other papers go on to show definitively that richer American families receive proportionately much better health care than those without money, something which I disagree with fervently, due to the strong belief that the right to health care is a universal one.


*cough* Socialist *cough*. You don't get it, so why should I waste my time ? Instead of taking the opportunity to make yourself better, lets just bring everyone DOWN to the same level. Then nobody would suffer right !? Yeah, your a socialist plain and simple.

And the " poor " can get health care in the US too. But its usually state run, so it sucks. Just like Canadian healthcare. Ask ANYONE, would you rather pick your own doctor/hospital, or would you rather the government pick yours and tax you for it to boot ? I'm thinking we would like our OWN thank you very much.

quote:
Right...so that's why your entire country is facing an economic recession while ours is....doing so....awesome? Why would that be exactly? Perhaps an extremely unregulated and greed-driven housing market? I disagree with heavy regulation, but none at all is foolish in the extreme, and people did in fact see this coming; but were shouted down as socialists, or communists, or whatever other rhetoric major banking institutions could come up with.


Hmmm and I'm spreading ignorance about other countries ? First off, we're not facing a recesssion, we're in a period of stunted GROWTH. Big difference.

Also your clearly ignorant about our housing situations. Government intervention CAUSED this "crisis" by forcing private lending institutions to offer " sub prime " mortgages to high risk homeowners. Why ? Because it wasn't " fair " that they were rejecting people who clearly had a bad track record of paying loans and credit rating. And, SURPRISE, big shock. But these same people are now the ones who didn't pay off THESE loans. Greed driven market ? You can take your socialist anti business crap somewhere else. You have no idea what your talking about.

By the way %93 of all mortgages in the United States are being payed. Yeah, %7 defaulted loans don't sound like such a big crisis now does it ? Stop watching the sensashionalised news and make your own opinions.

quote:
The funny thing about being so ethnocentric Reclaimer is that nobody wants to be like you...nobody wants to live in your country, nobody wants your healthcare, nobody wants your government, your wars, your slow erosion of civil rights.


Yes because clearly Canada is the country referred to as the " Melting pot ". Hell, I don't know why anybody would want to live in America now that you mention it. I guess they should have read ranting on the Internet more, then they would have discovered the truth and moved to Canada instead.

Get over yourself. I'm sorry if you got offended, but lets not make this some inflated " ethnocentric " argument that was never intended. You're the one doing that.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By barjebus on 6/16/2008 4:17:21 PM , Rating: 2
Ok ok ok ok. Before we start any more discussion. Here are some facts: Every U.S. tax payer pays MORE TAXES for healthcare than Canadians do. However, Canada has universal health care, and the U.S. does not:

http://www.economist.com/daily/chartgallery/displa...

I think this pretty much sums up my argument for me, but I will continue below for some personal experience with my own health care system.

First though, the reason I believe in universal health care is he universal declaration of human rights which states:

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control."

That's what I subscribe to. Since you're so anti-socialist, let me ask you where you want to school? Did you get to choose the level and price of your education? Were you entitled to choice between more or less? Or did you in fact subsidize others so that they too could be provided with an adequate level of education? Oh that's right, you helped out the poor kids...

Waiting lists, well let me tell you friend, where I live I do not suffer from enormous waiting lists. I got my wisdom teeth taken out by an oral surgeon, not a dentist, two weeks from the day that I asked for an appointment (getting a regular appointment with a dentist for a not as complicated extraction is usually done within the week). When rushed to the emergency room on a certain occasion, I waited at the MRI machine for less than an hour, and that wait was because I wasn't critical whatsoever.

Now, I won't deny we don't have some wait times. My dad is on a wait list for a hip replacement, and he's going to have to wait 4 months to get his done. He can walk fine now, and only once in awhile does he take painkillers for the aches that he gets. Were he more critical or in need of it, his wait time would be even less.

As to regular doctor visits, I can usually make same day appointments and squeeze in, and if I think it's really important, we have tons of drop in clinics that will see people any time, with no charge, and get the best care they can provide, have all my questions answered, and any prescriptions I need filled, all for "free". I choose my own doctor, and if I feel he's not meeting my needs or that he's not up to snuff, I can go elsewhere. Largely Canada is realizing that they need to pump more funding in keeping trained professionals on the job, and to increase staffing levels, and this is currently being done.

Now, it may be different in other parts of Canada, but any time it's something critical, or emergency care is required, our health system meets those needs no problem. I agree, we do wait a bit more than the U.S., but it's largely exaggerated in the U.S.

As to the U.S. recession, Alan Greenspan, former fed chairman claimed the U.S. was in a recession, and the current one has said one is inevitable:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/2008-04-09-g...
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/05/wsj...

As to the government "forced" them to provide subprime loans....huh? I have some serious doubts that the U.S. government told banks, "you MUST offer hundreds of thousands of dollars for mortgages and other loans to people who would not normally qualify"...riiiight.

Also, let me get this straight. CitiBank or whoever says to some poor guy, hey, I know you have terrible credit, come buy a house at our bank and we'll let you do it with zero downpayment, and at a 4 - 6% interest rate too!! So poor guy buys the house and gets a massive mortgage. A year down the road, suddenly said mortgage's interest rate doubles or triples, since poor guy didn't bother to read the fine print.

Now, have you ever heard of a business strategy more designed to end up with foreclosed properties than that??? Did the government mandate that banks offer extremely attractive introductory interest rates, only to jack them up a year or two down the road? Add onto that the banks practice of LYING about those mortgages and tagging them as triple AAA packages on the international market, and you can easily see that simple greed caused this problem. Greed of individual home owners who took loans when they shouldn't have (I'm point at people who owned a house already and re-financed to pull themselves out of other debt, banking on the equity of their current homes), the greed of the banks, and the ignorance of the government throughout this process.

7% isn't large!??! Hahahahah! That means that 1 in 14 houses are being foreclosed on....that means every time I walk two blocks on any block in the U.S., there is a house being foreclosed on! Now, this is an average obviously, so some places will have none, while some cities, some REGIONS will have 1 in 7 or worse. I largely ignore the mainstream media, so don't worry about sensationalizing anything. In fact, your 7% number seems a bit high, but maybe I'm wrong.

I am not anti-business in the slightest. I merely support "free" healthcare, and believed that the U.S. should have not allowed sub prime mortgages (Canada doesn't suffer from the same sub prime problems, nor do banks give our ridiculous loans to people who shouldn't have them, and yet we're the socialist devil I thought??).


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 6/16/2008 7:12:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm shocked you somehow are still keeping this going under the mountain of concrete counterpoints I dealt to you. Your own FATHER is waiting four MONTHS for a hip transplant !!??? Thats completely insane ! So let me get this straight, the government doctor or whoever decides how much pain your in, and attempts to put off the hip transplant as long as possible so those in the most pain get severed first ? That sounds like a great system let me tell you. I think if it was YOUR hip you might have a different opinion about how long you wanted to wait.

quote:
Every U.S. tax payer pays MORE TAXES for healthcare than Canadians do. However, Canada has universal health care, and the U.S. does not:


Complete FUD. The link only shows total income taxes and SS withholdings. It does NOT show what percentage of taxes are going to healthcare at all, whatsoever. What are you trying to pull here man ?

quote:
As to the government "forced" them to provide subprime loans....huh? I have some serious doubts that the U.S. government told banks, "you MUST offer hundreds of thousands of dollars for mortgages and other loans to people who would not normally qualify"...riiiight.


That IS riiiiight ! You might want to look it up, its called the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. Its one half socialist, one half equal opportunity. All bad for business and the economy of housing.

" The thousands of mortgage defaults and foreclosures in the "subprime" housing market (i.e., mortgage holders with poor credit ratings) is the direct result of thirty years of government policy that has forced banks to make bad loans to un-creditworthy borrowers. The policy in question is the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which compels banks to make loans to low-income borrowers and in what the supporters of the Act call "communities of color" that they might not otherwise make based on purely economic criteria."

http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo125....

quote:
Also, let me get this straight. CitiBank or whoever says to some poor guy, hey, I know you have terrible credit, come buy a house at our bank and we'll let you do it with zero downpayment, and at a 4 - 6% interest rate too!! So poor guy buys the house and gets a massive mortgage. A year down the road, suddenly said mortgage's interest rate doubles or triples, since poor guy didn't bother to read the fine print.


