This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

To the 34% of American Adults Who Are "Worried a Great Deal" about "Global Warming"

George Washington's picture




 

Preface:  A recent Gallup poll showed that 34% of American adults worried “a great deal” about “global warming”.  This essay is written for that 34%.

Many well-intentioned people are desperately trying to stop climate change …

And yet they are proposing things that will put more C02 and methane into the air and otherwise do more harm than good.

Frack That

Many propose nuclear and fracking as a way to reduce carbon emissions.

In reality, scientists say that fracking pumps out a lot of methane … into both our drinking water and the environment.

Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas: 72 times more potent as a warming source than CO2.

As such, fracking actually increases – rather than decreases – global warming.

Are Nukes the Answer?

It turns out that nuclear is .

Mark Jacobson – the head of Stanford University’s Atmosphere and Energy Program, who has written numerous books and hundreds of scientific papers on climate and energy, and testified before Congress numerous times on those issues – notes that nuclear puts out much more pollution (including much more CO2) than windpower, and 1.5% of all the nuclear plants built have melted down. More information here, here and here.

Jacobson also points out that it takes at least 11 years to permit and build a nuclear plant, whereas it takes less than half that time to fire up a wind or solar farm. Between the application for a nuclear plant and flipping the switch, power is provided by conventional energy sources … currently 55-65% coal.

Scam and Trade

One of the main solutions to climate change which has long been pushed by the powers that be – cap and trade – is a scam. Specifically:

  • The economists who invented cap-and-trade say that it won’t work for global warming
  • Many environmentalists say that carbon trading won’t effectively reduce carbon emissions
  • Our bailout buddies over at Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and the other Wall Street behemoths are buying heavily into carbon trading (see this, this, this, this, this and this).

As University of Maryland professor economics professor and former Chief Economist at the U.S. International Trade Commission Peter Morici writes:

Obama must ensure that the banks use the trillions of dollars in federal bailout assistance to renegotiate mortgages and make new loans to worthy homebuyers and businesses. Obama must make certain that banks do not continue to squander federal largess by padding executive bonuses, acquiring other banks and pursuing new high-return, high-risk lines of businesses in merger activity, carbon trading and complex derivatives. Industry leaders like Citigroup have announced plans to move in those directions. Many of these bankers enjoyed influence in and contributed generously to the Obama campaign. Now it remains to be seen if a President Obama can stand up to these same bankers and persuade or compel them to act responsibly.

In other words, the same companies that made billions off of derivatives and other scams and are now getting bailed out on your dime are going to make billions from carbon trading.

War: The Number One Source of Carbon

The U.S. military is the biggest producer of carbon on the planet.

Harvey Wasserman notes that fighting wars more than wipes out any reduction in carbon from the government’s proposed climate measures.

Writing in 2009 about the then-proposed escalation in the Afghanistan war, Wasserman said:

The war would also come with a carbon burst. How will the massive emissions created by 100,000-plus soldiers in wartime be counted in the 17% reduction rubric? Will the HumVees be converted to hybrids? What is the carbon impact of Predator bombs that destroy Afghan families and villages?

The continuance of fighting all over the Middle East and North Africa completely and thoroughly undermines the government’s claims that there is a global warming emergency and that reducing carbon output through cap and trade is needed to save the planet.

I can’t take anything the government says about carbon footprints seriously until the government ends the unnecessary warsall over the globe.

So whatever you think of climate change, all people can agree that ending the wars is important.  (War also destroys the economy.)

Anyone who supports “humanitarian war” by the U.S. is supporting throwing a lot of carbon into the air.

Dumb as a Mongoose In Hawaii

Many scientists suggest “geoengineering” the Earth’s climate. But that could actually worsen climate change. It could also increase the risk of drought.

Moreover, geoengineering would increase ocean acidification and decrease available sunlight for solar power.

And once we started, we could never stop.

Some of the geoengineering proposals are downright nuts.  For example, “government scientists are studying the feasibility of sending nearly microscopic particles of specially made glass into the Earth’s upper atmosphere to try to dampen the effects of ‘global warming.’ ” Others are currently suggesting cutting down trees and burying them. Other ways to geoengineer the planet are being studied and tested (and see this and this), involving such things as dumping barium, aluminum and other toxic metals into the atmosphere.

