Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 07-04-11, 12:28 PM   #1
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

A new thread is started when the old one gets to around 800 posts so here it is.

Part 10:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...h-edition.html

I had just posted in the last thread a link to the rantings of Australian scientist Gideon Polya who made the claim that climate change will kill 10 billion people this century. I could now be partially responsible for killing about 900 times more people than Hitler. That seems important.

I will repost Post #789 from the last thread as Post #2 in this thread.

Enjoy the carnage.

Mods, please close the last thread.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 07-04-11 at 03:56 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-11, 12:28 PM   #2
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Wow. Read this crazy thing. It's a long diatribe so I won't post it all, I'll just post the link.

This Australian scientist hits all the typical notes plus he makes a bunch of stuff up that not even Michael Mann would say.

He says methane is 105 times more potent than CO2 (it's about 25 times more; he also fails to mention it's far less plentiful - it's measured in parts per billion, rather than per million). He says CO2 is now over 450 ppm when it's at about 390. His wildest claim of all: ten billion people will perish because of climate change this century.

His name is Gideon Polya. He makes Hansen and Mann and Schmidt and Jones and the rest of them look sane so he serves a purpose in Alarmland.

His favorite phrase seems to be "Climate criminal, climate racist, climate Apartheid Australia."

http://www.countercurrents.org/polya040711.htm
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-11, 02:59 PM   #3
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,005
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

In another "Australians are crazy over global warming" story, apparently you can kill a farting camel for carbon credits, although camel scientists are upset about the camel kill.
(As an side, Farting Camel Killers would be a great name for a rock band)
http://news.yahoo.com/wind-change-au...002118066.html
Quote:
..

Wind of change: Aussie 'farting camels' cull under attack
By Joseph Barrak | AFP – Sun, Jul 3, 2011...

The world's association of camel scientists fought back angrily on Monday over Australian plans to kill wild dromedaries on the grounds that their flatulence adds to global warming.

The idea is "false and stupid... a scientific aberration", the International Society of Camelid Research and Development (ISOCARD) charged, saying camels were being made culprits for a man-made problem.

"We believe that the good-hearted people and innovating nation of Australia can come up with better and smarter solutions than eradicating camels in inhumane ways," it said.

The kill-a-camel suggestion is floated in a paper distributed by Australia's Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, as part of consultations for reducing the country's carbon footprint.

The scheme is the brainchild of an Adelaide-based commercial company, Northwest Carbon, a land and animal management consultancy, which proposes whacking feral camels in exchange for carbon credits. . . . .
__________________
9/11/2001 - You have awakened a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve. - paraphrased from Yamamoto
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-11, 03:45 PM   #4
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

The similarities between this and doomsday cults is fascinating.
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-11, 04:03 PM   #5
DVD Talk Legend
 
DeputyDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 14,081
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by kvrdave View Post
The similarities between this and doomsday cults is fascinating.
Except the doomsday cults can mostly be convinced they are wrong when the end date comes and goes.
__________________
DVDSpot, RIP
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-11, 08:07 AM   #6
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
arminius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Here I Is!
Posts: 6,968
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I just don't see how you can read all this stuff and not come to the conclusion that this is just a power/money grab. Unless of course, you are one of the grabbers.
__________________
Seek not the favor of the multitude; it is seldom got by honest and lawful means. But seek the testimony of few; and number not voices, but weigh them. I Kant
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-11, 10:10 AM   #7
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

As reported previously, Rolling Stone gave Al Gore a platform to spout his nonsense after a period of relative quiet. This was not surprising as RS is in the tank for CAGW and Gore said nothing new, just the same old exaggerations, half-truths and lies.

This inspired someone to write:

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.4030

Quote:
After an unusually long silence, Prince Albert of Gore has resurfaced, with a 7000-word essay for Rolling Stone magazine. (See Walter Russell Mead's two-part takedown here and here.) Yet I imagine that, with Al's inflated self-importance, it must rankle to find Katy Perry getting the cover photo instead of him. Which reminds me of a song...

Cover of the Rolling Stone
(with apologies to Shel Silverstein, and Dr. Hook - original lyrics, mp3)

Well I'm an ex-V.P., without a Ph.D.
Idolized everywhere I go
I preach of disaster and show slides about warmth
For a hundred thousand a show*
I write Congressional bills and I got media shills
And lobbyists I can phone
But though I'm a fixture, I can't get my picture
On the cover of the Rolling Stone

[Refrain]
Rolling Stone
Wanna see my picture on the cover
Stone
Wanna buy five copies for my mother
Stone
Wanna see my frowning face
On the cover of the Rolling Stone

To meet a desperate need I wrote a brilliant screed
Of just seven thousand words
A work of style and great importance
Like they had never heard
You'd think I would get a front page spread
'Cause my face is so well known
And so it enrages to be in the back pages
Of the stupid thankless Rolling Stone

[Refrain]

I got a lot of over-zealous Greenpeace groupies
Who swallowed all my lies
I got an Indian railroad expert
Who's sharing in my Nobel Prize
I got land and jets and mansions and cash
And an Oscar of my own
And I keep gettin' richer but I can't get my picture
On the cover of the Rolling Stone

[Refrain]


* Yes, that's his price.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 07-11-11 at 07:27 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-11, 10:54 AM   #8
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Another extremely silly paper has been making the rounds. It purports to explain why it hasn't been warming. Supposedly it's because the Chinese have been burning more coal and the sulfur particulates are preventing the planet from boiling as it should because of CO2. Critics have pointed out the study depends on an old 2006 model that was never any good to begin with. Also, it's been pointed out that worldwide such particulates haven't been changing anyway. The study was printed in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science which should raise alarms because the once respected PNAS has become a vanity publisher for NAS members who can get them in easily (unless they are climate skeptics who apparently have different rules).