Again, your blaming the wrong party. This " poor " guy should never have been granted a loan in the first place, because Citi Bank KNEW he was high risk. They were FORCED to.

Man your a bigger socialist than I thought. Living in Canada must really acclimate you people to it or something. Like slipping into a boiling hot jacuzzi inch by slow inch so you don't notice the difference suddenly.

Owning a home isn't a god given right or everyone elses responsibility to make it happen. You are expected to handle your finances and ADHERE to the contract you signed. Where is your personal accountability man ? This is such a simple concept only a socialist or Canadian should have a problem grasping it.

Lending institutions are running a business, but they are not greedy. It would be stupid for them to offer loans nobody could pay, because then they LOSE money. If the government would have left them alone and stopped interjecting socialist ideals and equal opportunity bullcrap into the works, we wouldn't be talking about this today.

quote:
7% isn't large!??! Hahahahah!


Its not a " crisis ". Its disturbing, but what ALWAYS happens when the government interferes in private industries with good intentions ? Drastic unanticipated consequences, thats what.

quote:
I am not anti-business in the slightest. I merely support "free" healthcare, and believed that the U.S. should have not allowed sub prime mortgages (Canada doesn't suffer from the same sub prime problems, nor do banks give our ridiculous loans to people who shouldn't have them, and yet we're the socialist devil I thought??).


Yeah I get it, everything is better in Canada. I'm sure Canada doesn't have lending issues because they are probably government subsidized just like healthcare right ? Thats just a guess but it wouldn't shock me if it were the case.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2008 10:20:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "Here are some facts: Every U.S. tax payer pays MORE TAXES for healthcare than Canadians do"

No. US citizens pay more total taxes...but the extra isn't for healthcare.

> "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family"

Not when that "right" is being paid for by the forced labor of others. No one has the right to force others to support them. That's slavery...not freedom.

Luckily, not all Canadians believe as you do. Because in countries where people truly do believe they have a god-given right to a decent standard of living, they act accordingly. They refuse to get good educations, to work hard, to do quality work, and to save and invest for their futures. Why bother? The government will do it for them. And as a result, the economy falls to pieces, and no one has a decent standard of living. But hey, at least everyone's equal! That's what really matters, isn't it?

If you disagree, I suggest you examine the booming economies of Cuba, North Korea, or one of the former Soviet republics.

And no matter how you slice the "superior" Canadian system, there's one fact you can't hide. Every year, huge numbers of Canadians -- those who can afford it -- seek medical care in the US. But US citizens aren't crossing the border in droves to seek Canadian doctors.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2008 10:24:39 PM , Rating: 3
> "Alan Greenspan, former fed chairman claimed the U.S. was in a recession"

No. USA Today misquoted him, intentionally or otherwise. If you disbelieve this, take a look at this later interview of his:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/business/2008/05/27...

The US economy does not meet the definition of a recession. GDP is still expanding. One might appear in the future...but we're not in one yet. This is unequivocal.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Suntan on 6/16/2008 4:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The funny thing about being so ethnocentric Reclaimer is that nobody wants to be like you...nobody wants to live in your country, nobody wants your healthcare, nobody wants your government, your wars, your slow erosion of civil rights.


You know this isn’t true. While it may feel good to say this on a website to try and “stick it” to someone you feel is a “Dirty American” the reality is that the vast majority of humans on this planet would risk death to have the basic things you denounce about America.

I won’t argue that a lot of people around the world don’t like American policy, but they wouldn’t want what Americans have, if it was flavored such that it fit into their accepted social structure.

Yeah, the “America” that is portrayed in the news is easy to throw curse words at, but you show me any another country that has even some of the items you rattle off and I’ll show you a country that has all kinds of problems with immigrants trying to get in.

Yeah, everybody loves to crap on the American health care system. For foreigners, it is a chance to portray “their” system as better. For Americans it is a chance to complain even though they have no idea how well they have it. The American health care system is so good that people don’t even know how bad it could be. You show me any recent story about the American health care system leaving a family with a large tab and I’ll show you a story where that person probably died in many other parts of the world.

As for comparing the American healthcare system to the Canadian system, I can only say that I have always been of the assumption that I can do better than the group average in everything. As such, I’d rather be left to my own in this health care system than thrown in the lot with everyone else in the Canadian system. That may sound pretty callous, but that’s life.

Anyway, the two last things I will say are these:

1) What do you really think would happen to the quality of the Canadian healthcare system if America mirrored it? If we started demanding that Pfizer charge us the same low rate that Canadians get away with? If GE was now looking at selling their ultrasound equipment at a government mandated rate with little to no profit? Yeah, it would reduce cost significantly in the short term… …what happens in the next round or two when global profits shrink to little or nothing? Do you really think Jeff Imelt is going to stay in a market that has horrible profit margins? How about you just be thankful that America is picking up the medical R&D tab for your country.

2) I live in Minnesota and go to Rochester quite often. The one thing that becomes apparent, when Canadians get *really* sick, which country do you think they go to?

-Suntan


By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2008 10:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The funny thing about being so ethnocentric Reclaimer is that nobody wants to be like you...nobody wants to live in your country...
No one wants to live in America? So why are millions of people still emigrating here each year? And every year the immigration quotas from nearly all countries are full, and we turn down millions more who apply?


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Suntan on 6/16/2008 3:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you're just a regular family driving the kids to school in a minivan and whatnot, you're not going to run out of credits. The people that are going to run out are single rich people who indulge.


Well that statement tells a lot. Who gets to decide what “indulgence” is and what isn’t? So anything that a person can’t afford themselves is indulgence and anything they can is acceptable?

My problem with liberal arguments is the high probability of hypocrisy that is always present:

“A 1500 square foot house (like the one I have) is reasonable. A 3000 square foot house is excessive.”

“They shouldn’t build that new neighborhood, they should leave the wild area as it is (although my house down the street was only built 15 years ago)”

“My neighbor and I commute to work (in a CO2 belching car) so everyone should commute to work.”

Etc. etc. etc.

-Suntan


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Ammohunt on 6/16/2008 3:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
You are wasting your time with someone that has A) never read or at least has never comprehended The US Constitution. Or B) doesn’t live under the US Constitution i.e. Canadian or Euro Socialist. They spoon fed their information from their local media and most do not have the intellect to search out other sources of information.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By straycat74 on 6/15/2008 9:37:12 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
wow you seem to have a supreme fear of government; I hear they have a cream for that but I doubt it works ;)


What are your feelings on the Patriot act?


RE: The real heart of the issue
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2008 11:27:39 PM , Rating: 4
> "wow you seem to have a supreme fear of government; I hear they have a cream for that"

That's a cream the founding fathers could have used as well:
quote:
When the government fears the people, there is liberty; when the people fear the government, there is tyranny
- Thomas Jefferson.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By xsilver on 6/15/2008 11:45:54 PM , Rating: 2
Well I do agree that a healthy dose of government fearing can be a good thing (eg. I dont agree with the patriot act), the OP in this case has taken it a bit too far.
With what the OP is saying, I wouldnt be at all surprised at tinfoil hat wearing or handing out fliers for political assassinations. He is basing his argument on a hypothetical article about personal carbon trading. I could just as well find an article in a conservative news source stating we should all be allowed to wear six shooters at our hips.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2008 10:08:19 AM , Rating: 2
> " He is basing his argument on a hypothetical article about personal carbon trading."

Carbon trading isn't "hypothetical" -- it's the basis of nearly all proposed global warming legislation. Even here in the US, the proposed McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003 and the Warner-Lieberman cap-and-trade bill just recently shot down both include provisions for carbon trading.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By wordsworm on 6/15/08, Rating: 0
RE: The real heart of the issue
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2008 12:18:23 PM , Rating: 3
> "I've also been reading Masher's posts for about a year now, and I believe he had said himself that he's a Republican and from Florida."

Wrong on both counts!

> "in high quantities [CO2] kills animals"

CO2 is limited by OSHA to exposures of 5,000 ppm...though the Apollo 13 astronauts breathed levels over 10 times higher (50,000 ppm) and suffered no permanent aftereffects. In fact, greenhouses almost always boost CO2 levels internally to 1000-1200 ppm, meaning their workers are constantly exposed to these levels, without any ill effects or even discomfort.

Compared to these tremendous doses, the 380 ppm currently in the atmosphere is totally benign.