Remember, the mongoose was introduced to Hawaii in order to control the rats (which were eating the sugar cane used to make rum). It didn’t work out very well … mongeese are daylight-loving creatures while rats are nocturnal. So the mongeese trashed the native species in Hawaii, and never took care of the rats.

Similarly, the harm caused by many of these methods have not been thought through … and they could cause serious damage to our health and our ecosystems.

So – whatever you think about climate – you can obviously agree that we should approach climate change from the age-old axiom of “first, do no harm”, making sure that our “solutions” do not cause more damage than the problems.

So What’s the Answer?

If nuclear, fracking, cap and trade and geoengineering aren’t the answer, what is?

There are 3 main strategies which both climate activists and climate skeptics can agree on, because they have big upsides whether or not the Earth is warming:

(1) Reducing soot will quickly reduce melting of ice and snow. Reducing soot will be cheaper than the “decarbonation” which many policy-makers have proposed. And it would increase the health of millions of people worldwide

 

(2) Use specific smart combinations of solar, wind and geothermal energy

 

(3) Decentralize power generation and storage.  That would empower people and communities, produce less carbon, prevent nuclear disasters like Fukushima, reduce the dangers of peak oil (and thus prevent future oil spills like we had in the Gulf), and have many other positive effects

We don’t need fascism to make this happen …  We just need a sound plan.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 04/16/2014 - 03:38 | 4664227 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

well obviously wattsup is wrong because it contradicts the data from NASA I posted in my link. I'm not about to take wattsup as more credible than NASA if they can't agree. Who in their right mind would?

There is no pause for 17 years. There is no pause at all. 2010, 2005 tied for hottest years on record and both are more recent than 17 years.

This plot here http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2013/november/tlt_update_bar112013.jpg also proves my case: do you think they just made it up? All sources other than your 'credible' wattsup?

This http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/ seals the deal proving warming:

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/T_moreFigs/zonalT.gif

as do all of these

so I should ignore every source on Earth but wattsup and those 'hoax' sites funded by big oil?

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 11:39 | 4665227 TheAnswerIs42
TheAnswerIs42's picture

If you had bothered to read the wattsup article you would have noticed that it was based on the RSS (Satellite) data set which is about the only accurate data set out there (ie - not "adjusted").

Also, as far as anomalies go:

Anomalies only give the departure from an average. The base period for this average varies from one data set to the next. So if the base period was cooler, the newer anomalies will be positive and will have a larger magnitude. All anomalies since 1850 are rather small compared with the absolute temperature change for the earth during the year.

A positive anomaly does NOT mean the earth has a fever. It just means it is warmer than a long term average.

Another good article here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/04/03/july-1912-giss-anomaly-0-47-was-wa...

Thu, 04/17/2014 - 16:16 | 4670743 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Since you are lying and wattsup appears to never be accurate I'll have to dismiss all further stories on that site, and you. I've disproved you with hard fact a dozen times now.

Thu, 04/17/2014 - 09:10 | 4669097 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Your ignorance of data sets is astounding...

To call the RSS data set unadjusted is truly remarkable...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 17:19 | 4662778 libertysghost
libertysghost's picture

"On record"...you mean a century-ish of real temp data?  Has that data always recorded the same points geographically?  Since the answer is no than how is that accounted for...and by who?  The same people who design the failed predictive temp models?  The same people who have careers based on funding requiring "alarm"? 

Even if (and since no link was provided to explain why prominent "climate scientists" admit no statistocally significant warming over that period I must use "if") 2 years in the last 15 were the warmest that's roighly 2 out of 15% of the data set...not real impressive statistically.  

And prior to the global warming religion, the traditional methods/theories already aknowledged patterns in solar, ocean temps, etc would cluster natural climate changes into "periods".

So I stead of trying to convince us "new science" has it right. ..convice us why the long standing theories prior to corporatist science was so wrong?  

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 03:32 | 4664229 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

the 'no global warming' claim is corporate-science. You didn't know who funded all of it? Zero funders outside of the oil industry. zero.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 12:19 | 4665412 libertysghost
libertysghost's picture

And the 'yes global warming science' is funded by?....government.  I think you confused corporatist with corporations...get back to us when you understand the difference.  I didn't use any "science" by the crew you are attacking...I was asking you about how your stats work?  chirp chirp chirp

So nothing on my temp data points, huh?  Nothing the meaningless of 2 years out of 15 in just a 100 years you claimed to be so convincing...when it's not.  No reasons for why traditional understandings of climate in relation to solar and other natural activity are inherently wrong?  Not surprised. 