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07...g_coal_anyway/

Quote:
Chinese coal blamed for global warming er... cooling
Economists ride into sulphurous cloud of aerosols
By Andrew Orlowski
Posted in Environment, 5th July 2011 11:51 GMT

The refusal of the global temperatures to rise as predicted has caused much angst among academics. "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't," wrote one in 2009. Either the instruments were wrong, or the heat energy had gone missing somewhere.

Now a team of academics, after tweaking a statistical model to include sulphur emissions, suggest that coal power stations may be to blame for a lack of global warming since 1998. The IPCC's 2007 assessment but acknowledged the negative radiative forcing (aka, cooling effect) of both natural aerosols from volcanoes and manmade aerosols, but admitted the level of scientific understanding was low.

A team of two geographers and two economists headed by Professor Robert Kaufmann at the Department of Geography in Boston publish their results in a new paper Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperature 1998-2008 [PDF], which includes manmade emissions of sulphur and simulates the flat temperatures since 1998. Kaufmann has a PhD in energy management policy. In this paper, he and his colleagues revisit "a simplified model" from 2006 (PDF) containing statistically estimated equations for three variables: global surface temperature, CO2 and CH4. The actual temperature differences described in the new paper are tiny – with variations from model predictions of 0.1°C.

"Results indicate that net anthropogenic forcing rises slower than previous decades because the cooling effects of sulfur emissions grow in tandem with the warming effects greenhouse gas concentrations. This slow-down, along with declining solar insolation and a change from El Nino to La Nina conditions, enables the model to simulate the lack of warming after 1998," the team explains.

The model estimates a 0.06W/m2 increase in cooling since 2002. Declining sulphur emissions between 1990 and 2002 – caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the switch to gas – had a warming effect of 0.19W/m2.

Kaufmann et al declare that aerosol cooling is "consistent with" warming from manmade greenhouse gases. Recent studies suggest greenhouse gas emissions may be masking a long-term cooling trend as solar activity declines.

Climate scientist Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Institute of Technology, doesn't find the economists' statistical theatrics convincing. She wonders why the short-lived regional increases in particulates should have a global effect on temperatures. She also notes that there has been no increase in aerosols, either globally or over East Asia, from 2000 to 2006; Chinese emissions only rose in the period 2004 to 2007. Kaufmann et al do acknowledge that a La Nina weather pattern cooled the planet between 1998 and 2000, while a warm El Nino increased temperatures in 2002 and again in 2010.

"The political consequence of this article seems to be that the simplest solution to global warming is for the Chinese to burn more coal, which they intend to do anyway," writes Curry.

Doubtless they will. First we blame them for warming the planet, but now we blame them for cooling the planet.
Another interesting thing is that one of the authors is Michael Mann - no, not that one (and also not the movie director). But it has caused some confusion. Different middle initial and different schools though.

But perhaps the most significant thing is that the authors admit the world hasn't been warming which is causing consternation among some alarmists who keep saying it is even though it isn't.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 07-11-11 at 07:28 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-11, 08:45 AM   #9
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

This clever little 9 minute "cartoon video" is quite good. Unlike many of the first overwhelmingly positive skeptical reactions, however, I find it somewhat wanting as giving too little credit to nuclear energy and in giving too short shrift to the sun while citing "indirect" causes of warming (and cooling) that are, in all probability, indirectly caused by the sun in the first place (these indirect influences amplify the sun's small direct influences). Specifically, I find it lacking that Svensmark's cosmic ray theory isn't included, especially because the person behind the video is Roy Spencer who has recently become much more accepting of the possibility Svensmark is on to something. I understand there is only so much you can fit into 9 minutes and you don't want to lose your audience by being too long or too technical but these changes wouldn't take much tweaking. But still, it's a mostly good and informative video and is very much worth watching.

__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-07-11, 01:03 PM   #10
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

This is a riot.

Alarmist Chris Mooney blasts skeptic Chris Horner because, at the Heartland ICCC conference June 30/July 1, Horner claimed that many proponents of CAGW, particularly the leaders, are "watermelons," green on the outside and red on the inside. Their real goal is to stop capitalism and free markets and redistribute wealth.

Then, in the comments to Mooney's article, a whole bunch of alarmists come in to blast Mooney and show that Horner is absolutely right. Mooney gets blasted for being closer to Horner than he is to them.

While it can be sometimes difficult to assign motive, many alarmists have said just the things Horner talks about. The quotes are there. Horner has written books about it full of such quotes.

Here is Mooney's article and the comments, wherein Mooney bemoans the fact that his supposed allies have come in to prove him wrong and Horner right:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/in...ing-is-mutual/

Lubos Motl does his usual splendid job of analysis (despite dork's derisive comment about Motl and myself in a recent thread (see http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...leased-22.html), Motl is not an "internet loon"; he is harsh and sarcastic and his style is not mine but he is seldom wrong, and when he is he admits it, unlike many other people):

http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/07/ch...=Google+Reader

Quote:
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Chris Mooney defends growth, becomes a heretic
Lubos Motl

Chris Mooney has always been a kind of opportunist who figured out that it was possible to make profit out of spreading the environmentalist delusions - but he has arguably never believed them. If he were a politician, he would be the ultimate insider in Washington D.C.

Such a position has worked for years but it no longer works. Environemtalism and its most radical reincarnation, global warming alarmism, is gradually regaining the status of a fringe movement promoted by the lunatics. Mooney has clearly not noticed the difference yet.

