Wirehead Studios

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

Apparently the consensus is not so strong as has been portrayed.  I'm waiting for one of these geniuses to actually figure out that the sun makes the earth warm...  All this worry over CO2 and methane when it's been in the atmosphere long before mankind.  I'm a bit more concerned with habitat destruction, and the dumping of millions of tons of toxic chemicals into the air and water by countries like China and India and Pakistan that have zero regulation.  I don't hold any other industrial nation blameless, but how about we start with the worst offenders and then worry about the countries that already have the strictest environmental laws.

Two more points if I may.  First, nuclear power generates zero CO2.  If you're worried about CO2, nuclear power plants are nice. (http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news-toshiba-micro-nuclear-12.17b.html)  Just find some way to dispose of the nuclear waste and you're fine.  If you can figure out how to fly to the moon, you should be able to solve that one.  Second... plant trees.  I think it's common scientific knowledge that trees and plant life metabolize CO2 and release oxygen.  I know I wouldn't mind a little more oxygen in the air.  Stop bulldozing forests and start planting them.  If you consider how much of the earth has been deforested in the last two centuries, and how many tons of CO2 that those forests pulled out of the air annually, there'd be no discussion of CO2 emissions if those trees were still standing.  My bird friends kind of like trees too.  Consider all the fewer insect problems you'd have and how many fewer pesticides would end up in your food supply if you had more bird habitat around the crops that you grow.  Anyone wants to "save the planet", planting a tree is a good place to start.

I think it'd be better (or at least more efficient) to make huge algae-fields, rather than forestation, to decrease CO2 levels. It's probably easier to do, quicker to set up and more efficient. In any case, if I've understood correctly, the influence on CO2 of forests (as opposed to smaller-scale plant life) is relatively small. Trees and forests are much nicer to have, walk around in, and see (or get attacked by) all sorts of wildlife in, though.

Planting trees helps in conjunction with the energy changes.  I don't like wind farms because those giant spinning blades are no good for my feathered kin, and solar is not efficient enough per square unit for your energy-hungry civilization.  So... plant lots of trees, any place you can get some green get it, and reduce the gas emissions at the same time.  What I'm saying is that both can be done, and should be done regardless of whether global warming is a real man-made phenomenon or not.  Utilize miniaturized nuclear power and a safe method of waste disposal... hmm... what to do with all those empty oil wells that are miles below ground... so that you reduce toxic gases from coal-fired power plants.  Use the electricity to power "plug-in" electric cars.  That solves the pollution and energy problem, and drastically reduces the requirements of oil.  If you want to be clever and centralize the nuclear power for security reasons, use the nuclear-generated electricity to split water molecules into hydrogen and oxygen gas for use in powering hydrogen fuel-cell cars and smaller fuel-cell or turbine-operated electrical stations.  You can use the electricity from the nuclear power to run biodigesters that process organic waste into a synthetic light sweet crude oil for all sorts of chemical manufacturing needs that would normally rely on petroleum.  Basically you recycle garbage and sewage into oil.  So there's your infrastructure survivability problem solved right there, pollution and greenhouse gas emissions solved too.  All you have to do is keep the terrorists away from the nuclear materials, get businesses to step in line, and it's workable with off the shelf technology in, oh, 10 years if you started now.  All the technology already exists.  If I can think of it, surely someone else already has.  Now all we need are people willing to build a safer world for everyone. :doom_thumb:

"a safer world" that makes me think of doom 3 and the UAC ;)

The ocidental, no, the global economy is based on oil, so it'll take some decades to actually see results. Rebuilding the entire global economy is no easy task. In the meantime, planting trees isn't a bad idea at all.

Probably should've stuck to gold as the standard then...