> So, 300-600 ppm CO2 in the environment is healthy"

Exactly. And that's all we will possibly expect. CO2 loading is a logarithmic curve...the more you add into the atmosphere, the harder it gets to add more, as higher concentrations increase the efficacy of CO2 sinks.

Take a look at the CO2 increase curve since 1950. Though we now emit over 15 times as much CO2 as we did then, the annual increase is stil almost perfectly linear. When you understand why that's true, you'll understand why we'll never exceed CO2 concentrations of 550-600 ppm, not in the next millenium at least.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By jbartabas on 6/16/2008 6:39:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Exactly. And that's all we will possibly expect. CO2 loading is a logarithmic curve...the more you add into the atmosphere, the harder it gets to add more, as higher concentrations increase the efficacy of CO2 sinks.


The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 is now (2000-2006) 30% larger than that in the 80'ies.

The increase in growth rate has been attributed in part to long-term (50-year) decline in the efficiency of CO2 sinks on land and oceans in absorbing anthropogenic emissions (Canadell et al. 2007).

quote:
When you understand why that's true, you'll understand why we'll never exceed CO2 concentrations of 550-600 ppm, not in the next millenium at least.


... or we will by ~2060 (Friedlingstein et al. 2006).


RE: The real heart of the issue
By The Irish Patient on 6/15/2008 1:47:30 PM , Rating: 2
The article you cite is concerned with the ill effects of pollutants generated by internal combustion engines: ozone, particulate matter, and oxides of nitrogen. These substances can be legitimately categorized as "toxic" or "pollutants" from a biochemical perspective. Carbon dioxide cannot.

Neither plants nor mammals can live without carbon dioxide. For mammals, the carbon dioxide>carbonic anhydrase>carbonic acid system is the fast response regulator of blood pH. There is no benefit to having particulate matter or nitrogen oxides in your lungs. Zero is best, at least in theory. But magically remove all of the carbon dioxide from your lungs, and you would be unconscious in a few milliseconds and dead shortly thereafter.

I try not to be baited by these silly, quasi-religious, mystical discussions of global warming. But the now common characterization of carbon dioxide as a toxic pollutant gets to me. It is made either in bad faith, or out of complete lack of education.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By wordsworm on 6/15/2008 7:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
Alright Einstein, what is hypercapnia? 1,000 ppm of CO2 is enough to cause concern in a building. It won't kill people at that level, but it's enough to make people feel uncomfortable.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By wordsworm on 6/15/2008 7:56:49 PM , Rating: 1
ps, this will give you a better idea as to the effect CO2 can have on us in a variety of dosages: http://www.analox.net/site/content_HOSP_co2_danger...


RE: The real heart of the issue
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2008 11:07:25 PM , Rating: 2
> "this will give you a better idea as to the effect CO2 can have on us in a variety of dosages"

From your own link, describing CO2 levels of 10,000 ppm -- a level nearly 15 times higher than what the earth will reach within the next several centuries:
quote:
"Your rate of breathing increases very slightly but you probably will not notice it."


RE: The real heart of the issue
By wordsworm on 6/16/2008 9:06:41 AM , Rating: 2
I tried finding city levels of CO2, but it seems no one is measuring. In offices, however, some measurements get done. If it's in the 1,000+ range, it seems people will 'feel it.'

The higher the atmospheric levels of CO2 lead me to believe that the levels in cities, which generate large quantities of the stuff, must be significantly higher. CO2 in cities is something I'm trying to get at. Even if it isn't significant, for animals, in the atmosphere (as if a 20% increase doesn't affect the rate at which cities can be refreshed), it should nonetheless indicate that the amount of CO2 in cities would be higher than is healthy. If you are willing to make this logical jump, then it's easy to conclude that reducing CO2 emitting vehicles in lieu of clean running vehicles would also clean up the air in cities and possibly have an effect on the health of the population.

I tend to be overly sensitive to air quality - if it's too low, I will pass out - as I've done a few times on a crowded metro. In any event, fighting pollution, should the fight be successful, would only result in a lot of engineers and universities getting a whole wad of cash to do research and design, not to mention the resulting technologies cleaning up a lot of our problems.

Some bad choices have been made (ethanol-based fuel, clearly, was a bad idea). Some good things are coming out. In the end, let's hope that the fight keeps money going into the hands of researchers.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By masher2 (blog) on 6/16/2008 10:03:15 AM , Rating: 3
> "The higher the atmospheric levels of CO2 lead me to believe that the levels in cities, which generate large quantities of the stuff, must be significantly higher"

In other words -- there's not a speck of evidence, but you believe it anyway?

In fact, you couldn't be more wrong. Comparitively, "cities" don't generate large quantities of CO2. The largest amounts by by far generated by terminates, decaying biomass and other large sources.

Even among anthropogenic sources, cars and other city-based sources aren't the largest. Power plants (which tend to be located well outside cities), agriculture, and land-use changes far outweigh the contribution from cities.

From a basis of CO2 levels, city air is very often "cleaner" than many areas of the great natural outdoors. See how silly your attempts to label it a pollutant are?


RE: The real heart of the issue
By jbartabas on 6/16/2008 5:50:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Comparitively, "cities" don't generate large quantities of CO2. [...] From a basis of CO2 levels, city air is very often "cleaner" than many areas of the great natural outdoors.


Large urban areas offer little carbon sinks, contrary to the great outdoor. Under the proper poor air circulation conditions, cities can be a very efficient CO2 trap, like they are for other pollutants.

That probably explains why CO2 concentration in cities like Nagoya, Japan, Phoenix, AZ, Rome, Italy or Baltimore, MD were found significantly larger than the background concentration, or the concentration in more rural surroundings.


By NullSubroutine on 6/15/2008 6:08:44 AM , Rating: 3
Ok. You make a nice opening +5 rated post sharing your opinion in a mature manner. Then you follow it up showing your true colors. This statement is completely assumptive, insulting, and inflammatory.
quote:
this is about socialism, fear, and control.


There is ZERO, repeat, ZERO evidence, proof, or observational method to even make such a claim. How dare you. This has nothing to do with socialism.

quote:
Forget socialism. This is downright communism !

Glad we can agree its not socialism now, however, it has nothing to do with communism either. I believe you may be thinking of a totalitarian government or a restrictive society (rather than a free society). Both of which are not exclusive to a communist form of society.
quote:
If something like this were to even be allowed to pass in the UK BILLIONS of people will suffer. Suffer ! How can you use potential health risks to justify the economic OPPRESSION of billions ?

Economic OPRESSION of billions!? I believe you mean to say improper use of tax money, restrictions of free market purchasing power, or just a stupid idea by government. Thats a far cry from economic oppression, such that you may see by rich corporations when they exploit the working class and dump on the poor. ;)

Also, I don't think there are billions of people in the UK, but hey maybe my calculator is broken...


RE: The real heart of the issue
By THEiNTERNETS on 6/14/2008 11:13:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You mean, other than the tens of trillions of dollars wasted on fighting a problem which doesn't exist -- resources which could have instead been spent to save literally millions of lives?


This is just an absurd statement. "Trillions of dollars" wasted? The amount of economic growth already being stimulated by the hunt for alternative energies completely disproves this. The profit stood to be made from the technical and industrial revolutions that would support a zero-footprint lifestyle would dwarf even the absurd oil profits of the current era.

"As an example, if we retrofitted all government buildings built pre 1950, and we created tax environments to help cities and municipalities and states and the federal government to retrofit those buildings, we could create 3 million industrial jobs...." - The 11th Hour

Your idea that fighting climate change is somehow a wasteful investment is plainly wrong. Energy investment is a profitable business by its very nature. The oil cartels are a plain example of this reality. The economic stimulus created by developing and implementing clean-energy solutions is already making for profit turning enterprises even in today's fossil-fuel dominated playing field.

The idea that furthering their development would somehow bankrupt anyone anywhere is just bizarre. If you want trillions of dollars wasted - in debt, for example, wars have proven themselves a much more effective force. The technological revolution necessary to fight the greenhouse and global warming problem would generate new incomes, new resources, and new avenues for gain even more lavish and widespread the the wealth of our current era.

Even the Apollo missions to the moon ended up developing massive technological benefits for broader society - and that was a challenge centered around an environment much further divorced from ours.

Any resistance to climate change solutions and an energy revolution stems far more from major corporate interest interested in maintaining the status quo - good economic policy is clean investment and development. There is money to be made. Oil is an old paradigm but it is certainly not the only profitable one.