In a recent article,
In the Climate Debate, The Misunderstanding Is Mutual (Mooney's article plus fiery debate),
he has complained about a panel discussion at the Sixth Heartland Climate Conference. Around 57:00, panelists Marc Morano, Chris Horner, and Alan Carlin (no, it's not Noam Chomsky) confirm the suggestions from the audience that the primary driver behind the climate movement is an attempt to reorganize the society, a new green version of socialism or communism or anti-capitalism.

A few years ago, such a Mooney could be attacked by climate realists who would explain him why it's obviously true that the climate alarmists are like watermelons - green on the surface but red (Marxist) inside. That would lead to repetitive confrontations with no apparent winner.

However, we're in 2011 so what happened was more creative. ;-) What was that?

Well, Chris Mooney has been attacked by the climate warmists. Horner is obviously right and Mooney is betraying the most degenerated version of Marxism that drives almost all of his readers to his "The Intersection" website.

Commenters "1985" and "William Furr" immediately came to complain about would-be green people like Mooney who don't admit that capitalism absolutely has to be destroyed and the economic growth has to be sent deeply into the red numbers as soon as possible.

Mooney cried in comment #3 for the first time. Did they come to prove Horner right? Well, they don't have to prove him right. Everyone knows that Horner is right. Mooney has over 2,000 daily visitors to his blog that doesn't boast any scientific content - and it can't because Mooney has no clue about science - so try to ask a simple question, Chris, what drives over 2,000 people to this pure trash that you're posting on the Internet?

Well, yes, they're the hard core of the environmentalist movement who are eager to read any garbage as long as it licks the a*s of the environmentalist movement. They're the "Deep Greens" as they called themselves. I didn't know the term but it's apparently how the most radical part of the green movement is calling itself.

It wasn't just "1985" and "William Furr" who complained about Mooney's lack of will to fight against capitalism - which should be the primary goal of the climate alarmism. "Boris" in #4 argued that the "best" minds in the AGW business have claimed that a goal of the AGW hysteria is to redistribute wealth. :-)

"William Furr" returned in #5 and said that Mooney isn't the kind of great minds who want to hobble economies and redistribute wealth. Instead, Mooney is the kind of opportunist who wants to eat a cake and have it, too. Very true. ;-) "William Furr" and "1985" came to explain that it's not possible to have a cake and eat it, too.

In #6, Mooney cried for the second time. He still believes that the new green Marxism isn't the main force behind the AGW alarmism but he is already "willing to be convinced otherwise". :-)

In #7, "Eric the Leaf" promotes the book "End of Growth" to his (probable) soulmates "1985" and "William Furr".

In #8, Mooney cries for the third time. In his opinion, admitting that the AGW movement is about the liquidation of growth has been a losing card for the liberals and one of the reasons behind the "conservative counter-revolution in the U.S." (oops!).

In #9, "1985" says that the laws of physics dictate something else (destruction of the world economy) than what is politically feasible and Mooney is missing this key point. In #10, "William Furr" says that doing not enough is equivalent to doing nothing. That's why Mooney is equivalent to a denier, a point that will be repeated many times.

In #11, Mooney claims that both physical and political laws are important for the reality and it's a bad idea to misunderstand either. Very true - the only problem is that Mooney misunderstands both. A few more exchanges between "1985" and Mooney follow.

A new player enters the arena in #16. Dr Michael Tobis who is "in it for the gold", says that they have to prove that Horner is right and the destruction of the world economy has nothing to do with ideology - only its preservation is purely ideological. He insists that the greens who are eating roots and sleeping on the trees have to be presented as the most un-ideological, mainstream people. The average American family can't be scaled to the whole world so a revolution is needed, we learn. But it's not about ideology! It's just a non-ideological revolution meant to remove everything that the mankind has ever built.

In #17, "1985" criticizes Mooney for understating the gap between physics and politically feasiable things - i.e. understating the urgent need for a revolution that circumvents all standard political channels. In #18, Mooney supports Tobis' opinion that the black should be presented as white and vice versa. "Incredibly well stated, Michael."

In #19, a new participant, "Nullius in Verba", divides the Greens to Green-lite, Green, and Deep Green. He has no doubts that the latter group exists and has "explicitly anti-Capitalist, redistributive, 'climate justice' sorts of authoritarian/totalitarian policy ideas." It's more radical than communism that wanted to preserve - and expand - technology.

In #20, "1985" attacks Tobis because the point is to liquidate capitalism while Tobis wants to allow this monster to retain the status of a sacred cow. According to #21 by "1985", "Nullius in Verba" is missing the point, too. There is nothing totalitarian about controlling the people's carbon cycle and preventing them from breathing out. Instead, it is necessary to preserve life. Just to be sure that there is no disagreement between these greens, Nullius in Verba agrees in #22 that they agree about the long-term goals - a complete control over the people's behavior. They just differ in the strategies how to achieve this holy goal.

In #23, "Michael Tobis" labels "1985" as a gift to his opponents. Tobis even dares to think that the growth and capitalism belong together and have done miracles for many. In #24, the next thing that "1985" expects from "Nullius" is to say that Julian Simon was correct. I eagerly expect it, too!

According to "M Burke" in #25, capitalism may save the planet by providing us with fuel-efficient cars and light bulbs. :-)

In #26, "TTT" figures out that this thread is an "epic OWNGOAL". He is ashamed, as an environmentalism. I would also be ashamed if I were an environmentalist - from the very first moment. He unsuccessfully tries to mock Chris Horner and says that the "infinite growth is impossible" but that's less important than to "poke and mock the freaks".