Here's an update.
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm

I've been tracking the sun's activity, and the sun's lack of sunspots has extended well beyond the normal for the current solar minimum.  Lack of sunspots == colder temperatures.  This is scientific fact.  So one of three outcomes is possible, and CO2 will play hardly any factor in it.  First, the sun could be going into a lengthy dormant phase, in which it would keep getting colder, which is not a good thing.  Famine on a global scale due to cold is not a pretty thought, and I for one do not want to see any creature freeze to death, human or otherwise.  Horrible way to go if you ask me.  Second, the sunspot cycle could pick back up and temperatures could return to normal.  That's the hopeful outcome, and everyone can keep debating CO2 emissions all they want after that.  At least nobody freezes that way.  Third... well this is the one nobody's talking about yet.  Sunspots are like the relief valve on a pressure cooker.  They allow magnetic energy to escape the stellar mantle and release this energy in the form of X-ray bursts and protons from solar wind and coronal mass ejections.  Ever see what happens to a pressure cooker when you block up that valve?  If the sun is out of balance, the solar maximum could snap back like a rubber band, and then it would hit with a vengeance.  A severely overactive sunspot cycle would drive the earth's climate out of balance like a roller coaster.  An excessively active solar maximum will result in increased solar flare and wind activity that would cause massive geomagnetic storms with the potential to knock out electric grids, communications, and satellites.  It could also cause a rebound warming effect following the cold snap, which would in turn trigger major weather instabilities and very, very nasty storms.  You'd see drought and rapid desertification in some areas, with torrential flooding in others, followed by very active tropical storms - the same kind of weather activity that occured in the early part of this century following that period's extremely active solar maximum.

What meteorologists do not tell you is that charged particles from space, ie the solar wind, have a tremendous driving force in the Earth's weather.  These charged particles are trapped in the earth's magnetic field and siphoned down into the earth's atmosphere at the poles.  More solar wind, more coronal mass ejections, and you get more particles flowing in, and brighter auroras as a result.  How does this affect the weather?  Clouds are made of water molecules, which are ionic in nature.  This is why you have thunderstorms.  A storm front is not just wind and water, it's a very low-density plasma.  The more charged particles that get pumped into the ionosphere by the solar wind, the more active the atmosphere is because it is easier for charge differences to occur between the ionosphere and the cloud layers.  This causes more rapid ionization of the water vapor, which results in more rapid cloud formation and more electrically violent storms.  Not only that, but the earth's magnetic field, like any system involving forces, reacts to external forces exerted upon it.  The earth's core rotates like an electric dynamo, which is why the earth has a magnetic field in the first place.  Changes in the stellar magnetic environment cause changes in pressure against the earth's magnetic field.  These changes in turn exert forces either contrary or supportive to the rotation of the earth's core.  This in turn affects electric and magnetic fields not only around but inside the earth.  Any changes to the core's motion and the motion of surrounding magma causes changes in friction within the mantle.  Increases in friction cause an increase in internal temperature.  Decreases in friction cause a reduction in temperature.  This causes expansion or contraction of the earth's crust, which causes an increase in tectonic activity (in other words, more earthquakes and volcanic activity).  It's all one big, interconnected system - sun, space, atmosphere, earth.  Now... should anyone doubt that the earth's magnetic field is reactive to solar wind, it's documented.  The magnetic field is asymmetric because of the solar wind, and it's also why shortwave radio works over longer ranges on the dark side of the planet.  As for it affecting the core and subsequent systems, not only is it possible but electromechanics demands it.  Alter the magnetic field of an electric motor's stator and you will either increase or decrease reluctance within the rotor, which will in turn adjust its rotation to match the new level of magnetic resistance, either speeding up or slowing down.  This does not change simply because it is acting at a planetary scale, it's just a lot more subtle and takes longer.  Besides that, it's kind of hard to measure how fast or slow the earth's core is turning.  It's easier to see the effects of it, provided one interprets the data correctly.

I'm not trying to be alarmist, but these are the possible effects of a star that's magnetically out of balance correcting itself.  It's a part of the natural ebb and flow of the solar system and resultant changes to the earth's climate.  All this worry over CO2 emissions is moot compared to the power of the sun.  Even minor changes in solar activity have major effects on the earth.  If you want to see what's going to happen to the climate, I'd advise watching the sun more closely.  If more attention were paid to the solar cycle in relation to the earth's climate then a lot of problems could be averted or at least better prepared for when the climate cycle does swing one way or the other.

