So....the "consensus" on global warming was a crock all along? - Page 2 - E46Fanatics E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 11-23-2009, 01:55 PM   #21
palindrome
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: </\>
Posts: 50
My Ride: ...
I am for anything that improves air/water quality and reduces our dependence on foreign oil--both of which also come out of being green with no mention of preventing global warming.
__________________
____________________________________________________________ ________________________

Last edited by Palindrome; December 4, 1986.
palindrome is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 03:30 PM   #22
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLVR JDM View Post
Using that number, which I know that many do, it makes our impact (and the associated degree of arrogance) even more laughable.
What number do you use?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Green_Shine View Post
I have no clue about this..It is 60 here in MI, mid November.
How hot or cold you feel at the very moment means very little in terms of global warming. It's silly to hear people on a cold day saying "Global warming, my ass." It actually gets a chuckle out of me, just not for that reason.
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 03:33 PM   #23
DKman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 62
My Ride: 325xi
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
Not being a leftist "greenie" (just a leftist ) It is worth noting that plenty of science research has been manipulated to suit a certain political agenda. From Copernicus & Galileo to stem cell research & human cloning.

There is a good amount of hard evidence that reducing CO2 emissions is good for the planet and its population. Is investment in "going green" a bad idea, IMO, no. The research & development in alternate technologies is probably a long term net win. (Although wind power is a joke. The grid doesn't take kindly to such voltage drops.) It is doubtful that we would have some of today's technologies without it. The internet springs to mind. (And yes, Al SOOOO did NOT invent it. Gore is nothing more than a windbag. And for a dufus like him to try and take any credit for it is beyond the pale.)

However, in my professional area, "going green" is a real money saver. With 10%+ of the electricity in this country going towards computing, reducing consumption in that area saves big money. 15 years ago (in the commercial and government space) it took 1.5 to 2.0 times as much energy to cool a computer system than it took to run it. With "green" technologies, not only has the computing operations per erg of energy used gone down, it is reasonable to now have computing environments that only use 0.3 times the energy to cool than is consumed. And the use of these technologies has changed the physical build out of new computer rooms. And at lower costs.
And created jobs, and tech that most people take for granted. Do you like having your cellphone or digital camera? The tech that drives that is "green tech". Flash memory (usb sticks, flashcards, and solid state disk drives aka ssd) were developed to do one thing, reduce energy consumption. Do you have any idea how much more energy it takes to run a standard hard drive? try 3 to 5 times more than flash. And with the application of Moore's law, in 15 years or less, a 2TB USB stick should be about $20. (Yes that is Terabyte, with a "T" kiddies). And with smarter filesystems, it is probable that a .5 Petabyte "hard drive" that takes as much space as a 2.5 in disk drive today will be possible and use half the energy. So you could hold an estimated 1/6th of the entire library of congress on your laptop. the entire LOC on 12 hard drives (because you still want to mirror it) or maybe 24 (if you wanted to z-stripe it, probably a better idea) And its flash, the access to the data would be 6x or faster.
And all from needing to "go green".
I doubt the advancements you speak of have anything to do with people "needing to go green". Rather it became economically advantageous to make these changes. Your comment on wind power is a great example of why government bureaucrats should stay out of trying to forecast and invest in new alternative energies. It's a misallocation of resources because they will never have more/better information then the free market.
DKman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 04:53 PM   #24
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Reading material:
The hacked climate science email scandal that wasn't

Much is being made by those who really, really believe that there's a global conspiracy among climatologists of the emails and other documents stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. According to such bloggers, thousands of "embarrassing" pieces of correspondence between some of the leading climate researchers in the world now lay bare the scheme to mislead humanity about the nature of climate change.
I downloaded the 62 MB file and took a quick look at a random selection of what are mostly dull little missives bereft of the context required to understand them in any meaningful way. Just as you'd expect from bits and piece of correspondence never intended for public consumption. Next.
Read on »
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 06:19 PM   #25
zhp6mt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Coast Ca.
Posts: 226
My Ride: 03 330i ZHP 6MT
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayabusa55 View Post
Reading material:
The hacked climate science email scandal that wasn't

Much is being made by those who really, really believe that there's a global conspiracy among climatologists of the emails and other documents stolen from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. According to such bloggers, thousands of "embarrassing" pieces of correspondence between some of the leading climate researchers in the world now lay bare the scheme to mislead humanity about the nature of climate change.
I downloaded the 62 MB file and took a quick look at a random selection of what are mostly dull little missives bereft of the context required to understand them in any meaningful way. Just as you'd expect from bits and piece of correspondence never intended for public consumption. Next.
Read on »

Spin Baby Spin!!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA

Posted by: Spinner Man | November 20, 2009 3:30 PM

2
thus, the frantic damage control begins.