Thu, 04/17/2014 - 16:20 | 4670751 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

So now you're saying even with 2005 and 2010 being tied for warmest years ever recorded, this year being 2014, you will still declare 15 to 17 years of a pause in global warming.

Really?

Y u no good 4 math?

Or maybe you're using Murrkin-anglish where words have opposite meanings and by "pause" you mean 'lots of warming that I will not admit to'

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 12:45 | 4661624 UrbanBard
UrbanBard's picture

I was one of the Environmentalist faithful until 1991, when Mt. Pinatubo blew up. In ten weeks of activity, that volcano, and a simultaneous eruption in Japan, put enough global warming gases into the atmosphere to be equal to 2/3rds of the amount which mankind supposedly had produced in the Twentieth Century.

I thought, "Kiss your ass goodbye, boy, an extinction event is in the making!" Then after a few years, nothing happened. It didn't look like it was going to happen; where were the billions of deaths I had been promised?

I asked my environmentalist friends, while I still had them, why aren't we seeing mass deaths? Why hasn't there been a spike in the earth's temperature? Why has the earth had a flat temperature since 1998?

They tried to tell me that there is a difference between global warming gases produced by nature and those produced by mankind. That's when I became a heretic, because I was accused of being empirical.

There was nothing that I could say to my soon-to-be ex-friends. I researched and found that there were many epochs warmer than today. And that it would take many centuries for Greenland and the north pole to melt. So, no catastrophes were in the making, even if the earth was warming. We were only talking about a six foot rise of the oceans after centuries to reach the heights of the Roman Warm Period. Mankind has coped with worse, I thought.

I gave up arguing with my ex-friends. Why quarrel with fanatics? But, I resented the idea that I must sacrifice my life, prosperity and freedom on an altar of anti-capitalism.

You see, Environmentalism is not about the ecology; it's about ending the successes of Western Civilization. It's about returning to a command control economy like the latter stages of the Roman Empire. That's when people were bound to their lands as serfs, because they could not pay their taxes.

Only this time, we would have brutal secular lords backed by an environmentalist clergy. Of course, my ex-friends never explained that 5/6th of humanity must die to achieve that. Or that they feared what would happen if that 5/6th attained first world standards of living. They couldn't imagine that standards of living could rise without destroying the earth.

Fri, 04/18/2014 - 15:02 | 4673638 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hey UrbanBard, so why are volcanos associated with cooling?

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

Volcanos represent a tiny fraction of Human emissions...

http://news.discovery.com/earth/weather-extreme-events/volcanoes-co2-peo...

 

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 15:40 | 4662387 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Sheer nonsense. We produce far more gases from our burning since then than what came out of that volcano AND volcanoes produce ASH and ASH blocks incoming light. The key is OUTGOING INFRARED from THE SURFACE of the Earth. Light must come in before it gets converted to infrared on the surface, here, not at the sun.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 15:26 | 4662315 Pickleton
Pickleton's picture

"I was one of the Environmentalist faithful until 1991, when Mt. Pinatubo blew up"

I was part of a Marine Corps Expeditionary Unit sent there when that blew to rescue the Air Force from Clark and Subic Bay.  The ash plume was SPECTACULAR.  Even as far south as Subic, the ash was about 3 ft deep.  We spent weeks shoveling the ash off the buildings that hadnt already collapsed.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 14:22 | 4662082 theXman
theXman's picture

Great post! My conversion track was similar. Although I believed in the theory of Global Warming, I doubted the armageddon prediction from the beginning since mankind has been through both warm and cool climates, and history shows that warmer period is easier for life than the opposite. The Climate Change thrills actually are not being scientific. They hold that belief like a religion.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 15:42 | 4662397 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

but mankind has never been through a warming period as this: never in recorded history has temperature warmed at this rate, and it's the rate NOT THE DEGREES that is important. The actual number of degrees is what kills plants but evolution depends on death and new life.
The problem is evolution can't just be sped up to 10x the normal speed to compensate for rapid change.
Just about all the plants & mammals we depend on for food, and us being mammals too, will be wiped out inside 200 years from the damages trending so far and lack of compensation by nature (evolution isn't fast enough).