In #27, "Brian D" says that capitalism doesn't work because it ignores "externalities" such as CO2 so it has to be "given signals".

In #28, Mooney cries again. He agrees it's an owngoal and he is tired of it.

In #29, "Nullius" says that the tragedy of the commons is about the lack, and not excess, of the markets. Things have to be privatized and the tragedy is over.

In #31, "DirkH" who is apparently a skeptic smiles that Mooney wanted to separate the fight against the growth from environmentalism and he has been returned back to the reality by his would-be soulmates. Go get him boys, he's befouling Gaia. :-) Dirk loves warmists fighting with each other, and so do I.

Mooney cries in #32 for the fifth time and agrees that Dirk is right and the warmists are losers. Depressing.

In #33, "Brian D" protests: privatization can't avoid the tragedy of commons because the real commons like CO2 in the atmosphere can't be owned by anyone.

According to "1985" in #34, the most selfish thing is to self-sacrifice and co-operate (with the green world government). People just haven't understood yet that this is the happiest form of greed. And your humble correspondent is afraid that they will not understand it. In #35, "1985" says that the lost battle doesn't matter because small victories doesn't matter because their required goal is so huge. ;-) Mooney says that these discussions provide more ammunition for the denialists - so what? Unless every single human on Earth is completely controlled by the radical green machine, there's no chance, anyway. :-) The comment #36 by "1985" says that the point of the tragedy of commons is not to think about it or try to solve it, but just to have a talking point to spread propaganda about ecology, so "1985" criticizes "Nullius" for his attempt to think how the tragedy of the commons was solved in England - another clear heresy. In #37, he says that the judgement day is not in the year infinity but in this century and people should have been getting ready for the Armageddon for 50 years.

In #38, "Nullius" recommends Mooney, who understood that he was a sore loser, to cure the situation easily. Just admit that you're not on the same side as the Deep Greens! You oppose them as much as you do oppose the Republicans. ("Nullius" recommends Mooney a career suicide if not a physical one.) "Nullius" himself would love to be explained some things because he finds green attitudes to all meaningful questions a mystery. "Nullius" isn't quite optimistic about the privatization of the atmosphere so he proposes a "climate change bond", something that allows you to make profit whenever the climate changes. I would surely buy it - to make a profit every day! :-)

A new participant, "PDA" in #39, says that it's not an owngoal because there's just one anti-capitalist person on this thread. "PDA" predicts that they will lose every single argument in the future because there won't be a 100% unity between them - if the unity is needed, and be sure that for totalitarian movements such as the AGW alarmism, it's badly needed, I add.

In #40, "1985" accuses Tobis of considering capitalism to be a sacred cow. I guess that the super hard core Marxist Tobis isn't used to this kind of criticism. ;-) In #41, "1985" criticizes "climate change bonds" because when the sea level rises by 1 meter, several and maybe infinitely many meters are already in the pipeline, so capitalism doesn't work, and if you thought it does, the physical laws describing the oceans have to be rewritten.

In #42, "William T" believes that "1985" is in a minority and he is a troll.

In #43, "Nullius" agrees that if the sea level rises by 1 meter, infinitely many meters are already in the pipeline. Why would "Nullius" dare to heretically disagree with this self-evident axiomatic dogma? The climate change bond would already know about the Armageddon in advance.

"Brian D" has a long comment #44 that I didn't understand but he surely wants to say that the ICCC conference is not science-based.

"Johnny" in #45 says that the resources are infinite - we may switch. Nature has solved all other growth problems, too. "Nullius" in #46 defends signals sent to the market. Both of these positions are disagreed by "PDA" in #47 - the previous comments are just beliefs, he says. Instead, one should parrot that the infinite growth is impossible because this approach has already been useful - by brainwashing millions of greens into a pile of mindless zombies.

"Gofigure" in #48 promotes a recommended skeptical literature. In #49, "TTT" uses a quote by "Nullius" to show that "Nullius" is also a Marxist - more detached from reality than the other Marxists. In #50, "Nullius" tries to denounce Marxism.

Rod Taylor in #51 says that Kevin Drum and other liberals (including far left economist DeLong) publicly admitted that the carbon fees were just another tax and the rightwingers were thought to be stupid enough not to see through the tricks. ;-) Well, Drum et al. have been proved wrong.

In #52, Mooney would love to agree that "1985" is in a minority but he realizes that this is not what readers of the thread will conclude - because it's preposterous. The green movement is overflooded with unhinged Marxists of the "1985" type. In #53, "1985" responds to another comment: roughly speaking, who is not a Marxist contradicts the laws of physics.

A fun discussion. Here is the most important lesson for Mooney to learn from his comrade "1985":
In that sense, and I again, I am sorry and very sad to say it, the difference between you [Mooney] and the denialists is smaller than the difference between you and the people who actually get it. If you do not understand that growth has to stop and be reversed immediately (and why), despite all your writings on the subject, you are actually in the same kind of denial that the people you write about are.
I usually prefer to comment on the science and the excesses and silliness of the alarmists and usually (not always) stay away from going into political motives. After all, the skeptics have those too although I think they have the science firmly on their side. But neither should political motives (on both sides) be entirely ignored.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-11, 01:00 AM   #11
DVD Talk Legend
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 12,858
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
A new thread is started when the old one gets to around 800 posts so here it is.

Part 10:

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...h-edition.html

I had just posted in the last thread a link to the rantings of Australian scientist Gideon Polya who made the claim that climate change will kill 10 billion people this century. I could now be partially responsible for killing about 900 times more people than Hitler. That seems important.