Posted by: fredq | November 20, 2009 3:36 PM

3
Good luck with that, Mr Hat.

Posted by: perpwalk | November 20, 2009 3:49 PM

4
Damage Control mode is on. There are dozens of emails that actively encourage people to manipulate data, other scientists or both. There are even some that encourage gross violations of the law to get out from under pesky FOIA requests. No matter how much the global warming scam artists will try, this is scarlet letter that they will never be able to run from.

Posted by: Jake Kyler | November 20, 2009 3:52 PM

5
Scientist often use trick in a good way! Is 'a good way' defrauding the masses to line their pockets with funding?

You cannot stop the signal! Even with your idiotic spin, good luck Mr. Ass Hat

Posted by: cliamtechangeisascam | November 20, 2009 3:52 PM

6
dude......this is awesome!

Posted by: Dean | November 20, 2009 3:56 PM

7
Here's the killer email:


From: Phil Jones
To: “Michael E. Mann”
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008
Mike,
Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?
Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.
Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.
We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.
I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil
Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/a...y_hacked#63657

HadleyCRU was require to turnover their IPCC AR4 information, and Phil Jones conspired with others to have emails deleted. People go to prison for that!


Posted by: Alec, a.k.a. Daffy Duck | November 20, 2009 4:05 PM

8
Let the spin control begin. Man, this global warming is like a religion. We need to add it to the Coexist sticker before they destroy our way of life.

Posted by: dusty | November 20, 2009 4:15 PM

9
Your interpretation of the decline is missing the point just as RC intended. Most of what RC says is true but there is one little hit-you-in-the-head detail.

The decline means the Briffa MXD proxies are not temperature proxies. The data is bogus. So they chop the inconvenient yet most important part off and paste on a hockey stick.

The decline is the proof that this data is not temperature and it is covered up or hidden by Jones as was done by Briffa and Mann. They do know of this problem- very well in fact-- but that doesn't make the chopping and replacement of inconvenient data good. Instead it's proof of Jone's foreknowlege of the problem when confronted in a recent interview.

In that interview, Jones was disingenuous claiming he did not know of the issue cause it was 10 years old. Yet RC points out here as I did before them EVERY paleoclimatologist knows of this issue.

My link is here:
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/busted-2/

Posted by: jeff id | November 20, 2009 4:17 PM

10
Wow James. You skimmed 4000 documents in a couple hours and instantaneously declared there is no scandal. We're all reall surprised at your conclusion. Nice try.

Time for me to sing and you to admit full los of credibility and find some other fake bullshit line of work.


FAIL!

Posted by: The Fat Lady | November 20, 2009 4:20 PM

11
LOL.

And the denialist dance with glee ... over nothing. All appearances and no substance. Typical.

Shrug.

Posted by: Art | November 20, 2009 4:23 PM

12
Nice job at getting attention. But reading through 62 megabytes of text would take more than an afternoon, dingus. I don't think this one is going to go away. So keep on spinnin.

Posted by: tony | November 20, 2009 4:26 PM

13
art....the jig is up!

qick,jump off!
__________________
zhp6mt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 06:22 PM   #26
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Congratulations. You copy-pasted the comments. The usual drivel of loudness words and repetition without substance.
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 06:31 PM   #27
JJR4884
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 18,796
My Ride: BMW
i've said it before and i'll say it again

the earth has been here for millions of years, however in the past 100 years of data, you figured global warming out?

lol...
__________________
JJR4884 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 06:36 PM   #28
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJR4884 View Post
i've said it before and i'll say it again

the earth has been here for millions of years, however in the past 100 years of data, you figured global warming out?

lol...
4.5 Billion
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 06:38 PM   #29
JJR4884
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 18,796
My Ride: BMW
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayabusa55 View Post
4.5 Billion
which = 4500 million years

which still = "millions"
__________________
JJR4884 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 06:45 PM   #30
zhp6mt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Coast Ca.
Posts: 226
My Ride: 03 330i ZHP 6MT
Climate gate is going to put a ding in the plans for a global carbon tax. These hackers exposed fraud.... This tax is a fraud.... Al Gore is a fraud...