And as for the "millions of lives," whose lives are you referring to? Why does cleaning up the planet necessarily preclude economic assistance to these masses? And furthermore, how many more lives are saved from disease and starvation by reducing pollution?

Are you referring to those in need of foreign aid and medicine? The developing nations of this world? They need clean energy solutions to solve their environmental and economic crises even more than we do. They are at the receiving end of environmental disasters spurred forth by broader pollution and the ones without the resources to combat the problem.

Fighting global warming would MAKE trillions of dollars and SAVE millions of lives. I don't how you got this so backwards...


RE: The real heart of the issue
By masher2 (blog) on 6/14/2008 11:54:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "Why does cleaning up the planet necessarily preclude economic assistance to these masses?"

Because economic resources are not unlimited. They're finite. We already have hundreds of thousands of children dying each year in Africa alone, for want of medical treatments that in many cases are less than a dollar each. For even a small fraction of what it would cost to implement this global warming "solution", we could not only save every one of them, but give them a Harvard education also.

Anyone who can't understand that spending literally $100 trillion dollars (that's $100,000,000,000,000) won't affect how much money we have to spend on other initiatives is living in a land of pure fantasy.

> "...and states and the federal government to retrofit those buildings, we could create 3 million industrial jobs"

Unfortunately, there are people who really believe this nonsense. Sure, wasting tens of trillions of dollars will create jobs-- the same sort of jobs created by a world war or, say, a massive hurricane that devastates a region. But it doesn't create prosperity, nor economic gain.

> "Even the Apollo missions to the moon ended up developing massive technological benefits for broader society "

Sure, research always pays off. I have no problem funding research. The problem is when you try to implement half-baked technologies before they're ready. For instance, biofuels will likely one day be a good idea. Ethanol from corn, however, is a disaster that's already squandered tens of billions, and been directly responsible for food riots in more than a dozen nations in the past year alone.

And of course silliness like building CO2 sequestration devices for existing coal plants is just sheer human folly. That's "technology" that is never going to do any good for mankind, no matter how much we spend on it.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By THEiNTERNETS on 6/15/2008 1:26:28 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with about half of your post, but for sake of discussion let's get down to business.

quote:
Because economic resources are not unlimited. They're finite.


Agreed. However investment != waste or, loss (and this does not even address the much more glaring flaw with your assertion--that if the dollars weren't being spent on the environment they would instead be going to these people in need. This is a logical fallacy and there is no indication that this would happen; just because you aren't spending in one place, doesn't automatically mean the wealth goes elsewhere. The concept of savings denies this zero-sum idea and furthermore, the developed nations have been consistently reluctant in providing sufficient aid to Africa even without the expenses of investing in global warming solutions. But I digress...)

By definition, if you gain money by investing into something, you have profited. And thus add back to your total pool of resources. This is central to my premise and why profitable alternative energy negates the concept of green investment being wasteful by necessity.

quote:
We already have hundreds of thousands of children dying each year in Africa alone, for want of medical treatments that in many cases are less than a dollar each.


I was actually going to cite Africa specifically as an example in my favor. If you look at the number of children dying in Africa and other developing nations as a result of polluted water, you get a pretty staggering figure. I believe the UN puts the figure at somewhere close to 2 million children a year.

Now the so-called "global warming solution" is not simply a matter of energy use, but also the handling of broader pollution problems, literally cleaning up the entire planet as I would envision it, hence cleaning up the dirty water that is the cause of such wide spread poor health. This, once again, does not strike me as waste. Why not give the children the clean water they deserve, rather than addressing the problem retroactively with cheap medicine? That is more cost-effective in the long run anyways.

quote:
Anyone who can't understand that spending literally $100 trillion dollars...


Once again we're missing a critical detail here. Who is doing the spending? Most of what I have described previously is meant to be achieved within the the private sector. Government can of course induce this by providing taxation benefits (as Senator Obama proposes, for example) but given that these solutions would be created and produced in developing nations, the economic framework for private corporations to do most if not all of the heavy lifting is already in place.

Obviously tax incentives come with a theoretical cost in terms of money not being collected by the government to be spent elsewhere but, once again, we return to the fallacy that this money somehow inevitably would go to the impoverished or needy simply because it's not spent. Furthermore, such incentives spur growth that makes for greater gain of localized economies and the overall GDP. This is not a poor trade, all in all. And luckily, as in the US's case, current tax practices also make for an incentive to turn profits into philanthropy endeavors, hence why Americans are the most generous people in the world, philanthropically speaking.

quote:
Unfortunately, there are people who really believe this nonsense. Sure, wasting tens of trillions of dollars will create jobs-- the same sort of jobs created by a world war or, say, a massive hurricane that devastates a region. But it doesn't create prosperity, nor economic gain.


Two very inequal examples but both are worth addressing. The Second World War did create massive economic opportunities, particularly in its aftermath, and lead to the expansion of one of the world's largest middle classes to date. This was a direct result of forced change - implementing women in the workforce by necessity and dictating production management from the top down by government to maintain the war effort.

As for disaster, the current largest middle class per capita is held by Japan, a country that was essentially flattened by the end of World War II. The capital Tokyo was more or less burned to the ground by the fire bombings, Hiroshima and Nagasaki annihilated, and their economy so ruined by the war effort that they were on the brink of mass starvation by the time of surrender. And yet even from that carnage massive economic gains were created at the behest of the Japanese government, creating what is now the second largest economy in the world after us. As one can see, even losing one of the most devastating conflicts in human history can make for opportunity - that is the nature of change.

Now your insinuation about hurricanes, and let's just name the elephant in the room, Katrina, is entirely dependent on the response of the government in charge. With an ineffective disaster relief (FEMA) an inattentive president and an administration that has fostered corporate growth at the expense of the lower and middle class, it is easy to see how such a situation could of course be neglected and then subsequently exploited to the detriment of the proletariat.

As I said before, waste dictates an unprofitable investment. If you'd like to make more plain why you think the renovation I cited as an example is unprofitable, feel free. But lets not just label it "nonsense" and then use two completely incongruent circumstances as examples.

quote:
The problem is when you try to implement half-baked technologies before they're ready. For instance, biofuels will likely one day be a good idea. Ethanol from corn, however, is a disaster that's already squandered tens of billions, and been directly responsible for food riots in more than a dozen nations in the past year alone.


Agreed! Technology needs to also have sufficient research to make for profitable implementation. Solar is just now turning this curve and wind energy, correctly implemented, has a better price per watt efficiency than conventional coal power. Waste is forcing a technology to market before its economics make it permissible. Ethanol, which I understand to be essentially a cover for government subsidies to corporate farming, has much to answer for in this regard. However, once again, we come back to circumstance. Given the response of this administration to global warming/climate change and their relationship with corporate America, this kind of outcome was predictable. But it is not necessary in the greater scheme of what biofuels could be (as I think you rightly point out.)

I don't think a few poor examples of mismanagement by one of the most unsuccessful presidencies in American history signifies that the larger endeavor of investing in green technology and research is a doomed scenario. And once again, I point to the alternative energy investment already making profit within this nation.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2008 11:22:04 PM , Rating: 3
> "Why not give the children [of Africa] the clean water they deserve"

That's just my point. GW "solutions" prevent just these real sorts of help from ever taking place. It's more than just the direct squandering of tens of trillions of dollars (though that's a very real concern). Far worse is that the actions being proposed make energy far more expensive. That hurts developing nations even more than industrialized ones.

Cheap, abundant energy is what lifted the West out of barbarity...and monstrosities like Kyoto prevent the Third World from ever having that same cheap energy. In fact, many environmentalists are on record as opposing just that -- abundant, cheap energy. Why? Because it drives industrialization.

Right now there are millions of Africans who **already** get their energy from "renewable" sources. They burn dried dung, poorly cured wood, and other biomass in their huts, causing tremendous health problems due to the particulates and other toxins released. Small amounts of energy, useful primarily only for heating and cooking...but it's all they have.

Nuclear power, or even dirty coal power would enrich their lives immeasurably. But instead, what are African nations getting today in the way of Western help? Subsidies for a few small wind and solar farms, which not only don't produce nearly enough power for their needs, but do so at a per-kWh price tag that ensures the average African family can never afford to use it.