Well i agree the sun affects the weather quite alot on earth however the CO2 emmisions do have an effect, to not accept the "greenhouse" effect is quite common among you americans thought :P
Id say global warming is cuz of the sun + all the shit comming from our cars and industries.

Its abit strange thought some places in the world were there usually is quite warm get snow instead, here in sweden we usually have snow and cold but not this year its all been along autum with almost no cold.
Not to mention all the storms we have now which is very odd.

Ouch.  I take issue with the "you americans" label.  I'm Avian, not American.  I simply happen to reside on this continent right now.  :(

I'm not dismissing the greenhouse effect as a scientific fact, simply the argument that CO2 levels are the definitive cause of planetary warming over the last century, and the idea that a minor increase in CO2 levels would have catastrophic effects for the planet, considering that CO2 levels over the last few hundred million years have swung quite rapidly without the need for automobiles, airplanes, and factories to cause such swings.  Temperature changes have been recorded on Mars and Neptune that parellel the changes on Earth, and unless someone spots Doom Marines driving Hummers around on Mars (kind of hard without oxygen) and Neptune (kind of hard because it's a gas giant and you'd be liquified by the pressure) then there's only one common factor between all of them, and that's changes in the sun's activity.

I typically see two camps when it comes to reporting of this issue:
Camp #1:  "ZOMG GLOBAL WARM1NG IS TEH DETH!!"
Camp #2:  "WTF?  SMOKE == PROGRESS!  STFU J00 H1PP13S!!".

That's not exactly what they're saying, but that's the mindsets I'm used to encountering in the media.  It's as bad as Creation vs. Evolution.  Right now carbon emissions are too tightly wrapped up with international politics for me to take the fear mongering from the likes of Al Gore and the doom-sayers seriously.  Scientists are not in agreement about CO2 emissions, and I've seen scientists lose their jobs and tenure for objective reporting of data contradictory to the so-called "consensus" position.  That's politics, not science, when that happens and I have no tolerance of that sort of thing.  My point is that in all the bickering, the sun is being flat out ignored as a major player, and it happens to be the source of, oh, just about all the light and heat for this world, and that by ignoring the solar factor scientists are doing humanity a huge disservice.  Knowing the solar cycle better and how it affects the earth would give a more accurate picture of exactly what's in store in the near future climate-wise and especially for the long term.

Well i wont disagree with you there :) there is many facts that do impact the weather on this planet. i prefer to be open minded to every "issue".
Thought regarding CO2 and other not so healthy stuff should be reduced not only to preserv the climate but also for the common good and health of everyone.
Its amazing how much hazards of all kinds humanity spreads with its industries.

*goes hugging a tree*

I hate industry and pollution too.  Insert Agent Smith speech here.

http://www.desertdispatch.com/opinion/global_3006___article.html/warming_tax.html

I knew it!  I can say "I told you so." on this one!  Whether you think Global Warming is real or not, here's the politicians coming in with "let's raise taxes to fix it!" and you know damned well what they'll do with the money once they get it.

well if you whould live in sweden, this is nothing new most of the cost on fuel here is taxes and we pay extra taxes to just own a car and so on..

Funny you should mention that.  Friend of mine used to own a 72 Buick.  He sold it to a man that had come to the US, I believe from Denmark, to purchase a car over 25 years old because they had to pay $1000 a year tax on any cars newer than a certain year.  It was cheaper for him to come over here, buy a car, ship it back, and drive that than to buy a new vehicle.

Global Warming Tax? I'm just speechless. Seriously.. what the hell is that? I don't even drive a car and I think that's bullshit.

We seriously need to start bringing out the torches and pitchforks and making a march towards the political buildings where these assholes are coming up with this crap. To even have such a thing 'considered' is just bad.