I will repost Post #789 from the last thread as Post #2 in this thread.

Enjoy the carnage.

Mods, please close the last thread.
Paul Ehrlich said that overpopulation would kill 90% of the world's population by the 1980s.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-11, 05:14 PM   #12
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

They wonder why we laugh at them, Part 1:

http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress....-life-is-nigh/

Quote:
Monbiot: Global Warming Jellyfish Apocalypse – End of Vertebrate Life Is Nigh.
Posted on July 9, 2011 by hauntingthelibrary

In another gem of a piece that exceeds even his infamous “2012 Meat Apocalypse” prediction, George Monbiot has warned that global warming Co2 is breeding an invasion of the jellyfish that spells the end of vertebrate life itself!

Monbiot starts his latest Jeremiad by observing that there used to be a lot more fish in the sea, citing two impeccable scientific sources: himself and old people who remember how many more mackerel there used to be. Apparently, you used to be able to just walk along the beach with a bucket and the fish would just about leap into it for you. Ah, the good old days!

Finding that there is no scientific explanation – or even data – on why things are no longer what they used to be in the world of mackerel, our hero jumps into a kayak and paddles three miles (!) out to sea. He doesn’t see any mackerel, but does spot something else. “Unimaginable numbers” of monster jellyfish!
But I could also see something else. Jellyfish. Unimaginable numbers of them. Not the transparent cocktail umbrellas I was used to, but solid, white rubbery creatures the size of footballs. They roiled in the surface or loomed, vast and pale, in the depths. There was scarcely a cubic metre of water without one.
Yikes! Could the arrival of these monster jellyfish spell a doom of Lovecraftian proportions and strangeness? Monbiot believes it could well do. This could be the end of vertebrate ecology itself we are witnessing:
Is this the moment? Have I just witnessed the beginning of the end of vertebrate ecology here? If so, the shift might not be confined to Cardigan Bay. In a perfect conjunction of two of my recent interests, last week a monstrous swarm of jellyfish succeeded where Greenpeace has failed, and shut down both reactors at the Torness nuclear power station in Scotland.
Damm those monster jellyfish! But why now? What is causing this terrifying invasion? Could it possibly be down to C02 and global warming? Why yes it could be:
A combination of overfishing and ocean acidification (caused by rising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere) has created the perfect conditions for this shift from a system dominated by fish to a system dominated by jellyfish.

If this is indeed what we’re seeing, the end of vertebrate ecology is a direct result of the end of vertebrate politics: the utter spinelessness of the people charged with protecting the life of the seas.
The jellyfish are coming, thanks to C02, and they’re shutting down the power stations as they move inexorably to a “system dominated by jellyfish”. This, surely, is proof of the unprecedented effects of global warming? We’ve never had jellyfish breeding in such numbers as to shut down power stations before, after all. Have we?

Well, of course, it’s nothing new – this has all happened before. Like in the Phillipines in 1999, where an “enormous concentration” of jellyfish was blamed for crippling the new power station. In Miami in 1984, where a “huge crowd of jellyfish” shut down the nuclear reactor at the St Lucie power station and again in 1993. In Tampa Bay in 1971, where massive “swarms” of jellyfish shut down the power plant. In Tokyo in 1972, where they closed a power plant, in the Persian gulf in 1958 where they shut down an oil refinery – the list goes on.

Having backtracked on his “2012 Meat Apocalypse” prediction, Monbiot’s latest is even better – the end of vertebrate life and the imposition of “a system dominated by jellyfish” who apparently are starting by shutting down power stations. Run for the hills!
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-11, 05:22 PM   #13
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

They wonder why we laugh at them, Part 2:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/imag...rature_Map.jpg

Quote:
Climate "scientists": 95 percent of people fry to death at 20 °C
Lubos Motl
July 9, 2011

The Sydney Morning Herald has discussed what happens when the global mean temperature increases by 4 °C:
Too hot to handle: can we afford a 4-degree rise?
Kevin Anderson, a director of a Tyndall Centre somewhere in the U.K., sees it in this way:
If you have got a population of 9 billion by 2050 and you hit 4 degrees, 5 degrees or 6 degrees, you might have half a billion people surviving.
So the population will happily continue to rise to 9 billion by 2050. Suddenly, the global mean temperature will apparently jump from 15 °C to 20 °C, we're told, and 8.5 billion people will suddenly die because 20 °C is surely deadly.

I wonder whether those loons actively realize what they are saying - and what their colleagues are saying - and whether at least some of them know that the likes of Mr Anderson are mentally ill. You see that the U.K. doesn't have any counterpart of the ObamaCare if they can't afford to store Mr Anderson in a psychiatric asylum.

Needless to say, there doesn't exist any empirically based reason to think that the temperature change in the next 40 years will exceed something like 0.5 °C - see all RSS cooling and warming trends (which imply that the very sign of the future temperature changes are unknown) - so five degrees is already an overestimate by one order of magnitude.

However, if the planet were warmer by 5 °C, just imagine this nonsense for the sake of it, we could notice the difference but we would surely see no substantial death rate. In fact, that's about the point at which the warm-weather-related deaths would match the cold-weather-related deaths. At this point, the number of temperature-related deaths would probably be minimized. That's not a shocking insight - after all, 20 °C is the temperature we like in our living rooms - I actually favor 23 °C but it is not far - so if this is also chosen to be the global mean temperature, the planet will surely become more comfortable than it is now.

But it's amazing that those people don't realize how little 4 °C is for our planet. Every year, the seasons change the temperature at every place away from the equator by dozens of degrees. Every 24 hours, we experience a day-night temperature difference comparable to 4 °C, too. The different places on the globe differ, too:



You see that depending on the location (equator vs Antarctica are the two extremes), the annual average temperatures go from -50 to +30 °C or so. The width of this interval is 80 °C. Four Celsius degrees is just 1/20 of this width. So by moving by something like 1/20 of the distance between the equator and the poles which is 1/80 of the Earth's circumference, you may completely compensate the effect of such a warming. Many people have moved by much more than 1/80 of the circumference of the Earth and many of them survived. ;-)

A cooling by 5 °C would have a higher impact because ice sheets would begin to grow at many places which would change the environment "qualitatively": that's why the ice ages were pretty different. But that's only because on the downside, we're pretty close to a phase transition, the freezing point of water, 0 °C, when certain important things change discontinuously.

However, the continental ice sheets have been gone for thousands of years and we're extremely far from the next similar point, the boiling point of water at 100 °C. So you can't be shocked that an increase of the temperature by an extra 5 °C will make no qualitative difference to the Earth. It would be indisputably measurable if it occurred - unlike the controversial increases by 0.6 or 0.8 °C attributed to the last century - but "measurable" doesn't imply "worrisome".

I have discussed those points many times, see e.g. 13 °C of warming would be fine for life.

After a stream of preposterous statements how the Earth and maybe the Milky Way would collapse if the temperatures grew by 4 °C, another alarmist called David Spratt makes the following punch line of the article:
‘And we are talking about how we might adapt to a 4-degree warmer world,’’ Spratt wrote. ‘‘Have we gone mad?’
Well, you surely have. There is absolutely no problem for humans and others to move from 15 °C to 20 °C and there is no reason to even talk about the question how they will adapt. The only adaptation will be done by the farmers - and the adaptation will simply be that they don't have to work so much to get the same results.

Do you find it hard to imagine a world that is warmer by 4 °C? How will all the layers of the atmosphere, oceans, and ecosystems react? Well, this may be a hard homework exercise to calculate but there's a simple way to solve it: look at the map above and find a place that is 4 °C warmer than the place where you currently live. Think about the ways how the ecosystems, people, and economies can survive over there today - and you will understand how your place would be doing if the temperature increased by ten times more than it can realistically increase.

Nothing would change much.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-11, 05:39 PM   #14
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: MI
Posts: 25,005
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
They wonder why we laugh at them, Part 2:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/imag...rature_Map.jpg
I would urge all the CAGWers to jet off to conference locations that are projected to average about 15 °C during the week they are there. I would note that they seem to prefer locations that are about 25 - 30 °C. Oh, the horror. I don't know how they survive (well, the conference room has a/c, but I think golf under those conditions would kill them.)
__________________
9/11/2001 - You have awakened a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve. - paraphrased from Yamamoto
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-11, 08:54 AM   #15
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

A carbon tax or an emission trading scheme (ETS - Aussie for Cap and Trade) has been a huge issue in Australia. In late 2009 it brought down the opposition leader who supported it in favor of a new opposition leader who managed to kill the impending ETS. But Labor was still in control. Last year Labor PM Julia Gillard very narrowly won by enough to keep Labor in power and she did that only by promising there would be no carbon tax. Then she did a 180 and said there would be. There has been uproar ever since.

Yesterday Gillard announced details of the plan. Meanwhile, a new poll shows she and her party would get trounced if an election were held today.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...11/3266969.htm

Quote:
Poll predicts landslide Coalition victory
By Jeremy Thompson
July 11, 2011

A new poll, taken in the week before yesterday's release of the climate plan, has the Government losing an election in a landslide and has Opposition Leader Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister.

The latest Essential Report shows that on first preferences the Coalition leads Labor 50 per cent to 30 per cent and after preferences the Opposition leads by a massive 57 to 43.

Essential's pollster Andrew Bunn says if an election were held now it would be "getting on to the proportion of the New South Wales State election" which was a massacre for the Labor government.

Mr Abbott leads Prime Minister Julia Gillard by 39 to 37 per cent - a narrow lead, but a year ago Ms Gillard was in front 53 per cent to 26 per cent.

"This is the first time we've [Essential] had him ahead and the approval ratings for Ms Gillard have been rapidly reducing over the last couple of months," Mr Bunn told ABC News Online.

"The major movement started in both voting intention and approval from the announcement in February of the carbon pricing. The two party preferred was neck-and-neck in February and it's now 57-43."

Ms Gillard has slipped even further in outright approval, with only 29 per cent of people approving of the job she is doing as Prime Minister and 62 per cent disapproving.

But Mr Abbott's approval rating is not in positive territory either - 39 per cent of those polled approve of the job he is doing as Opposition Leader and 49 per cent disapprove.

Neither leader rates well in the eyes of the public.

Essential's last poll showed former prime minister Kevin Rudd is more popular than Ms Gillard and former opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull is more favoured than Mr Abbott.

Mr Bunn says it is not too late for Ms Gillard to rekindle her electoral chances because former prime minister John Howard came back from a similar position.

"What's going to be critical is the response over the next few months on the response to the carbon pricing scheme," he said.

The poll also shows the lowest approval for a carbon price since Essential started polling in March - 53 per cent against and 35 per cent in favour.

The results were published as Ms Gillard began her campaign to sell the climate change plan.

"I've got a lot of explaining to do and I'm going to keep explaining," she said after visiting a family in western Sydney.

"Yesterday when we launched the package I wanted to explain the way it worked to Australians and I'm doing that today and I'll be doing that for many days, many weeks, many months ahead."