Global warming can not ever have faith, religion, belief of any sort. 100% this is evidence.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 13:38 | 4661876 JohnFrodo
Tue, 04/15/2014 - 13:22 | 4661807 translator zero
translator zero's picture

Ungodly amounts of ash significantly reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth. This overwhelmed the effects of "greenhouse gases" released.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 12:59 | 4661687 the grateful un...
the grateful unemployed's picture

actually we had a dreadful summer after Pinatuba erupted here on the west coast. the sky was filled with dust, we had a humid inversion layer, i would hate to think of that as our permanent weather pattern.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 12:09 | 4661433 whidbey-2
whidbey-2's picture

Have you any idea what it costs to build and connect a solar farm?  There is no standby power available as a rule, power companies just laugh, buyers are amazed they need batteries for dark hours, and the government on your tax returns says "do right with solar & pay your taxes", to hell with doing good environmental acts.  You must know this, or is this meant to be amusing?  Besides, remember after you die no one need worry because we deranged minorities are shrinking and it time we will be the "shakers" of history, oddballs no one recalls much about.  Electric toilets are a great energy saving device. Or, go outside. You list to too short.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 11:24 | 4661129 Fezter
Fezter's picture

It is now against the law for volcanos to erupt....there....I fixed it. Who's next?

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 11:52 | 4661342 Infinite QE
Infinite QE's picture

First, the volcano needs to seek carbon credits from Al Gore. Once they have them granted, they need to apply to the local carbon credit exchange and determine...........

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 11:21 | 4661116 the grateful un...
the grateful unemployed's picture

there's not much that can be done economically. if 300 million americans stop using fossil fuels the other 8 billion people in the world will use more. the great offshore shift of labor and manufacturing to china proves the point, the less efficient use of energy acerbates the problem. coal pollution from bejing now reaches the west coast. the pivotal issue in global warming is the tundra, there is a tipping point at which tundra begins to thaw out, releasing a wave of methane that could overwhelm the planet. the only feasible solution would be to cap and store and use that energy. the former tundra could be planted with wheat, in order to feed the planet, but with population control we'll find that what are now dwindling supplies of energy are actually more than adaquete. once the american people figure out the feds policy is controlled deflation there will a mild panic, but this too shall pass.

Fri, 04/18/2014 - 01:39 | 4662416 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

"if 300 million americans stop using fossil fuels the other 8 billion people in the world will use more."
Why? I won't. I'm not American. I don't increase my use based on anyone else's decreases.
The argument makes no sense.

"the former tundra could be planted with wheat"

How? You can't plant into frozen ground, nor can you confirm the soil quality is suitable for crops, and by the time it's thawed the methane has already escaped.

See the conundrum?

Wow. 4 people for sure don't see the conundrum and are convinced:

  • I will definitely use more power when you use less, just for fuck's sake
  • I am American
  • and you can definitely plant wheat in frozen tundra

well, I been told by those 4 x -1's that so generously let me know what's what without actually writing a single comment explaining how this is so.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 10:58 | 4660937 LFMayor
LFMayor's picture

34%?  That's a good start of the goal of whittling down the leeches.  We've subsidized idiocy for far too long.  Warning labels on plastic bags, power cords, bicycles, mandating life saving behaviours instead of letting Darwin take his Righteous course.

Darwin will only be thwarted and mocked for so long I tell you.  The Reckoning will come and those who have undeserved "life subsidies" will be expunged.

The era of the majik retahd will end and a new, brilliant dawn emerge.

A sort of Coronal Mass Ejection of bad choices and poor genes, if you would.

Sound crazy?  It's no fucking worse than elected officials debating the impact of cow farts.  Send ME money instead, bitches and I will help Darwin's wisdom flood the land!

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 10:50 | 4660887 bluskyes
bluskyes's picture

Coal, Oil, and Natural gas are all dead organisms, that once were living organisms on the surface of the earth. They need to be brought back up, and re-introduced into the carbon cycle. Then we will end up with more plants, more people, and more animals. Less competition overall - since plant food would be very abundant.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 15:50 | 4662419 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

with no plants left to eat the food?
Once the temperatures are too high the plants die and the excess CO2 just sits there keeping the surface so hot only new extremophile life can evolve which can endure the heat.
That's not us and not our crops. That's extinction for humans and most plants we know of.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 03:01 | 4664197 bluskyes
bluskyes's picture

I like how the point I made wasn't contradicted, just countered with an alarmist, and absurd scenario. I'm sure that the plants that currently survive on the equator would do just fine in the US midwest, Canada, Russia, and Greenland.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 06:00 | 4664247 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Alarmist? It's fact, news, not alarms of any sort. You're 100% contradicted by fact.