:wall::wall::wall::wall:

Yeah that doesnt suprise me at all..
well while your at it, come burn some here aswell.. i kinda need my car to get to work but i dont want to pay this much moneys and traveling by buss isnt a real alternative..but i suppose i could travel by buss to our customers thought it whould take twice as long to get there but what the hell that's not rly important is it? :P
im tired of the fat assed politicians sitting in the capital city and cant see outside the city's border.. that's sweden in a nutshell.

Taxes R Us!

Anyways i hope that you americans dont get any silly laws n taxes for these kind of stuff.

EDIT: well most of the reasons why there are high taxes on cars n fuel here is cuz of the global warming and that part i can understand but when you live outside the cities you need to get from point a to point b which is hard by any other transportation than your car. /End of rant

Kind of like Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London. A few years ago he introduced the Congestion Charge as a means of making money *cough* er, I mean, reducing the traffic in central London by charging everyone ?5 a day to drive through it. It was a complete failure on that score, but hey, it made a shitload of cash so he's rebranded it the CO? Charge to make everyone in central London feel guilty about the fact they don't drive a Prius or some other not-very-fuel-efficient hybrid bucket. Everyone is hung up on hybrid cars, yet a small diesel hatchback is greener and cheaper to run. Fact.

Diesel is up to $4.00 a gallon in the US now.  US industry relies almost completely on diesel-powered trucks to move freight.  Even if something is moved by rail, or by plane, or boat, it always ends up on some kind of truck to reach its end destination.  This is driving up cost of goods everywhere.  To add to the problem, there are a lot of small fleet outfits and independent drivers who own their own trucks.  Those are the ones getting hit the hardest by the fuel prices, and the independent drivers have been talking about striking nationwide.

Sooner or later something will have to give.  Taxes and fines as punitive measures always turn into a perceived source of revenue.  There have been complaints about red light cameras working too well in some cities where they have been put in, and thus causing too many drivers to not run red lights and therefore not generate revenue.  When the cameras went in they were seen as a cash cow to be milked, and now that people are actually obeying the law, the law is complaining about it because it's facing a budget crunch!  Global warming may or may not be occuring, but I can guarantee you this.  If the earth starts becoming cooler, the same people will complain about it, demand taxes to fix it, and squander away the money that they did not lift a finger to earn while blaming those who are simply trying to get by and keep their children fed and safe.

True that fuel prices are going through the roof, I was merely using diesel as an example to convey the shite that we are being fed by those who decide where our hard-earned goes (ie in the wrong direction). Using a bit less fuel doesn't really solve the problem. Global warming or not, crude oil is running out fast. If we can use less of it in the meantime, all well and good, but it can only be a temporary measure. Governments know this, but of course there's no harm in a bit of naked profiteering, is there?

Well if they could put all those moneys into actually develop a "working" replacment for gas/diesel.. I know there are alternatives out there now but imo they arent good enough.

Old topic, but I have to revive it for this one:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/02/shiver-global-warming-protest-frozen-massive-snowfall/

It seems every time someone tries to hold a Global Warming event they get snowed out or frozen!  I cite this as absolute proof of two things:

1)  There is a God and
2)  God has a sense of humor.

That is all, carry on.  :D

Let it snow, let i snow..

Well global warming got a cold snap, then again global warming is about overall temperature getting higher thought some places instead gets colder, bla bla lala more and more.
Either way as with every "theory" regarding global warming and so on really shouldnt be ignored since they could be right.

and another thing...think about how clear the air whould be without coal! ;) while we are at it i think we will ban cars and trucks...hmm airplanes too! well heck you know what? lets ban humans aswell!

For you who didnt get it /IRONY :)

(http://oligopoly.googlepages.com/1224195939591.png)

Well it looks like the cat is out of the bag, so to speak:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/

I find this to be tragic for a few reasons.  First, the number of people who will go on believing it despite the evidence that these so-called scientists are flat out lying.  Second, the amount of money that people pushing this lie have made through basically deceiving the entire world.  Third, the fact that genuine, useful conservation and environmental efforts have been shelved in favor of all this carbon fear-mongering.  Fourth, that it took someone hacking into their emails to get the truth of this when FIA requests were leveled.  The outright arrogance of these people to say they are international and therefore "above" any one country's FIA requests should be a red flag to everyone about just what globalism is about.  Who's watching these people anyway?

After all this, Obama is still pushing cap and trade and I'm sure they're still going to try to go forward with Copenhagen.  This kind of agenda-driven sham science needs to be done away with.  Science that cannot remain objective and report the facts without bias is nothing but statistical propaganda, but I suppose facts are irrelevant now.

Being an Al Gore supporter since his presidential campaign (though disliking his almost religious fanaticism in global warming in recent years), this is somewhat saddening. But it needs to be said anyway...

Now THAT'S An Inconvenient Truth!

Even the Daily Show got in on it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Wt0ZaXu_CA

What's even more unfortunate is how science has, in the eyes of many, been elevated to a near untouchable status.  I've argued with many who have ripped religion for falsehoods, hypocrisy, manipulation, lies, etc, and cling to science as if it can never be questioned.  I've seen Christianity bashed based on outright lies that, even when refuted with evidence, are still accepted as "gospel" truth by the anti-religious.  It's a kind of fanatical zeal that most evangelical preachers would sell their shirts for.  I've attempted many times to point out to such individuals that they are engaging in the exact behavior that they claim to abhor among the religious, but they were unwilling to examine their own behavior or question what they were told.  Closed-mindedness can exist anywhere and in anyone.

The problem is not with God or nature, it lies squarely with man's perceptions and what he does with what is learned about either in regards to his fellow man.  Neither science nor religion (in general) are necessarily bad or inherently evil.  It is the actions of men that cast one or the other in a bad light.  I've maintained from the start that nobody should put blind faith in anything.  Everything should be questioned.  Religion, science, and government are at the top of that list.  Anyone that says "This is the truth," and will not allow you to question why and get a fair answer it is up to something, and should be eyed with extreme suspicion and distrust.  When I saw scientists who did question the data lose their jobs, that was a huge red flag for me.  Peer review is a necessary part of the scientific process, put there to prevent just this sort of thing from happening in the first place.  There can be no such thing as "consensus" in science.  Consensus is the area of opinion, science must deal squarely in facts.  Facts are either true, or false, and any hypothesis or theory that is contradicted by fact must be discarded or at the very least reexamined and tested against the conflicting data.  That is the fundamental scientific method.  Abandon that, and science is no longer science.

Contrary to how some might think, I am not really that pleased with what has happened here in regards to global warming.  I am pleased that facts have been exposed that were hidden because people deserve to know the truth, but I am not pleased with the fact that these men who are supposed to be intellectually honest instead hold this kind of smug arrogance toward the population of the world to lie like this and cover up the truth to feed an agenda.  The treaties being debated due to global warming fears represent a tremendous threat to personal liberty and national sovereignty, yet the outrage has not reached the political leadership that's pushing these agendas forward, or if it has, it's falling on deaf ears.  Does anyone remember the story of Chicken Little?

It all saddens me because I understand science and what it should be, and I understand religion and what it should be.  I have no problem with reconciling the two because I know what each is for.  It seems anymore though that "winning" and pushing forth one's agenda is the only thing that matters on either side most of the time.  That and money.  It's all about control, being "right", and trying to make the other guy look like a fool.  The ones I feel truly sorry for are the honest scientists and clergy who are just going about their business, trying to make the world a better place, who are never seen nor heard.  They are the ones doing the hard work and not getting any credit, while the loud mouthed fools get all the glory and attention.

About time someone said something about it, be it John Stewart or someone else.

My one beef with science is how theories get tossed around as proven facts, when they're really not. I know people, friends, who do the same as well. I call them out by saying that they're only theories, and I get bombed with tests and studies as if they'll change my mind. Until something is proven fact instead of a theory, I'll remain skeptical. It's just how I am, even if such theory cannot be proven or disproven.

It's not global warming anymore, get with the times guys. It's called climate change now. Cause you see, if it gets hot, they're right, if it gets cold, they're right. If it starts raining candy canes, well... it's climate change nonetheless so.. they're right, right?

x + y = z

x= mind
y= blown
z= liberals


Silly liberals, logic is for kids.

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece

I thought the "science was settled" on this.  Now the scientist that was spearheading all the Global Warming/Global Climate Change research has flat out admitted that the data did not support their claims, which in layman's speak means they were lying the whole time.  International treaties were almost signed over what amounts to the largest scientific hoax in human history.  As I type this, in the not-so-great state of Ohio, only halfway through February, there has been the largest snowfall for this month in recorded history.  Temperatures have been staying more consistently cold than they have for the last five winters.  I may be crazy, but I am not stupid and I'm certainly not unobservant.  If this snow is a result of Global Warming then I'm a pack mule.

What I find endlessly amusing is the entire notion of "Climate Change".  Climates by their very nature are in a constant state of change.  Man-made climate change is of another issue altogether.  There is a possibility that climate change could be resulting from human activity.  I do not mean CO2 emissions or pollution, at least not pollution in a physical sense.  There is the possibility that the change in earth's climate patterns could be the result of an unhappy God chastising mankind for its sins, or warning man about his arrogance.  I am not saying that is definitively what is going on, but I bring up the spiritual angle because it's completely ignored in the secular "enlightened" age of thinking.  I find amusement in the possibility because if it were to be correct there's great irony in it that man would indeed be causing climate change, but not for the same reasons as thought by science.  What I do find rather interesting as a nod in this direction is that it seems every time someone wants to hold a conference about Global Warming of late, it snows buckets on them.  Even protesters at Copenhagen were snowed in, lamenting the fact that they could not protest the lack of action against Global Warming.  You want to protest lack of action against global warming... and you get a blizzard.  Take a hint, perhaps?  Washington DC was shut down last week for several days due to blizzard conditions.  I throw the spiritual possibility out on the table just as another angle to all of this.  I think the bulk of what is going on is simply normal natural flux, but who can say for sure.

What concerns me now is that scientists will swing the pendulum back the other direction.  There's already talk of Global Cooling now.  In the 1970's there was concern that the Earth was headed for a "mini Ice Age".  Judging by past and current solar cycles, this current period of colder weather will pass within a few years once the sun starts back into it's active cycle.  The panic in general over changing weather conditions, in my opinion, has been more of a danger than the weather patterns themselves.  Carbon taxes, cap and trade... all have been founded in a lie.  How much liberty were people willing to give up because of this charade?  What will be the next "big scare" that comes along?

I guess my biggest beef with this whole shitstorm, at the moment, is that there are plenty of good reasons to get our act together and find better and cleaner ways to get energy. The way all this has been set up has resulted in everything hanging on the global warming question. Not only is scientific integrity worn away needlessly, but the result will be that hardly anybody will be able to take any other strategy or question concerning renewable energy seriously.

As with pretty much any big issue, it would help so much if everybody dropped the 'scare, deceive, spin'-tactic, and started treating topics like global warming rationally an keeping a calm about it. But sanity doesn't sell, and the media pretty much thrives on making everything as insane as it can possibly get. Sadly, scientists seem to be part of that media-driven circus as much as anybody, these days.

I agree completely there, and that is certainly one aspect that there's zero reporting on is the need for development of clean energy in spite of any climate change or lack thereof.  I know that many on the far right will trumpet these findings as an excuse to just push for more and more oil and coal usage.  Trying to punish people for using existing fuels is certainly not an answer, but not pursuing superior sources of clean power would be equally foolish as pretending that oil and coal will last indefinitely.

While the gobal warming might be fake or not, i wont go into that however develope "green" energy and replacing oil is not a bad thing cuz there are other factors to take in cept global warming, i do believe most of us wants to breathe pure air dont we? :)

Also oil is not an endless supply sooner or later it will be out.

I certainly do!  :doom_thumb:

Anyways for putting another nail in the chest for the global warming thingy, we have the coldest winter since 1980 and we havent had this much snow since 1960, 100cm now and snow is still falling... usually in southwestern part of sweden were i live we normally get abit of snow in january then it rains rains rains...but not this year!