> "why profitable alternative energy negates the concept of green investment being wasteful "

There is no such thing as "profitable" alternative energy at present-- except for those heavily subsidized by governments. That's just the problem. If "green" energy truly was a solution, it'd pay for itself, and there'd be no need to subsidize it.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 6/16/2008 10:44:28 AM , Rating: 2
Great post.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2008 11:33:39 PM , Rating: 2
> "Technology needs to also have sufficient research to make for profitable implementation. Solar is just now turning this curve..."

Solar energy isn't even close to "turning the curve". In fact, before we can ever generate a substantial percentage of the nation's energy from solar, we need major technologic breakthroughs in at least three areas:

1. Fabrication costs (solar is much more expensive than nuclear or fossil fuels).
2. Energy storage technology (the sun doesn't shine at night)
3. Energy transmission technology (solar panels are even worse in high latitudes and/or cloudy climates...but piping power to these areas isn't feasible today).

Improvements in efficiency and panel lifespan would be helpful also, but without major advances in the areas above, solar will never be more than a fringe solution.


By NullSubroutine on 6/15/2008 6:13:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because economic resources are not unlimited. They're finite. We already have hundreds of thousands of children dying each year in Africa alone, for want of medical treatments that in many cases are less than a dollar each. For even a small fraction of what it would cost to implement this global warming "solution", we could not only save every one of them, but give them a Harvard education also.

I agree, but of course we can't do that as thaty would take money away 5% of the popluation that controls 95% of the worlds wealth. That -just wouldnt be fair. They are entitled to that wealth because they worked hard exploiting that other 95% out of their money.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Klober on 6/16/2008 11:34:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sure, research always pays off. I have no problem funding research. The problem is when you try to implement half-baked technologies before they're ready.

Quoted for truth. When you force implentation of technologies not yet ready for mass use, you force economic hardship on all those required to switch to said technology. Hence, when the government forces use of an immature technology upon an entire nation, that same government is forcing an unnecessary economic hardship on the entirety of said nation. While oil will not be around forever (actually, not much longer - if you've heard of "peak oil" and have been watching, we're already there as global oil production peaked in 2005 and the steady decline has begun), and researching alternative forms of energy is the correct/intelligent direction to go, prematurely forcing adoption of alternative energy is going to cause more harm than good.

And, to get it out of the way because I know it's coming, nobody likes it when you're premature...


RE: The real heart of the issue
By wordsworm on 6/15/2008 3:06:15 AM , Rating: 2
Geeze... that's much better than my reply. Great retort. Don't forget the health benefits. If we can get rid of many of our toxic pollutants, including the overabundance of CO/CO2 that we create, then we'll become healthier, and health care costs will go down, all other things being equal.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 6/15/2008 12:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fighting global warming would MAKE trillions of dollars and SAVE millions of lives. I don't how you got this so backwards...


When ? We have been fighting global warming since the late 80's early 90's. Where are the trillion of dollars and millions of lives saved ?


RE: The real heart of the issue
By THEiNTERNETS on 6/15/2008 1:42:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When ? We have been fighting global warming since the late 80's early 90's. Where are the trillion of dollars and millions of lives saved ?


Did you even read the post you replied to? The money is already being made AS WE SPEAK. It's happening right now. Profitable solar ventures are the current reality. The money that stands to be made with continued investment in this area is staggering, eclipsing even the total oil profits of today (because there will be more people to use more of this energy as the developing nations continue to grow.)

Who has been saved? That's a trickier question... How do you measure the number of people who haven't gotten skin cancer because of the tighter emissions controls on CFCs and the recovery of the ozone layer? How do you measure the number of people able to eat because of action to prevent surface warming of the ocean and the development of dead zones like in the Gulf of Mexico? How do you measure the number of lives that have been saved from even more chronic asthma and respiratory disease? These are where your answers lie.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Reclaimer77 on 6/15/2008 3:04:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The money that stands to be made with continued investment in this area is staggering, eclipsing even the total oil profits of today (because there will be more people to use more of this energy as the developing nations continue to grow.)


If you believe that, I have some ocean front property on the Moon to sell you. Solar power will never come close to the saturation of oil in the market. Wheres your evidence for this bold claim ?

quote:
Who has been saved? That's a trickier question... How do you measure the number of people who haven't gotten skin cancer because of the tighter emissions controls on CFCs and the recovery of the ozone layer?


I don't think you want to bring up the skin cancer argument. Because then you would be forced, if you had any integrity, to take into account the solar output of the sun during that time period. Which we now know has been higher, leading to a NATURAL increase in temperatures as well as skin cancer.

Ozone recovery ? Its never been determined, or tested, that we caused a " hole in the ozone ". But we DO KNOW that these holes naturally form and then close up over time. Naturally. If you can show me how we somehow fixed this hole in only about 20 years, while " greenhouse gases " have been on the rise I would certainly like to know.

quote:
How do you measure the number of people able to eat because of action to prevent surface warming of the ocean and the development of dead zones like in the Gulf of Mexico?


I don't know. Do you ? More fantasies on your part. Evidence that we prevented man made " surface warming " of the ocean ?

quote:
These are where your answers lie.


No. These are where the questions begin. Because your conclusions to these problems are all wrong. They are NOT the symptoms of made made global climate change. They are not rampant epidemics that we can change in a few decades. They are not the issue.


By THEiNTERNETS on 6/15/2008 4:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think I've been pretty respectful thus far, I see no reason to get snide in this debate as I think it's intellectually stimulating.

However, I'm not going to continue to make myself a champion of this cause here - I'm not qualified beyond a certain scientific level in this debate to answer your questions fairly and accurately.

If you are genuinely curious about the state photovoltaics, my father has his doctorate in physical chemistry and is currently developing organic solar cells using nano-scale light diffusion and refraction to boost panel efficiencies (projected 20-30% efficiency panels whose materials are drastically less expensive than silicon panels.) If you would like to know more about the state of solar technology, the challenges, and the potential, I'd be happy to put you in touch with him. He also knows a great deal about the CFC science and the effects of regulating their output as many of his colleagues worked directly on the science that spurred forth this effort.

If you're interested, you can drop me a line at the0internets AT gmail DOT com.

And of course, I can assure you his understanding of the reality of global warming and its dangers is far deeper than mine.

If anyone else here is curious as well, feel free to email me. I'm sure he'd be happy to talk to dailytech about the science he's doing if any of you are interested in discussing the cutting edge of solar science. I attended the talk he gave in Japan a little over two weeks ago and the data presented was quite impressive.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By rs1 on 6/15/2008 7:11:48 PM , Rating: 5
Your knee-jerk reactions to any and every article that talks about global warming/climate change/alternative energy/etc. make no sense. So you don't believe that global warming is real. Fine. There's data to support that viewpoint. There's also data to support the opposing viewpoint. The one thing that there is virtually universal agreement on amongst the scientific community is that climate change is a real thing, and that is is something that occurs naturally and perpetually, and that in addition to that fact, human activities are now contributing to it to some degree. Maybe that degree is infinitesimal, and maybe it's not. There's data to support both sides of that one as well. What there isn't any data to support is your apparently reflexive response of "anything that would make an effort to better understand climate change or to limit mankind's contributions to it is evil".

It just doesn't make sense for you, or anyone else for that matter, to be so vehemently opposed to any notion of trying to understand how the world's climate works, and to trying to better control our impact on it. It also doesn't make any sense for anyone to be proposing to throw trillions of dollars at a problem that isn't fully understood yet, either. However, this article doesn't suggest anything about spending trillions of dollars on countering global warming (in fact, you seem to be the only person consistently raising that suggestion). It suggests that we should create better computer models in an effort to better understand climate change. I see nothing wrong with that, as even if global warming is completely made up, more accurate climate models can be useful for plenty of other things, such as weather forecasting and whatnot. It's not something that would cost trillions of dollars (even if a company as large and bureacratic as Microsoft were placed in charge of the effort), and it's really nothing but entirely fallacious to be suggesting that it's not worth doing because making any effort to better understand climate change will somehow snowball into allocating trillions of dollars to counter a threat that doesn't (or more accurately, hasn't been proven to) exist.

