Steven L. wrote:
David wrote:
Rich wrote:
David wrote:
Rich wrote:
David wrote:
Claudius Denk wrote:


You need to pay attention. The point is that this isn't being
done for the global warming religion.

"Religion" is by definition bull****.

Even the AGW religion, eh?

Global warming is real.

It's been warming since the last ice age ended. This is, IMHO, a
good thing,
crops don't grow to well under a mile of ice.

You're soaking in it.

We had freezing warnings in the south bay a while ago. Send
more heat this way.

Cheers,

Rich


Anecdotal observations change nothing. It is cold here, as well.

Oddly you guys seems to think anecdotes prove AGW for some reason.

Cheers,

Rich


I don't. I find it ludicrous. Where the temperature matters is in
the deep ocean.

It seems to me that it's only prudent to at least begin advance planning
for the possibility that AGW is real enough, and its effects will be
real enough. It's no different than any other insurance policy.

There's lots of planning being done, virtually all of it of the "tax us
to death" variety.

When I fly commercially, I know intellectually that the probability I
will be killed in a plane crash is about 1 in 1 million. I still
purchase flight insurance.

What if the insurance was so costly that you could not also afford the
flight? What if you had to sell your car and could no longer get to
and from work?

(I'm a safe driver but I still pay through
the nose for auto insurance premiums too.)

This is not in most places a matter of choice.

And the probability that AGW
is occurring is certainly higher than 1 in 1 million (even though AGW
skeptics don't think the probability is above 50%).

Climate change is a certainty, the earths climate is always in a state
of flux. The question is whether you take intelligent action or just
remove your ability to survive. It seems a no brainer but it's astounding
how many seem to have no brain.

So isn't some kind of "insurance policy against AGW" just prudent?

Great, please cut your gas/electrical usage by the 80%-90% Al Gore and
others are demanding we must. Do it now.

Cheers,

Rich

On Dec 26, 10:52 am, Rich wrote:
Steven L. wrote:
David wrote:
Rich wrote:
David wrote:
Rich wrote:
David wrote:
Claudius Denk wrote:

You need to pay attention. The point is that this isn't being
done for the global warming religion.

"Religion" is by definition bull****.

Even the AGW religion, eh?

Global warming is real.

It's been warming since the last ice age ended. This is, IMHO, a
good thing,
crops don't grow to well under a mile of ice.

You're soaking in it.

We had freezing warnings in the south bay a while ago. Send
more heat this way.

Cheers,

Rich

Anecdotal observations change nothing. It is cold here, as well.

Oddly you guys seems to think anecdotes prove AGW for some reason.

Cheers,

Rich

I don't. I find it ludicrous. Where the temperature matters is in
the deep ocean.

It seems to me that it's only prudent to at least begin advance planning
for the possibility that AGW is real enough, and its effects will be
real enough. It's no different than any other insurance policy.

There's lots of planning being done, virtually all of it of the "tax us
to death" variety.

When I fly commercially, I know intellectually that the probability I
will be killed in a plane crash is about 1 in 1 million. I still
purchase flight insurance.

What if the insurance was so costly that you could not also afford the
flight? What if you had to sell your car and could no longer get to
and from work?

(I'm a safe driver but I still pay through
the nose for auto insurance premiums too.)

This is not in most places a matter of choice.

And the probability that AGW
is occurring is certainly higher than 1 in 1 million (even though AGW
skeptics don't think the probability is above 50%).

Climate change is a certainty, the earths climate is always in a state
of flux. The question is whether you take intelligent action or just
remove your ability to survive. It seems a no brainer but it's astounding
how many seem to have no brain.

So isn't some kind of "insurance policy against AGW" just prudent?

Great, please cut your gas/electrical usage by the 80%-90% Al Gore and
others are demanding we must. Do it now.

Cheers,

Rich

And therein lies the problem. 80-90% cuts in carbon emissions
are *not* just an insurance policy on driving your car, they are a
flat impossibility on *owning* a car. it isn't a minor change to
business as usual, it is a total cessation of business as usual. for
example, *cement production* accounts for 10% of co2 production
globally right now, and it isn't even in the top 5 sources! 50%-75%
of the worlds electricity production is coal, 80-90% of the worlds
transportation sector is petroleum. These activities are *vast* in
scope, with *trillions* of dollars in infrastructure and no real
alternatives to how the tasks are currently carried out.
Now I for one am sold on the AGW concept, CO2 has an absorption
spectrum, and we (humans) have increased the co2 cut of the air.
However, I see no way to reduce the emissions of co2. No way at all.
The only way that even remotely works is to build nuclear power
plants.... lots and lots of nuclear power plants. however, the same
people that want co2 production curtailed seem to object rather loudly
to nuclear power.
The "insurance policy" that you are speaking of is *not*
therefore to attempt to curtail co2 production, but instead to prepare
for a world of much higher co2 with the attendant changes to crop
production and coastline geometry. Now, this is not to say that we
shouldn't lessen our dependence on fossil fuels, it is simply to say
that a 80% reduction is simply not in the cards and that promoting it
is a waste of breath.

Rich wrote:

Great, please cut your gas/electrical usage by the 80%-90%

Compared to what?

You'd do better to quit eating so much meat. That's the quickest way we
can make a significant dent in the problem.

David wrote:
Rich wrote:

Great, please cut your gas/electrical usage by the 80%-90%

Compared to what?

To what it is today of course.

You'd do better to quit eating so much meat.

Or what?

That's the quickest way we
can make a significant dent in the problem.

So cow farts are your concern?

Cheers,

Rich

David wrote:

Rich wrote:
Great, please cut your gas/electrical usage by the 80%-90%

Compared to what?

You'd do better to quit eating so much meat. That's the quickest way we
can make a significant dent in the problem.

Why do dummies spread such wrong, stupid, and misleading
nonsense, __ALL__ animals (humans, cattle, birds, reptiles, fish, etc.
are composed of carbon neutral material, as is their food, and all
waste products).

Even Roger will attest to this fact, even though it removes it
from the list of propaganda in favor of AGW.

Grow up, moron, search google. or something, unless you
can eat minerals, there is no way for animals to eat fossil fuel.

Whata Fool wrote:
David wrote:

Rich wrote:
Great, please cut your gas/electrical usage by the 80%-90%
Compared to what?

You'd do better to quit eating so much meat. That's the quickest way we
can make a significant dent in the problem.

Why do dummies spread such wrong, stupid, and misleading
nonsense, __ALL__ animals (humans, cattle, birds, reptiles, fish, etc.
are composed of carbon neutral material, as is their food, and all
waste products).

Errr. That is not what he is talking about Joe Fisher. But then, you
have never shown yourself to be very bright.

google: energy "meat production"

On Dec 27, 2:00*pm, Whata Fool wrote:
David *wrote:
Rich wrote:
Great, please cut your gas/electrical usage by the 80%-90%

Compared to what?

You'd do better to quit eating so much meat. *That's the quickest way we
can make a significant dent in the problem.

* * * * * *Why do dummies spread such wrong, stupid, and misleading
nonsense, __ALL__ animals (humans, cattle, birds, reptiles, fish, etc.
are composed of carbon neutral material, as is their food, and all
waste products).

* * * * * Even Roger will attest to this fact, even though it removes it
from the list of propaganda in favor of AGW.

* * * * *Grow up, moron, search google. or something, unless you
can eat minerals, there is no way for animals to eat fossil fuel.

You haven't the faintest grasp of where corn comes from, do you? I
should have guessed before now.

Without modern high-nitrogen fertilizer, corn yields about 1,600 lb
per acre. Modern industrial agriculture uses approximately 150 lb of
high-nitrogen fertilizer per acre, yielding about 8,700 lb of corn per
acre. About 34 gallons of high-grade petroleum-equivalents are
required to produce this 150 lbs of high-nitrogen fertilizer, for each
acre. You might want to look into the energetics of nitrogen fixation;
or, if that's too complex for your befuddled intellect, simply
meditate on exactly how is it you can make a bomb out of fertilizer
which releases such a huge amount of energy, unless it takes a lot of
energy to make the fertilizer in the first place? Or, most likely, if
you don't understand either, don't share so much.

Fact is, we have converted farm animals from solar power, via
chlorophyll, to mainly petroleum power, via corn, via fertilizer.

See also: energetics of ethanol fuel production; also "nitrogen
availability as rate limiting step" with reference to "won't more CO2
be good because it makes crops grow faster?"

David wrote:
Rich wrote:

Great, please cut your gas/electrical usage by the 80%-90%

Compared to what?

You'd do better to quit eating so much meat. That's the quickest way we
can make a significant dent in the problem.

Doesn't meat give you more energy in for the least energy exerted, if
it's more efficient then it saves the planet from all the wasted
cultivation and carbon output from cultivation.

You eat less meat and exert less time and energy to take in the same
energy as grazing. Cows and elephants eat near every waking hour to
take in enough vegetation to stay alive.

On Dec 27, 8:42 pm, Dan Bloomquist wrote:
Whata Fool wrote:
David wrote:

Rich wrote:
Great, please cut your gas/electrical usage by the 80%-90%
Compared to what?

You'd do better to quit eating so much meat. That's the quickest way we
can make a significant dent in the problem.

Why do dummies spread such wrong, stupid, and misleading
nonsense, __ALL__ animals (humans, cattle, birds, reptiles, fish, etc.
are composed of carbon neutral material, as is their food, and all
waste products).

Errr. That is not what he is talking about Joe Fisher. But then, you
have never shown yourself to be very bright.

google: energy "meat production"

He seemed to be driving at the superficially closed nature of the
carbon cycle in nature. WF got it arse-about-face and wrong, as usual.

"John M." wrote:

On Dec 27, 8:42 pm, Dan Bloomquist wrote:

"lotta stool" wrote:
____
Why do dummies spread such wrong, stupid, and misleading
nonsense, __ALL__ animals (humans, cattle, birds, reptiles, fish, etc.
are composed of carbon neutral material, as is their food, and all
waste products).

Errr. That is not what he is talking about Joe Fisher. But then, you
have never shown yourself to be very bright.

google: energy "meat production"

He seemed to be driving at the superficially closed nature of the
carbon cycle in nature. WF got it arse-about-face and wrong, as usual.

But, it is fun watching them chase their shadows like that..

--"You can't pay for entertainment like this!"
--some anonymous right-wing zealot..