At the same time, Mr Abbott was at a coal mine in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales campaigning just as vigorously against the plan.

He said he would not support the Government's $1.3 billion compensation package for the coal industry - nor the $300 million assistance package for steel.

"The best form of compensation for the coal industry is not to have a carbon tax in the first place," Mr Abbott said.

"We are not going to make it easier for the Government and its toxic tax. It's up to the Government to get this legislation through. We can't save the country from opposition," he said.

However, the package appears likely to be passed anyway and Mr Abbott is risking political pain by opposing assistance measures to industry and households.
With the parliamentary system Australia has I'm not sure when a new election can be called but the carbon tax and Gillard's huge lie should be her undoing. I only hope it is soon enough.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 07-11-11 at 07:30 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-11, 04:27 PM   #16
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Energy Secretary Chu saves us from our "bad" choices.

http://forum.dvdtalk.com/newreply.ph...e=1&p=10841346

Quote:
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Nanny Steven Chu: “We Are Taking Away a Choice that Lets You Waste Your Own Money!”
Paul Gregory

Steven Chu was a co-winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1997. That he developed methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light does not mean he understands economics, consumer choice, or politics. A Nobel Prize does not even guarantee common sense. Often it guarantees the opposite.

In a Friday conference call with reporters, Chu argued against a House bill that would repeal a 2007 federal law outlawing incandescent bulbs. Many Americans object to being told that must buy the fluorescent, halogen, and LED bulbs starting in January of 2012 as dictated by federal law.

Chu argued the more-efficient bulbs mandated by Congress save consumers money over the bulb’s life even though the up-front price is higher. Chu defended Congress’s right to dictate what kind of light bulb Americans buy because:

“We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money."

There are many things that cost more up front and “pay for themselves” in terms of longer life or lower operating costs. Think of insulation which costs a bundle but lowers utility bills, or electric cars that costs $10,000 more but save on gas. So far, we have allowed the people themselves to decide: More money now, but less later? Or: Less money now and more later? That is my or your decision.

The choice of light bulb is a classic problem of economic choice over time. Consumers, who place a high value on money now, do not buy insulation, electric cars, or fluorescent lights. We have different time preferences. People who pass on insulation, electric cars and fluorescent light bulbs are by no means wasting their money. They are making choices that are perfectly rational for them.

This basic point of economics escapes Nobel laureate Chu.

Which light bulb is better for you is not an easy calculation. The compact fluorescent costs about six times more and contains hazardous mercury, but lasts six times longer and saves energy. There are also matters of taste and aesthetics. Some will find the new light bulb shape ugly. Others will not like the light it emits, but there will no longer be any choice. Just like we lost Freon in 1995, we will lose Edison’s light bulb in 2012.

Chu says the state should make the choice of light bulbs for you, but why should he stop there? Why not insulation or which car to buy?

Welcome to the Nanny state.

-------------------------------------------

PS I cite below the EPA's recommednations for cleaning up a broken mercury bulb:


This page presents only the most important steps to reduce exposure to mercury vapor from a broken bulb. View the detailed recommendations.
Before cleanup

* Have people and pets leave the room.
* Air out the room for 5-10 minutes by opening a window or door to the outdoor environment.
* Shut off the central forced air heating/air-conditioning system, if you have one.
* Collect materials needed to clean up broken bulb:
o stiff paper or cardboard;
o sticky tape;
o damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes (for hard surfaces); and
o a glass jar with a metal lid or a sealable plastic bag.

During cleanup

* Be thorough in collecting broken glass and visible powder.
* Place cleanup materials in a sealable container.

After cleanup

* Promptly place all bulb debris and cleanup materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area until materials can be disposed of properly. Avoid leaving any bulb fragments or cleanup materials indoors.
* If practical, continue to air out the room where the bulb was broken and leave the heating/air conditioning system shut off for several hours.
I think the EPA's estimation of the dangers of mercury in CFLs is overblown like it is for most things. But that doesn't make Chu's nannyism any less wrong. His arrogance is monumental but that is true of most environmentalist positions. The guy should go back to his lasers. He's obviously incapable of understanding freedom of choice. He's been a disaster from day 1.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-11, 04:37 PM   #17
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
BearFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Flower Mound, TX
Posts: 7,622
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Thank God there is someone so wise to make decisions for me ....

For the record, we have purchased quite a few fluorescent bulbs, but there are some we have not and if they burned out, I would replace with a regular bulb (like the 14 year old bulb in the attic that gets turned on at most 10 times a year .. it would not make sense for me to spend the extra money on that bulb and a few others, because I would never make up the extra cost).
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-11-11, 05:24 PM   #18
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

I've posted this before:

A while back I bought what I think will be a lifetime supply (of course, I'm older than almost all of you). I bought double life incandescents, where available, that are only a little more than the standard bulbs. Everything: 60w, 75w, 100w, globe bulbs and 3-ways cost me a total of about $180.

My wife hates CFLs and I like her more than I like Sec Chu.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-11, 08:24 AM   #19
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Formerly known as "orangecrush18" - still legal though
Posts: 13,846
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
I've posted this before:

A while back I bought what I think will be a lifetime supply (of course, I'm older than almost all of you). I bought double life incandescents, where available, that are only a little more than the standard bulbs. Everything: 60w, 75w, 100w, globe bulbs and 3-ways cost me a total of about $180.

My wife hates CFLs and I like her more than I like Sec Chu.
My main beef with the CFLs is that it isn't made very clear where you are supposed to dispose of them correctly. You have to really go out of your way to find out where to dispose of them and if you don't have internet, you wouldn't know at all. I wonder how many have made their way into landfills?
__________________
Everyone else is bound to leave, but you.
And they swear their love is real;
They mean, I like the way you make me feel.

gamertag: IAMNOTwiththem
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-11, 10:21 AM   #20
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by movielib View Post
I've posted this before:

A while back I bought what I think will be a lifetime supply (of course, I'm older than almost all of you). I bought double life incandescents, where available, that are only a little more than the standard bulbs. Everything: 60w, 75w, 100w, globe bulbs and 3-ways cost me a total of about $180.

My wife hates CFLs and I like her more than I like Sec Chu.
my wife hates them only when she knows they are there. one time i replaced a few bulbs with CFL's and she never noticed the difference
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-11, 10:24 AM   #21
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: in da cloud
Posts: 26,196
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by BearFan View Post
Thank God there is someone so wise to make decisions for me ....

For the record, we have purchased quite a few fluorescent bulbs, but there are some we have not and if they burned out, I would replace with a regular bulb (like the 14 year old bulb in the attic that gets turned on at most 10 times a year .. it would not make sense for me to spend the extra money on that bulb and a few others, because I would never make up the extra cost).
CFL's still cost more? last i saw you could buy them for $1.50 or so each at home depot and costco
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-11, 10:46 AM   #22
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post
CFL's still cost more? last i saw you could buy them for $1.50 or so each at home depot and costco
At Home Depot I got 48 each of 60w, 75w, 100w (all double life) plus 48 globe lights (which are more) plus 12 3-way lamp bulbs (which are kinda pricey) for a total of about $180 so yes, CFLs are still more expensive.

Edit: 6 packs of 60w, 75w, 100w double lifes today are $3.47.

http://www.homedepot.com/Electrical-...searchNav=true

Get 'em before the supply goes down and prices go up.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French

Last edited by movielib; 07-12-11 at 03:53 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-11, 03:48 PM   #23
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Al Gore coming back:



As ever, everything Gore says is the opposite of the truth. The alarmists have much more money (not even close, maybe three orders of magnitude; plus his side even gets more from fossil fuel companies, particularly BP and Shell). Just a few years ago, Al boasted about putting $300 million into alarmist propaganda. Where is money anything like that in skepticism? Sure, you've seen all the skeptical commercials, right? What his side doesn't have is the science and the truth.

September 14 should be a real hoot.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-12-11, 04:18 PM   #24
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 29,732
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

According to John Kerry, a scientific "expert" is one who takes federal money to (presumably) agree with him.

http://junkscience.com/2011/07/12/wh...ocking-answer/

Quote:
What makes a scientific expert? Congressional Democrats offer a shocking answer
Posted on July 12, 2011 by Steve Milloy

What makes a scientific expert? Knowledge? Expertise? Accomplishment? Respect of one’s colleagues? A new bill introduced in Congress has a shocking new answer.

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) and Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) have proposed a rigged process to ban so-called ‘endocrine disrupting’ chemicals like bisphenol A (BPA).

The bill would establish an “Endocrine Disruption Expert Panel” to advise the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences on banning chemicals.

But to be on the panel an “expert” must:
… have received Federal endocrine-research-related funding within the 2 years preceding appointment under this subsection…
So you can’t be an expert unless you’re at least partially-owned by the politicized federal agencies that want to ban chemicals like BPA in the first place. Astonishingly, a scientist’s source of funding is what makes him expert, according to the Kerry-Moran bill.

While the bill is unlikley to go anywhere due to probable Republican opposition, it does expose where Democrats want to take science and scientists.
Remember how Obama and the Democrats were going to follow the science? They had it backwards.
__________________
-
"[It is an] absurd notion that Hillary is more legitimate because she won a game that neither candidate was playing. Both sides campaigned, strategized, and spent money to win not a popular-vote plurality but 270 electoral votes...

"We don’t know who would have won the 2016... presidential race if the president was elected by popular vote because the race would have been run completely differently."

- David French
  Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-11, 05:18 PM   #25
DVD Talk Legend
 
grundle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 12,858
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Germany plans to replace green energy with dirty coal energy!


http://www.thelocal.de/national/20110713-36277.html

Germany to fund new coal plants with climate change fund cash

Published: 13 Jul 2011

The German government wants to encourage the construction of new coal and gas power plants with millions of euros from a fund for promoting clean energy and combating climate change.

The plan has come under stiff criticism, but the Ministry of Economics and Technology defended the idea. A spokeswoman said it was necessary as the government switches from nuclear to other renewable energy sources and added that the money would promote the most efficient plants possible.

Funding for the initiative is limited to five percent of the energy and climate change fund’s annual expenditure between 2013 and 2016.

Annual funding for the new plants could total more than €160 million per year between 2013 and 2014 alone, the Berliner Zeitung newspaper reported on Wednesday.

The fund was first established to encourage nuclear plant operators to develop new, renewable forms of energy production. Now that nuclear power is to be phased out by 2022, the fund will pay for research into reducing carbon dioxide emissions from buildings, developing renewable energy sources and storage technologies for them.

Opposition politicians and environmental groups said the plan was wrong because it would promote what they argued were climate-damaging plants. They also worried that money earmarked for other valuable projects could be reduced as a result.

Oliver Krischer, a member in the Bundestag of the Green party, told the Berliner Zeitung that the country would do better to encourage more investment in energy efficiency

And the environmental pressure group Friends of the Earth Germany (BUND) said additional coal-fired plants were entirely unnecessary.

The Economics Ministry spokeswoman said that in any event, that Germany’s goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2020, would not be damaged by the new initiative.
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

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 On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:08 PM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0