In closing, I am quite sick of the anti-global warming/anti-climite change/anti-alternative energy community that has taken root here. To be fair, I'm also sick of die-hard environmentalists, although there don't seem to be many of those around here these days. Not everything related to trying to understand global warming/climate change is bad. And not everything related to trying to "fix" global warming is good, either. However, it makes sense to at least be researching alternatives while at the same time trying to better understand climate change and exactly how much of an impact mankind has on the process. I also think it makes sense at the same time to build more nuclear plants, and fund research into fusion reactor technology, but that's neither here nor there at the moment.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By The Irish Patient on 6/15/2008 2:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
The article you provide a link to is written by one DS Robertson. The critical assumption is that the maximum safe exposure to carbon dioxide over a lifetime is 426 ppm, a level not grossly higher than where we are today. Amusingly, the only citation in support of this critical assumption is to another work by the same author. Out of the hundreds of thousands of medical researchers doing work on respiratory physiology, no one else seems to agree. I can't take a supposedly scientific paper seriously when a nobody author can only cite to his own nobody articles to make points that defy common sense and the generally accepted principles of the field.

The other most used citation is to Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring. This is a good read, but not very good authority by today's standards.

The last paragraph before the conclusion is particularly damning. DS Robertson states that there can be no adaptation to "toxic" substances, citing studies to arsenic and similar substances. The problem here is that carbon dioxide is a physiologic substance. The human body can and does adapt very nicely to changing levels of carbon dioxide, as anyone with even a smattering of knowledge of respiratory physiology knows.

As to this last point, there are millions of people who effectively breathe an ultra high carbon dioxide atmosphere. These are individuals with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or people that have had a lung removed to treat cancer. The conclusions of this solitary author as to the "toxicity" of carbon dioxide are contradicted by the wealth of human data.


By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2008 11:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
> "The other most used citation is to Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring. This is a good read, but not very good authority by today's standards."

Given it predicted the eradication by now of all the birds on the planet due to pesticides -- I'd agree that using it as a authority on either science or predictive power is rather shaky.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Bickers on 6/15/2008 6:47:13 PM , Rating: 2
I suggest the following article is read regardless of which side of the argument you sit: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/religion.htm

I have tried to understand both sides of the debate, triggered some months ago by a concern that the mainstream media (mainly the BBC) were only reporting one side of the debate - that worried me - in an argument/debate you always need to hear both sides if you're to make a reasoned judgement - that wasn't happening and I became suspicious that we the citizens we're/are being railroaded to buy into a politicised agenda.
I think it's far from clear (looking at real observable data vs computer models that failed to predict the current cooling) that mankind will have any noticeable/lasting impact on the climate by continuing to burn fossil fuels.
Of course we need to manage resources and use technology to advance food production and maybe there has to be a limit on population at some point, however we need rational and open debate, not the one-sided inaccurate speil churned out by failed politicians and opportunists like Gore.


RE: The real heart of the issue
By Ammohunt on 6/16/2008 2:53:35 PM , Rating: 2
You are a fool to suggest that the debate on man induced climate change is over or should not be debated any longer. With something that has such a huge impact on mankind i would want debate to span more then 5 years.


By Major HooHaa on 6/19/2008 7:00:04 AM , Rating: 2
"have shown that forests could be a crucial part of the way the Earth's climate responds to man-made CO2 emissions, but insufficient understanding of forests, and insufficient data and computing power, have made their predictions highly uncertain."

Weather increased CO2 output is causing global warming or not, is only one issue in this.

The bigger question is our attitude towards the planet that we depend on for our survival. We are and have been making a terrible mess of the planets integrated life support system.I remember hearing that during the 20th century, the planet lost half of its trees. Surely that can't be a good thing.

Remember when Earth was at the centre of the Universe? Then at the centre of the Solar System?

I think that 'Hitchhikers Guide' got it right, when it described Earth as... "A small blue\green planet, orbiting an un-regarded yellow sun at the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy."

It then described Humans as "Ape descendents who are so amazingly primitive, that they still think that wearing digital watches is a pretty neat idea."


Worth the fight?
By LorKha on 6/13/2008 5:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
Fighting global warming is worth the fight.

Yes, spend more money on saving the world overall, and less money on how our food is prepared.

The thing I hate the most is that there are more money spent on saving animals than other humans in Africa or Asia.




RE: Worth the fight?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/13/2008 5:43:21 PM , Rating: 2
That's because animals have soft fur and are more fun to watch then the human in Africa and Asia.... (sorry had to say it..)
Mankind is a very messed up creature. We prove it each day.

These models don't need to be "improved" they need to be trashed. Something has to work first before you improve it. We as humans do not understand at all how this planet works...otherwise the model would work. What we can tell is there is a change happening (I believe this is a normal change for this planet that happens every x years). Why? How? will it hurt us? These are the question we can not answer.


RE: Worth the fight?
By xxsk8er101xx on 6/13/2008 6:19:45 PM , Rating: 2
There are facts already about the changes in climate. A lot has to do with solar activity. A lot has to do with sunspots. Different anomalies such as al nina and al nino have a large effect on weather such as this years horrific weather in the west due to al nina. Other weather anomalies include cosmic rays and inter-galactic gases.

On top of that you have the normal typical change of weather that happens naturally.

All of this has been observed all you have to do is do your own research and find it because it is out there. You just choose to ignore it.

Models are static explanations that make assumptions and there are too many variables. Too many variables and the fact that weather is dynamic.

With that said until you can predict the future weather will always be impossible to accurately predict.


RE: Worth the fight?
By jbartabas on 6/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: Worth the fight?
By jbartabas on 6/13/2008 6:27:18 PM , Rating: 1
*once in a while*


RE: Worth the fight?
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 6/13/2008 6:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
The number of unknown variables, like anything that comes between the Earth and Sun, or placement of the moon plus what you stated. Odd things that people would not normally think about. This is what I had in mind when I said we do not understand how things work. We are starting to learn more but it will be a long time before we have a "true" understanding. You just stated it much better then I did. :)


RE: Worth the fight?
By danrien on 6/13/2008 10:11:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We as humans do not understand at all how this planet works...otherwise the model would work.


That all seems rather presumptuous. After all, you already understand that
quote:
there is a change happening
so we must understand something about how the planet is working. We do know the machine is doing something.... and we have an idea of all the gears that drive the machine.... but we just don't know the ratios of everything. So to say we don't know at all how this planet works isn't accurate, after all we know that precipitation for the most part comes from water on the ground evaporated into a cloud that then becomes heavy and drops rain. We understand that. We also understand that plants take in carbon dioxide. We understand that. We understand that a planet with a lot of carbon dioxide in it gets really warm (reference Venus) and that a planet with not a whole lot gets really cold (reference Mars), so I would say we have a pretty good idea of how planets work. It's just the exact details and inner workings somewhat mystify us... however, given our current knowledge of the planet I do not believe they are unsolvable.


RE: Worth the fight?
By sinful on 6/15/2008 2:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We as humans do not understand at all how this planet works...otherwise the model would work. What we can tell is there is a change happening (I believe this is a normal change for this planet that happens every x years). Why? How? will it hurt us? These are the question we can not answer.


And because we don't know how this planet works, the solution is to keep dumping billions of tons of C02 into the environment, and just blindly assume we're having no impact whatsoever?


RE: Worth the fight?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/15/2008 6:13:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And because we don't know how this planet works, the solution is to keep dumping billions of tons of C02 into the environment, and just blindly assume we're having no impact whatsoever?


Mother nature herself " dumps " a far far FAR greater amount of CO2 into the environment then we do annually. You realize that right ?


RE: Worth the fight?
By sinful on 6/15/2008 8:32:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Mother nature herself " dumps " a far far FAR greater amount of CO2 into the environment then we do annually. You realize that right ?


Ummmmm, no. Any citation for that "fact"?

Everything I've seen points to the contrary:

Volcanic activity now releases about 130 to 230 teragrams (145 million to 255 million short tons) of carbon dioxide each year,[6] which is less than 1% of the amount released by human activities.[7]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_the...

Is there some other natural force that produces more than 100x CO2 than volcanoes?


RE: Worth the fight?
By masher2 (blog) on 6/15/2008 11:04:43 PM , Rating: 3
> "Ummmmm, no. Any citation for that "fact"?"

Come now, you're a regular reader of this site. The fact that Mother Nature releases some 30 times as much CO2 each year as mankind does has been well-documented here, countless times. It's even documented in the IPCC's AR4 report.

As for the sources themselves: here's a small hint: volcanism is trivial by comparison with most of the others.