  1. http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-07-26/news/sns-rt-us-usa-grains-...
  2. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/business/2012/07/08/drought-heat...
  3. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2012/09/120906-drought-he...
  4. http://photoblog.statesman.com/dry-season-the-texas-drought-of-2011 and from it http://photoblog.statesman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/drought-07.jpg
  5. and http://photoblog.statesman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/drought-081.jpg This corn stalk is typical of the condition of hundreds of acres of corn that was destroyed by drought on this farm in Round Rock on Tuesday, July 12, 2011.
  6. http://photoblog.statesman.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/drought-09.jpg Hundreds of acres of corn were destroyed by the drought on this farm in Round Rock on Tuesday, July 12, 2011

still not enough? I could throw thousands of links and you'll deny your lying eyes and go with your religion instead. Here's some more, you cultist:

  1. Thursday, April 28, 2011 , http://barbarahuffert.blogspot.ca/2011_04_01_archive.html ,
  2. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-54xFgBjoviE/Tbnmf-4xi7I/AAAAAAAACWA/4XIpdlz5Y5...
  3. http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ITcbUaA1cvw/TbnmLLmxL-I/AAAAAAAACV4/UYUKtME43F...

You'll never give up lying but I'll never give up showing you up as a liar.

So: let's see you plant a palm tree from Cuba or Ecuador... in Toronto. Or Nunavut. Go on, you say it can be done, let's do it. And we can grow bananas in Yellowknife and Kiwi in Labrador. Ya? You up for it?

Thu, 04/17/2014 - 16:30 | 4670794 bluskyes
bluskyes's picture

IF the earth gets warmer, the northern regions get warmer. The tundra, and vast expanses of wasteland in the north, and south of this planet will become arable, and habitable regions to which people will migrate.

There have always been droughts in this world, and there always will be. They come, and they go. The western plains of North America have had many cycles of drought, since being settled in the 1860's.

The problem is peoples' short memories, attention spans, and lack of historical knowledge of regional weather patterns.

 

Fri, 04/18/2014 - 01:29 | 4672233 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Silly me. The Sahara and Gobi deserts will bounce back any day now. After all, droughts come and go.

Thu, 04/17/2014 - 20:25 | 4671477 MEAN BUSINESS
MEAN BUSINESS's picture

Aside from the "inconvenient" devastations we hear about with Earth getting warmer, warming of the northern regions has the potential for game-ending consequences when the GHGs locked up in these regions release into the atmosphere. I hear the amount of GHGs under lock-and-key up until now DWARF the GHGs emitted since the industrial revolution. 

Your implying that everything will be blue skies and sunshine because we will be able to farm the formerly frozen tundra is an exercise in self delusion. The tundra will be the new bread-basket for 11 billion people? Sure. May I float your primary tillage equipment up there for you? I'll be sure to bring lots of extra chains (really heavy ones).

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 11:07 | 4660794 novictim
novictim's picture

"Many well-intentioned people are desperately trying to stop climate change …" and then there are these authors who make a buck by writing articles like this one.

This article struck me as a hack job cranked out after a long night of boozing.  

Yes, Fracking does not lower emmissions.  But Nuclear plants are not carbon generators in any conventional sense.  But yes, they do melt down and we need to get away from them.  Yes, Cap and trade is the kind of bullshit one should expect from Neoliberals and Global Corporatists...it is a boondoggle disigned to benefit the global elite and to be gamed and falsified to the point of not working.

But you did leave out the really low hanging fruit of INSULATION.  So much of the worlds gas needs, for example, are due to poor insulated homes.  And the incandescent bulb?  How relatively cheap it would be to replace all of these with LEDs?!

So it was your final point, QW, that is really wrong and needs to be rethought:

"We don’t need fascism to make this happen …  We just need a sound plan."

I agree with you that dissent needs protection under ANY situation.  I support the guy who screams "Kill Children!" on the street corner as I support the lackey "Scientists" of the petrochemical industry who makes a buck selling climate denial.  

But the science is clear and we are heading into a world of hurt...literally.  Fascism is clearly not the answer but its pragmatic cousin, the IRON HAND of GOVERNMENT REGULATION is needed to stop the Free Market system from killing us through this global catastrophe.  Mandates and penalties and and honest political system are needed (we don't have this now in the USA' system of Auction-Democracy).