BRUSSELS/LONDON (Reuters) - Rich nations could raise $200 billion in climate funds through a levy on their greenhouse gases from 2013-2020 to help poor countries prepare for global warming, the European Union will say next week.

http://www.reuters.com/article/envir...50L4O520090122
__________________
zhp6mt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 06:49 PM   #31
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJR4884 View Post
which = 4500 million years

which still = "millions"
Well... 4,500,000,000 years. I guess you could say it's years old. Or just a whole lot of decades.
__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 06:54 PM   #32
JJR4884
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Nowhere
Posts: 18,796
My Ride: BMW
Quote:
Originally Posted by hayabusa55 View Post
Well... 4,500,000,000 years. I guess you could say it's years old. Or just a whole lot of decades.
exactly my point

bottom line, a 1 degree change in average temperature doesn't mean global warming... with the world being around for "years" how do you know this isn't something completely normal
__________________
JJR4884 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 06:59 PM   #33
zhp6mt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Coast Ca.
Posts: 226
My Ride: 03 330i ZHP 6MT
srry for the bad quality
Glen Beck Win!
__________________
zhp6mt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 07:17 PM   #34
'busa
Registered User
 
'busa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: FL
Posts: 1,465
My Ride: E90 335i (sold)
Quote:
Originally Posted by JJR4884 View Post
exactly my point

bottom line, a 1 degree change in average temperature doesn't mean global warming... with the world being around for "years" how do you know this isn't something completely normal
It's not a 1 degree change on a summer day. And it's not about how comfortable you feel, it's about the larger effects.

Some hundred million live within 3 feet of the sea level. But what's the big deal. It's just three feet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zhp6mt View Post
srry for the bad quality
Glen Beck Win!
That says it all. Glenn Beck must be your source for everything. BTW, that's how the name of your hero is spelled.

On another note:
However much one distrusts environmentalists, it is harder to discount the scientists… depending, of course, on which scientists one listens to. The conservative news media, continues to provide a platform for the handful of scientists who reject the scientific consensus. Of the 18 experts that appeared in Channel 4's notorious sceptic documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, 11 have been quoted in the past two years in the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, five of them more than five times.


__________________
'busa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 07:26 PM   #35
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by DKman View Post
I doubt the advancements you speak of have anything to do with people "needing to go green". Rather it became economically advantageous to make these changes. Your comment on wind power is a great example of why government bureaucrats should stay out of trying to forecast and invest in new alternative energies. It's a misallocation of resources because they will never have more/better information then the free market.
You may doubt it all you wish, but, the annual power savings alone make the business/financial argument. (I won't even get into the restrictions on energy usage do to costly additional investment in electrical infrastructure and the effect that would have on the requirement for additional facilities at even higher costs both capital and expense to the global Fortune 1000.) You may also want to to look at commercial energy companies doing rebates for going to "greenier" systems and facilities. Should I even mention the ROHS regulations or Energy Star programs.

As for govt forcasting and investment in alternative energies, need I remind you that govts were the driving force behind the development of nuclear energy and power plants.

Doubt all you like, the facts say otherwise.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 07:43 PM   #36
zhp6mt
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Coast Ca.
Posts: 226
My Ride: 03 330i ZHP 6MT
[QUOTE=hayabusa55;10939355]It's not a 1 degree change on a summer day. And it's not about how comfortable you feel, it's about the larger effects.

Some hundred million live within 3 feet of the sea level. But what's the big deal. It's just three feet.

That says it all. Glenn Beck must be your source for everything. BTW, that's how the name of your hero is spelled.

On another note:
However much one distrusts environmentalists, it is harder to discount the scientists… depending, of course, on which scientists one listens to. The conservative news media, continues to provide a platform for the handful of scientists who reject the scientific consensus. Of the 18 experts that appeared in Channel 4's notorious sceptic documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle, 11 have been quoted in the past two years in the Daily and Sunday Telegraph, five of them more than five times.


[/QUOTE

Well CNN fired the one guy I really liked... You know somebody has to report on this and the liberal media cringes on this subject. They are spinning it though the best they can... Cats out of the bag with the hackers email. Everything prior to the hackers email will be under scrutiny... So the argument begins today... Where is the real data proving global warming?vWhere is the real data proving global warming?Where is the real data proving global warming?vvWhere is the real data proving global warming?vvWhere is the real data proving global warming?
__________________
zhp6mt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 07:47 PM   #37
dniper71
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Earth
Posts: 46
My Ride: A car
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLVR JDM View Post
It is completely arrogant to think that the earth which (according to many, probably 100% of greenies) is millions+ years old....then we came along in 150 years and f'd it all up. Sorry, not buying it - you'd have to be retarded to do so.
So because human industrial activity makes up like 1X10^-10% of the total time that the earth has been around, you're not buying that we could have detrimental effects on it? In the last 50 years, there has been enough weapons technology created that every living thing on earth can be vaporized in the matter of seconds.... but according to SLVR JDM, because the earth is 4.5 billion years old, that can't happen

Ever heard of Love Canal... Chernobyl maybe? How about living in an area full of smog, see how your lungs react to that. Also, our entire society is petroleum based, when you take billions pounds of CO2, CO, CH4 etc that is trapped under ground in what we can refer to as "oil" and release it into the atmosphere, do you think that has no impact on anything? If you're buying that it has zero impact - you'd have to be retarded to do so.
__________________
** Having a single animated non-BMW image in your sig it not allowed - Tim330i **
dniper71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 08:26 PM   #38
rapier7
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: ATL
Posts: 78
My Ride: Subaru BRZ
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
You may doubt it all you wish, but, the annual power savings alone make the business/financial argument. (I won't even get into the restrictions on energy usage do to costly additional investment in electrical infrastructure and the effect that would have on the requirement for additional facilities at even higher costs both capital and expense to the global Fortune 1000.) You may also want to to look at commercial energy companies doing rebates for going to "greenier" systems and facilities. Should I even mention the ROHS regulations or Energy Star programs.

As for govt forcasting and investment in alternative energies, need I remind you that govts were the driving force behind the development of nuclear energy and power plants.

Doubt all you like, the facts say otherwise.
I'm all for nuclear power. It's cheap, safe, and doesn't pollute.

But if it makes business sense, then businesses would do it. Right now the "alternative energy" sector (less nuclear power if you consider that alternative energy) lives on government subsidies. We have the solution to our energy costs right now: nuclear power.

We need more scientists researching on it and the manufacturing capability to produce it more cheaply now. The only place that can create quality large scale modern reactor cores is in Japan because they're way ahead of the game than we are when it comes to nuclear power.

Amortized over the life of the power plant, nuclear power is as cheap as coal, which is the cheapest form of energy. We don't need biofuels or ethanol or solar or wind or any of that. We need nuclear power. I don't know why environmentalists are so opposed to it. Or the average joe, with their rampant NIMBYism clogging up the permit procedure for years making it impossible to build new reactors.
__________________
http://meta-rhetoric.com - Unfiltered Reality
rapier7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 08:38 PM   #39
DKman
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 62
My Ride: 325xi
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdsesq View Post
You may doubt it all you wish, but, the annual power savings alone make the business/financial argument. (I won't even get into the restrictions on energy usage do to costly additional investment in electrical infrastructure and the effect that would have on the requirement for additional facilities at even higher costs both capital and expense to the global Fortune 1000.) You may also want to to look at commercial energy companies doing rebates for going to "greenier" systems and facilities. Should I even mention the ROHS regulations or Energy Star programs.

As for govt forcasting and investment in alternative energies, need I remind you that govts were the driving force behind the development of nuclear energy and power plants.

Doubt all you like, the facts say otherwise.
I think we are in actually in agreement on the first point. The need to go green has nothing to do with the environment or global warming, it has to do with the cost savings you mentioned. On the second point, government was on that forefront because nuclear technology started out as a military weapon, and when it became an energy source it was easier for gov to invest in it because it is such a sensitive technology.
DKman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-23-2009, 09:03 PM   #40
rdsesq
ouroboros autorotica
 
rdsesq's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Cali...the only state that matters
Posts: 1,452
My Ride: 2002 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
I'm all for nuclear power. It's cheap, safe, and doesn't pollute.
To be fair, it does pollute. The used material has to go somewhere. But, one big, deep, whole in the ground in a desert region of the country would do quite well to contain it for decades if not centuries.


Quote:
Originally Posted by rapier7 View Post
Amortized over the life of the power plant, nuclear power is as cheap as coal, which is the cheapest form of energy. We don't need biofuels or ethanol or solar or wind or any of that. We need nuclear power. I don't know why environmentalists are so opposed to it. Or the average joe, with their rampant NIMBYism clogging up the permit procedure for years making it impossible to build new reactors.
Biofuels and ethanol could be useful to replace gasoline. I just don't see a normal car on the road bing powered by a nuclear reactor.
__________________
"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan

quis custodiet ipsos custodes
rdsesq is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
(c) 1999 - VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.