RE: Worth the fight?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/16/2008 10:50:28 AM , Rating: 2
Sigh, I knew it. He didn't know.

Look I can't blame you man. Watching the news and hearing that we're destroying the planet 40000000 times a day, and well, most people would also assume we're dumping more CO2 into the air than nature does.


RE: Worth the fight?
By glenn8 on 6/13/2008 6:52:22 PM , Rating: 5
I hardly think we spend more money on saving animals than humans. Besides natural disasters, humans can save themselves. Animals on the other hand can't and are directly harmed through our actions.


RE: Worth the fight?
By Bonesdad on 6/14/2008 1:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
We spend trillions on finding better ways to kill humans and ecosystems. Brilliant.


Princess Mononoke
By gigahertz20 on 6/13/2008 5:04:26 PM , Rating: 5
Hah, nice picture. I haven't watched Princess Mononoke in such a long time, one of the best anime films ever!




RE: Princess Mononoke
By KaiserCSS on 6/13/2008 5:22:28 PM , Rating: 2
And all this time, I just figured global warming could be attributed to a glitch in Yggdrasil's computer system.

Shows what I know!


RE: Princess Mononoke
By augiem on 6/13/2008 6:01:27 PM , Rating: 2
I remember watching Mononoke years ago with such high expectations and being really bored and let down. To each his own I guess.


RE: Princess Mononoke
By amanojaku on 6/13/2008 6:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
Blasphemer! Mononoke Hime was atypically awesome!

You're right, everyone has his or her own tastes. I didn't care for "The Matrix" (popular) but I liked "Mr. and Mrs. Smith" (unpopular.) I just saw "Star Wars: A New Hope" and "Star Wars: Return of the Jedi" and found them less satisfying than I was a kid. Carrie Fisher rocked that metal bikini, though.


RE: Princess Mononoke
By jbartabas on 6/13/2008 6:42:20 PM , Rating: 2
I wasn't thrilled the first time I saw it (Princess Mononoke), maybe even bored. I had to see it a second time to appreciate it.


RE: Princess Mononoke
By AnnihilatorX on 6/14/2008 7:27:07 AM , Rating: 2
It was surprisingly gory for a Hayao Miyazaki movie, which I think had always be aimed at children.


RE: Princess Mononoke
By daar on 6/14/2008 10:25:17 PM , Rating: 2
I, too, was suckered into watching it a few years back and was quite disappointed with it's bland, predictable characters and story. Different types of exposure I guess, most who recommend this stuff aren't avid novel readers (yeah yeah, except you guys here). It is a children's movie though, and in that regard it's ok I guess, though too gory to show my 8 year old niece.


Nice Idea - Still too focused
By jhb116 on 6/13/2008 6:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that we need to significantly improve the models, however, it sounds like he is still focused on CO2 being the sole cause or primary cause. They really need to spend some time looking at the global like it is a system - determine the major variables and look at how all of those variables interact. We need to take in the whole picture - not just the little piece called CO2.

Models are a bit like statistics - you can make them say just about anything you want.




RE: Nice Idea - Still too focused
By brenatevi on 6/13/2008 6:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
Models are statistics in motion.


RE: Nice Idea - Still too focused
By gerf on 6/13/2008 8:48:57 PM , Rating: 2
Models are statistics, extended in a logical direction based on known data. At least how we're using them here. Which isn't right, it's just an educated guess.

For example, by only looking at the last year of oil/gasoline prices, a statistician could surmise that we'll be paying $10/gal for gas and $250/bbl oil within 3 years. However, other factors would then kick into play that have not yet. Speculators will eventually drop out/cash in, and prices will drop to lower levels. Therefore, you can't just trust recent trending, despite how logical it might be.


RE: Nice Idea - Still too focused
By kake on 6/13/2008 10:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, in the local market here in Jefferson State, if price increases remain consistent, it will be 13.11usd/gallon in three years if you only look at the percentage of difference in the last year. Too cool what you can make a limited data set say!


RE: Nice Idea - Still too focused
By The0ne on 6/16/2008 5:06:57 AM , Rating: 2
A person who doesn't understand what he suppose to be looking for can do that. Worst is a person who decides based on his salary. And worst of all is a person who knows little but thinks he knows all and refuses to believe anything else, even if they are fact. A person who knows and understand will show you what really is happening. It's easier when you like your job too hahaha I did system modeling on wind turbines for several years and loved it. I tell you some of these engineers that design some of these are really bad. But unless you're actually the person doing it more or less you're going to believe what you've read in other sources :) (that's not a comment on you of course)

Everyone posting here is sided one way or another because of what they've read and what they come to believe is the truth. And from that, as with most issues, they think they know it all. There's no convincing anyone posting here based on their stance. People are just throwing figures not of their own to justify their decision. And that I find it really funny as most don't even know the depths of what they're saying.


never give up
By cmontyburns on 6/13/2008 5:23:17 PM , Rating: 3
i see two issues here:

* a scientific one- better climate control
* a political one- global warming.

if we keep blurring the two, the "green debate" may never be settled.

before fists start flailing, can we first decide on what constitues proof or disproof other than credentials?

btw, name-calling doesn't count as proof.

thanks.




RE: never give up
By kenferg1 on 6/13/08, Rating: -1
RE: never give up
By gerf on 6/13/2008 5:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
I want to see one with solar activity taken into account.


RE: never give up
By xsilver on 6/14/2008 12:22:47 AM , Rating: 5
reduce/reuse/recycle kills the world economy.

Wars increase world economy.

go figure...


And now for something completly diffrent...
By mkruer on 6/13/2008 5:55:04 PM , Rating: 2
Experincing unexpected climate changes, resulting in frequent BSoD. Earth not behaving as it should? Are Liberals spamming that the change is man made, are Conservatives spamming that it is all natural.

To get rid these problems and more, we recommend you reboot the reboot the planet at lease once a week.

Brought to you by the people at Microsoft

MSTech: What do you mean you cant reboot the planet?




By brenatevi on 6/13/2008 6:44:21 PM , Rating: 2
MSTech: Then hit ctrl-alt-del... You can't find that either, ok the alt is at the bottom of the keyboard... You don't have a keyboard? What sort of cheap system you running, anyways?


By Titanius on 6/13/2008 11:07:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
And now for something completely different...

...a Scotsman on a horse.


Global Warming
By Titanius on 6/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Global Warming
By dryloch on 6/14/2008 5:09:42 AM , Rating: 2
Here is the link to the infamous Newsweek article talking about the dangerous threat of global cooling dated 1975. Every single thing they are saying is going to happen because of global warming they also said would happen from cooling as well. They also expected the trend to continue for the foreseeable future back then as well.
Here it is:
http://main.pajamasmedia.com/xpress/claudiarosett/...


RE: Global Warming
By Screwballl on 6/14/2008 3:04:29 PM , Rating: 2
From the 50s to the 70s, they said global cooling... from the 80s to current day it is warming... the earth goes through normal heating and cooling phases. On a small scale, temperatures change around 2-3ºC globally and on average. This means up to 10ºC up in one location and 10ºC down in others. This is a typical 50 year cycle. We are coming closer to a high temperature peak now and then the next 50 years will cool down, then 50 years later will be back up. 1960 or so was the the peak cool period, 2010 will be the peak warm period, then cool again by 2060.
Then there are the 500 year cycles. There was the Little Ice Age in the Medieval times (around 1650 to 1850). The data on this is limited and can mean 20-30ºC average temperature difference (up or down) for any given location. The Sahara desert may see 15ºC (60ºF) summers and Greenland may see 32ºC (90ºF) summers during the peak of these either way.
Then there are cycles of around 12-15,000 years from cold peak (ice age) to hot peak (global warming). We are close to or just past the peak of the hot peak so the next 10-20,000 years will see slow but continued cooling.

Anything beyond this is pure speculation as there is no real and hard data to confirm anything either way.


Better models warm my globals?
By Bucky Beaver on 6/14/2008 11:04:18 AM , Rating: 2
>"Microsoft says the answer to bad models is not to give up on modeling, but to develop better models"

I certainly agree, and hereby volunteer to peruse Victoriassecret.com in order to find these better models :)




By LostInLine on 6/14/2008 5:50:30 PM , Rating: 2
I have no doubt you will find the answer to global warming...

wear less clothes.