We are in the tunnel.  The train is coming.  We DO need someone to pull humanity off the tracks.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 16:43 | 4662424 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

"So much of the worlds gas needs, for example, are due to poor insulated homes.  And the incandescent bulb?  How relatively cheap it would be to replace all of these with LEDs?!"

but WHY?

LED's can't be recycled. Glass & tungsten filaments can be.

LED's produce so much heat per LED (current technology) they are unsafe in may sockets you can put an enclosed incadescent bulb. Fire hazard.

Also incandescents produce some heat with light and one must question: do I need the heat? If you live where I do the answer is yes and I'm replacing fluorescents with incandescents. They are safer to handle, easily recycled and produce heat that I will use.

Every situation is different. If I was in a very warm climate perhaps I'd choose something else but fluorescents have mercury (hazardous waste) and LED's? I'm not even sure what's in a modern white-light LED "bulb" anymore. It is still a changing technology. It has uses (very bright: I'm a big fan of LED flashlights) but has drawbacks.

"IRON HAND of GOVERNMENT REGULATION is needed to stop the Free Market system from killing us through this global catastrophe. "

But that's the scam, the actual hoax, all along:

it's government regulation that's actually causing the force to produce pollution against the free market while the free market probably would choose to save energy and not use roads where trains could be more efficient, to locate jobs + homes closer together so travel is reduced (by car, train, bike, etc.,), so that we pay for real power not a subsidized price, on anything, so that everyone accordingly adjusts their usage to reality, not to funny-munny fiat with its attached system of fraud.

"and honest political system are needed "

This will never happen anywhere on Earth. Can't be depended on. We must personally reduce consumption & waste and hope for the best. That's why it's so important not to encourage waste, pollution, carelessness and further, calling the waste FOOD (co2 plant food: we'll all die before the plants get to use it) or vitamin R fukushima radiation to cure your cancer!

The longer people say global warming is a hoax the faster we all die.

The hoaxers saying global warming isn't real are shitting in everyone's breakfast and telling them it's added protein, good for you, and calling it shit is a hoax.
I guarantee you everyone saying global warming is a hoax is making it worse, not conserving consumption & reducing waste.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 18:50 | 4663166 novictim
novictim's picture

Recycling is good if you save carbon emissions. Recycling Incadescent bulbs just perpetuates the use of an extremely energy inefficient light source.  

When was the last time you saw someone plucking tungsten from old light bulbs by the way?

LEDs last >20years and use a tenth of the energy as incandescent.  LEDs are so good that even the market is pushing in favor of them for purely economic reasons.  You save dollars with LEDs.

---

"it's government regulation that's actually causing the force to produce pollution against the free market while the free market probably would choose to save energy"

That statement of yours really requires no response as it falls on its face without assistance.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 05:42 | 4664313 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

recycling is good not just for energy but because raw materials take more to process than already finished materials and we'll be filling dumps that no longer can be used for food production, shelter, manufacturing, etc. Hole in the ground filled with garbage. What a pointless act, a waste of land.

"Incadescent bulbs just perpetuates the use of an extremely energy inefficient light source"

I use 100% of the energy from them. Heat + light. I use it all. It's not inefficient unless energy is wasted that I have no use for. This has never happened to me. Then again, I live in Canada, not Cuba.

"When was the last time you saw someone plucking tungsten from old light bulbs by the way?"

I've been too busy to look into it. It takes years literally to do that for every snarky comment on zerohedge and you're not worth it. I'm sure I could design a machine myself to do so. Metal gets pulled by magnets even if you have to force it to move. Glass doesn't. The parts also all melt at different temperatures. I'd find a way if pressed. It's better than filling a landfill with stuff that shouldn't be there. Land should be living on & growing food.

"That statement of yours really requires no response as it falls on its face without assistance"

You're insane. Government regulation forced:

the highways

the roads

the oil subsidies

the military to secure oil sources

all of this is government regulation and without it we'd have $50/barrel oil because we'd have less roads and less need of them. All highways could be replaced by trains. ALL. They wouldn't be running off oil, gas or diesel. They could run off dedicated electric grids ONLY for trains, all across North America. Could but don't. It's the cheapest, fastest way to move freight and it's also the easiest way to move people but with regulations on travel, shipping & what is the preferred energy source AND mode of transport (highway,road : car) that means the oil market is fully rigged by government regulation against what the free market would choose (cost reduction, less use of energy for the same benefits).

The market is a price-discounting mechanism and that market, that mechanism, has been suspended more than a century.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 18:55 | 4663182 tip e. canoe
tip e. canoe's picture

well incadescents aren't bad in the wintertime if you got good insulation.

LEDs are awesome but the light is rather harsh for most folks.

it's all about the filtration, but that's what creative design is for, ya?

they actually look like quite nice inside chinese paper lanterns actually.

Wed, 04/16/2014 - 05:47 | 4664317 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Ya if I lived in a country where the coldest temperature was 25 C I might not want incandescents. I can see wanting LED's then. Then again if I lived in a country that warm maybe I'd frequently go with tiki torches. Depends.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 18:43 | 4663135 novictim
novictim's picture

Alright, I'll bite

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 11:11 | 4661036 mijev
mijev's picture

Of all the books I could recommend, I would try this one. It is by a very distinguished atmospheric physicist. At the very least, you will gain an understanding of the science ... and you will never, ever embarrass yourself again by saying something as dumb as carbon footprint. Or that the science is settled.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Caper-Fallacies-Global-Warming-ebook/dp/B0...

 

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 11:30 | 4661168 novictim
novictim's picture

I'm a scientist.  What are you?

Garth Patlridge PhD.  That is your author. From Wiki:

"In August 2009 he published a book on the global warming debate, The Climate Caper. Paltridge believes that anthropogenic global warming is real, but disagrees with mainstream scientific opinion in that he thinks that the warming will probably be too small to be a threat.[10]

On the "pause" in global warming (ca. 1996 - 2014+):

[W]e have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. [11]"
----
Mijev, I don't look to sensationalists and authors out for a buck to inform my opinions.  The truth is best found in scholarly articles and publications.  I looked for some peer reviewed articles by this author that defends his thesis.  I found none.
It would be interesting to see if this Australian is running the Climate Denial circuit and working for the Australian Petro Dollar companies.
Tue, 04/15/2014 - 13:02 | 4661707 the grateful un...
the grateful unemployed's picture

guy goes to his doctor, with a bad cough, doctor says do you smoke? guy says sure do you think thats causing the problem? the doctor says it could be any number of causes but laying off cigarettes will help you get over it.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 09:05 | 4660250 therearetoomany...
therearetoomanyidiots's picture

Why write an article about something that doesn't exist?  A good article might be about how to get half of a country the size of the u.s. to lay down and be good dogs while master beats the shit out of them.   Fight the power.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 08:51 | 4660183 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

The dinosaurs would like to say something about trying to control the planet's climates...

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 16:59 | 4662706 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Ya: they didn't burn anything since only humans mastered the use of fire.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 08:19 | 4660036 Notsobadwlad
Notsobadwlad's picture

I think that everyone with half a brain and a few minutes of time have figured out that the global warming scam has nothing to actually to with global warming. It is a cover to allow them to do other things. A lie repeated long enough and loud enough substitutes for the truth.

Let's assume that the real goals are related to gaining more power and control over people and as part of gaining more control, reducing the population of the planet that they see as inferior or less useful. If we start with their goals in mind then someone with a moderately stragegic brain can interpret the actions as they apply to the strategies ... and anticipate their other strategies as well.

Right, George?

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 17:06 | 4662729 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

WRONG, Thylvester.
Turns out by removing all faith & using your full brains, eyeballs too, we can measure global warming and see it's real.
Governments, banks, oil companies & lobby groups are still all liars on top of this.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 11:16 | 4661077 novictim
novictim's picture

All those low paid scientists are in on the conspiracy to control you.

Every measurement of atmospheric CO2 level rise is one more step toward you being strapped to a table with electrodes on your shaved head.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 03:56 | 4659798 The wheels on t...
The wheels on the bus are going to fall off's picture

Whether global warming exists or not, or whether its man made or not. The alternatives to fracking, war, nuclear energy and mongoosing seem more appealing to me....

Common sense tells me that the techniques used in destroying the earth for the goal of energy is wrong and that they need to be changed, irrespective of global warming. Simple.

Tue, 04/15/2014 - 03:31 | 4659782 MEAN BUSINESS
MEAN BUSINESS's picture

At the AR5 WG3 press release, Dr Pachauri described mitigation as a high speed train, about to leave the station, which everyone needs to hop aboard.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!