Good idea... bad reason
By Jeff7181 on 6/13/2008 6:52:27 PM , Rating: 2
I don't like the mindset... "lets build a model to see how back we're screwing up the global climate."

A better mindset would be... "lets build a model to better understand the global climate."

If you go into an experiment looking for a specific result, you'll find it.




RE: Good idea... bad reason
By Ringold on 6/13/2008 7:36:59 PM , Rating: 1
For a little while, I ran climateprediction.net.

Then I read the forums, and it became obvious to me; the dev's are looking for global warming, and if they ever get many results that don't support the prevailing liberal theories, they'll "fix" the problem.

What a waste of peoples CPU time.


Climate Scientist Says...
By Lord 666 on 6/13/08, Rating: 0
RE: Climate Scientist Says...
By sxr7171 on 6/13/2008 7:24:37 PM , Rating: 2
Ha ha! You'd think thats what MS employees should be worried about right now. Well if they worried less about global warming and more about what they should worried about, we wouldn't have the abomination known as Vista today. Now that is something they have the power to change.


Try modeling something worth modeling!
By Emryse on 6/13/08, Rating: 0
By kake on 6/13/2008 10:10:51 PM , Rating: 2
...then we'll need to upgrade to Earth 2.0?


Models???
By Haltech on 6/14/2008 3:09:21 AM , Rating: 2
We dont need no stinkin models.
I currently posses the solution to combat global warming......I know it sounds crazy but so ill make it in 2 parts.
1. Curb C02 emissions... C02= greenhouse gasses. Too much Greenhouse gasses contribute global warmming.

2 Nuclear Power is the only way to go. The only bad sides to nuclear is its expensive(whats the cost of clean air) and you have to recycle(Duhhh).
2.1 Solar and Hydrogen is only a very small temporary solution till the cost of nuclear can go down. It can not power the worlds energy needs.

Way to get the 2 parts to work. Government needs to eliminate lobbyism. Basic and simple

Thank you, I live in CA so send the Noble Prize too me




Blame the ozone man...
By wordsworm on 6/14/2008 7:56:30 AM , Rating: 2
See, this is where scientists screw the people. This whole whole global warming thing could have been averted if we'd just get rid of the ozone. Stupid environmentalists were behind the whole CFC ban. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/08061...




climate modeling
By owyheewine on 6/14/2008 11:21:08 AM , Rating: 2
Models can be useful, but they need to be based on mathematically correct equations, which current models are not, as you reported a couple of months ago. Current models are based on 1920's equations that describe how heat is released from the atmosphere to space, and are based on faulty assumptions about the thickness of the atmosphere. They show global warming no matter what happens. Using corrected equations would be a good place to start.




We HAVE better models
By Goty on 6/14/2008 6:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
Good job, Microsoft, the only problem is that there ARE better models out there, it's just that nobody wants to look at them because those models point to the fact that runaway global warming just isn't possible!

Source: http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhou...




The final solution?
By jabber on 6/16/2008 6:43:07 AM , Rating: 1
Its intriging that if mankind found that it was another species 'killing' the planet it would divert its resources to eliminating that threat. If a cancer is found its removed or bombarded with treatments to reduce it.

Therefore, should we not be looking at removing or drastically reducing the number of humans on this tiny planet? To be honest its probably the best long term solution of the lot. Could well be far cheaper too. Population is set to continue growing rapidly we need to tackle that now.

We are the problem? Then lets sort that problem out. Its not necessariliy the CO2 or pollution thats at fault, we are the ones making it.

I vote for a reduction of the human population of at least 60%. Do it at random, some kind of genetic plague thats fast and effective. I'll take the gamble.

Its a shame that for some reason we feel we are above the same restrictions we place on other species.




RE: The final solution?
By Aloonatic on 6/16/2008 7:20:00 AM , Rating: 1
Over population is a big problem that the world is facing and is often over looked.

More people = more demand for space, energy, food = more bad things.

So how does the world reduce the birthrate?

Wealth is probably the best form of contraception that has been found thus far.

Birth rates in the west are far lower than most of the world, indeed some populations are shrinking, even in traditionally catholic countries where contraception is apparently forbidden, such as Spain and Italy.

As the rest of the world (most notably India, as China has been trying to reduce it's birthrate and population for a while now) becomes wealthier there will almost certainly be a drop in the birth rate which can only be a good thing for the local community and the rest of the world.

This is yet another thing that we need to start getting used to in the West. No longer are we the rich kids of the world, able to get away with doing whatever we want.

Other countries and regions are catching up and may well overtake us.

Failing that, disease/pandemics may well do all the hard work for us.

What happened to SARS and Bird Flu?


By MrJustin5 on 6/18/2008 8:09:12 AM , Rating: 2
I think this article is a hot topic although this republican and conservative nonsense has gotten WAY out of hand. Lets stick to the issue.

Why as the EPA labeled CO2 a Toxic? A TOXIC? The ORIGINAL LIFE GAS on planet earth! Something that PLANTS NEED as their primary source of energy (besides SUN LIGHT) and they're labeling it a toxin... You're all fools if you believe that nonsense. They're praying on your ignorance. Too much TV has turned most americans into mindless fools.

Here is the deal. They want to play the "global warming card" on you. THERE IS GOING TO BE CARBON TAX just like there is in Silicon Valley - just like in parts of Canada. You'll all be TAXED TO DEATH for a LIFE GIVING GAS!! In THE WONDERFUL USA - 65% of our income - 65% of our time at work - of our MONEY is paid directly to the government in some tax or another (countless taxes on everything and every function, from shipping to manufacturing, to sales, etc) NOW its going to be 85% by 2020!!! You will be working, living and BREATHING just to drive the machine that is the united states government. Indentured Servitude, which means: SLAVERY (if we aren't slaves already!)

WATCH GLOBAL WARMING SCAM! (ONLY 6 MINUTES! WATCH IT!)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kb9aA8JL0VI

Now, for one, we are doing a LOT more damage to the earth in MEASURABLE NON-REFUTABLE WAYS. Such as? Chemicals, plastics, heavy metals, MERCURY! (YES! Those new POWER-SAVING Compact Light Bulbs are also LOADED with Mercury and if one breaks? CLEAR THE HOUSE FOR HOURS and then... CALL HAZ-MAT to clean it up! Thats right! Broken on the carpet? Cut out the carpet!

Lets see... what else? Nuclear waste? DEPLETED URANIUM USED AS A WEAPON OF INDISCRIMINATE GENOCIDE causing Mutagens and Cancers for 4.5 BILLION years? Something that can NEVER be cleaned up? Why, dont you worry about that! CNN, FOX and such are all talking about Britney Spears and Anna Nicole Smith! (or used to be).

Fact: ICE CORE SAMPLES dating back (the most reliable ice core samples can only be dated back to about 200,000 or 400,000 years ago, I cant remember which) show that the EARTHS ATMOSPHERE HAD 14 TIMES HIGHER CO2 LEVELS TODAY!

And we're worried about about a 2 fold increase? At most? or what? 4? What does it matter!

CO2 IS THE ORIGINAL LIFE GAS! FOR HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS there was NOTHING but water... Sunlight.. and CO2.

Oxygen is a metabolic poison gas. It is corrosive. It is TOXIC to other lifeforms that lived in a Water+CO2 atmosphere ONLY! Study your biology/science! Other species of plants died off due to Oxygen being introduced into the atmosphere.

NOW... MORE FACTS:

PLANTS LIVE LONGER and are HEALTHIER and give off more OXYGEN in a CO2 rich environment!

WE are in an OXYGEN and CO2 STARVED environment according to ice core samples and a study of earths climate history!

Warmer temperatures: MORE PLANTS. More plants? MORE BUGS! More Bugs? More animals! More plants - more LIFE!!! MORE LIFE!

I really can just go on and on...

Here is one for ya:

NASA discovers that JUPITER (and its moons) are getting warmer! By many degrees!

So is MARS, Venus, and SATURN!!

Do they have SUV's or Coal Burning Power Plants on those planets?

Hmm, last I checked... I dont think so.

ITS THE SUN!! Its the sun! Its always the sun! Its releasing more solar wind particles and effecting cloud formation on earth... its the suns activity. Its all being traced back to the sun. (and MANY other factors not being attributed to humans).

If you think MAN is increasing the temp? MAYBE... Maybe by (0.1 or 0.05%) and even if we WERE and thats a bad thing? You're dead wrong!




“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki