Global Warming - scientific consensus - media misled us


Karlin
#1
www.dissidentvoice.org/Dec05/Adams1202.htm (external - login to view)

[I found a new news outlet!]

The propoaganda that led the public to believe that global warming is not real is guilty of conspiracy in the greatest crime of all time against the planet earth.


By definition, a "scientific consensus on global warming" is the view of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. That view is now this:
"Human-induced global warming is occurring and it is presently necessary to take action to curtail production of greenhouse gases."

But Americans don't know there is one, and so they don't feel the urgency they would if they did know. Therefore, their greenhouse gas reductions are not going to occur.

quote:
"the percentage of Americans who believes a scientific consensus exists is still disturbingly small, around 50% (PIPA 2005). This is a remarkably small percentage considering an unassailable scientific consensus has existed for well over a decade. That progress in understanding has been extremely slow is due, in no small part, to the efforts of the energy industry to misinform the public. "


Read more at the link!
Karlin
 
#juan
#2
The production of greenhouse gasses began to climb about the time of the industrial revolution. We have been building on it for over two hundred years. My first question is always: If we could stop all production of greenhouse gasses tomorrow, how long would it take for the global warming to stop. Nobody seems to have an answer to that. We may already have gone too far. As the Earth warms up, some of the polar cap ice melts and some sunlight and heat that was once reflected back into space is now absorbed and the problem increases. Life on Earth exists only in a relatively narrow band of temperatures and a mean temperature increase of only 10 or 15 degrees could have tragic consequences, for everyone.
 
Karlin
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan

.
My first question is always: If we could stop all production of greenhouse gasses tomorrow, how long would it take for the global warming to stop. Nobody seems to have an answer to that. We may already have gone too far.
.

Juan, they are saying that if we cut emissions to 1990 levels by 2012, the atmosphere would return to a balanced state by about 2040, give or take a decade.

However, if we WAIT until 2020 to cut emissions down to 1990 levels the result will be exponential, with no improvement until 2080 or beyond. Our output is that much more now that it was in 1990, each year edlay is like a decade when added accumulately.

Our grandchildren will not be impressed with us if we wait until 2020 to cut emissions. The extent of the severe weather and other changes will be, of course, much worse.

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


When people say "we have gone too far allready", it is an excuse to throw in the towel. We would like that, it is the easiest way - no more conferances, no more "one-tonne challenges", no more guilt. Ahhhh, thats better.

THINKING about global warming causes us stress, and we are overloaded allready. To protect ourselves, the EASIEST way is to find an excuse not to think about it anymore - AND WE ARE GOOD AT DOING THAT. We are just too stressed and we find ways of dealing.

Some issues we simply have to face up to. This is one of them, it should give you butterflies to consider the reality of it, and those butterflies should make us put in the energy needed to fight global warming. Let the stress of it hit you - this is real.


Don't let the media give you ways out, its up to us now to keep the pressure on.

The war in Iraq is the main competition for our headspace these days, lets turn the spotlights back to global warming eh>?

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

one more -

"Climate change illustrates the insanity of the doctrine of limitless economic growth"

- a quote from :

Her Highness, Linda McQuag authored this beauty on global warming and economics - have a read!!
www.rabble.ca/columnists_full.shtml?x=44628 (external - login to view)
 
#juan
#4
Karlin wrote:

Quote:

However, if we WAIT until 2020 to cut emissions down to 1990 levels the result will be exponential, with no improvement until 2080 or beyond. Our output is that much more now that it was in 1990, each year edlay is like a decade when added accumulately.

I have grandchildren Karlin, and that is scary. A lot of the people who can make a difference will be dead in 2040. They have to be made to care now.
 
no1important
#5
The time for talk is over, actually long over. We the citizens of the world need to rise up and let politicians know we will not put up with anymore delays or bs talk, committees etc. Even if it means public disobeidence.

I am so sick of hearing plans from governments, but yet nothing seems to be done. It is time politicians grew a pair and told their backers (Big oil, big auto and other big money donors) to go jump in the lake and listen to the people for once.

It is very scarey to think what this world will look like in 50-100 years, many sea level city's will be under water, many more people with asthma and other breathing problems, who knows what sort of cancer and other dieases people will get from all this pollution.

The time is now for action. Personally I would have no problem helping shutting down all the bridges in the Vancouver area for the morning rush hour one day. It would be great to have a world wide one day protest, shutting down all bridges and major highways to get our point across.
 
Ocean Breeze
#6
www.commondreams.org/headlines05/1208-01.htm (external - login to view)

glaciers ( Greenland) receding ...
 
#juan
#7
We seem to have two threads going about GHG and Kyoto.


www.ec.gc.ca/press/2001/010711_b_e.htm (external - login to view)
 
Timetrvlr
#8
I believe we can not only stop global warming but reverse it. See: Mitigation of Global Warming (external - login to view)

It would be expensive because it would essentially be Terra-forming, deliberately tinkering with the environment on a global scale. I thought this excerpt from the article was interesting:

Quote:

Seeding oceans with iron

The so-called Geritol solution to global warming, which got its name from a tonic touted to treat the effects of iron-poor blood, asserts that seeding the oceans with iron will dramatically increase levels of phytoplankton and therefore draw more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Scientists have conducted experiments whereby small areas of the ocean were seeded with iron, resulting in significant phytoplankton blooms. The long-term ecological effects of iron fertilisation are not known and these concerns have hindered research progress.

Other ideas involve changing the albedo of the planet so that more sunlight is reflected. There are a number of ideas floating around but first, we need dollars for more research to test for feasibility. The money to do it will have to come from governments or NGO's because the resource industries certainly aren't going to contribute.
 
Karlin
#9
Senior climate scientist at NASA is saying the Bush Administration has THREATENED him if he told the public about his findings "about global warming caused by fossil fuels emissions".

Oh ya, its a fact allrighty. Why else would BushCo have to deny it?



LINKS TO NEWS ITEMS -

NASA lead climate guy threatened by Bush -
http://tinyurl.com/c7fyo

White House aide quits after climate change row
http://tinyurl.com/beuhj

Report: "Global warming soon irreversible" -
http://tinyurl.com/bw88x


--------------
The remaining question is: "What does Bush know or plan to do when the sh*t hits the fan?" - we are all on this planet together...

Karlin
 
Freethinker
#10
A frightening aspect of the Bush whitehouse is undermining science. They insist there is controversy about man made global warning because there a handfull of sell out scientists that are in the employ of the Oil industry that claim it is not. By following this kind of technique any facts can be smeared and made meaningless.

The reality is massive overwhelming concensus of climate scientists worldwide that we are causing this unnatural warming.

I think anyone promoting the denial agenda should immediately be barred from living anywhere other than Florida for 10 generations...
 
fubbleskag
#11
lol
 
Karlin
#12
ExxonMobil makes world's biggest profit with $36bn in a year
[/url]http://tinyurl.com/dy5hnhttp://<br /> <br /> Clinton: Clim...st worry<br />http://tinyurl.com/a55x7http://<br /> <br /> <br /> K - t...knows - <br />http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012906E.shtmlhttp://<br /> <br /> I mean - how ...ays have been]
 
Alberta'sfinest
#13
Cutting green house emmissions sounds like a great idea, until you realize what it will mean in your daily life. To cut emmissions, we simply have to cut production. Well that isn't that simple because it would permanently end our way of life. By cutting production to 1990 levels, you're also cutting production labour to 1990 levels. That's a lot of unemployed people who won't have anything to do, and the rest of us wouldn't be able to support them as the rest of us would have to live below the poverty line to do so.

My point is that it's not a matter of the polititians not wanting to impliment a strategy, it's the fact that by telling us that there isn't enough for everyone, it will trigger mass panic. The implimentation of this strategy essentially signs a death warrant for all of the people who rely on consumer goods production jobs to make ends meat, rising powers like India and China would have to declare a state of emergency, everyone would be dirt poor, and the anger would spill over and become a problem for all those of us who live in countries were life is more sustainable. Who here doesn't think that the best action would be to simply manipulate people through media and economic tweaking to set us into a more sustainable attitude by reducing resource subsidies, while simultaneousely conditioning us for war? These current wars like Iraq and Afgahnistan served two purposes, to get some practice in modern warfare, and to establish puppet governments so that they can be used as offshore battlefields. Since oil is the priority fossil fuel to extending the period of transition, the middle east is likely to be the primary target for all aggressive nations with lots of unemployed people to fight. We were duped by the greedy bastards of the world, and now everyone has to pay for the majorities Bliss through ignorance.
 
Graciously Yours
#14
FUD - Fear, Uncertity and Doubt. Learn this tatic well, it is used as often as Problem, Reaction, Solution.

So, Alberta's Finest, let me ask you then. Communism fell because it failed to take into the most comman thing - human nature. What you are saying is that captalism is also destined to fail, because there is clearly an end point to your scenerio and it ends in only one way. Incidently even Rothchild, i beleive, knew this and was quoted in an interview saying pretty much what you just did. The inherient problem with captalism is that it creates an illusion of never ending potentials, when the reality is that scarcity is more than just an economic term.

In the end you, or one of your family will pay. Of that there is no doubt. The only thing we can do is to start to pay some of it off(Get used to a lower standard of living, as obviously the current one is an illusion if it is unsustainable) so that our children will have less pain and suffering(not none, but just less than they would if we did nothing, and allowed the compound problems) and hopefully they act responsibly and do their part so that their children, our grandchildren, have even less of our parents, and grandparents, mistakes to deal with.

I am not saying it will be easy, but fundamentally we have to understand that unless this issue is dealt with, we are likely giving our children a dead planet. In relation to that, is living at 1990 levels so bad?
 
jimmoyer
#15
All of you are correct if current science remains
static.

But if it doesn't and there are advances and discoveries
in new ways, new solutions, then none of your
opinions are valid.
 
Freethinker
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by jimmoyer

All of you are correct if current science remains
static.

But if it doesn't and there are advances and discoveries
in new ways, new solutions, then none of your
opinions are valid.

Your opinion is only valid if they discover breakthrough science appropriate to the problem. Assuming they will in time is just an excuse for Ostritch thinking (head in the sand).

Though I will commend most on the right here for not denying the overwhelming evidence that we have a big hand in the climate change occuring.

In the end we may be screwed because without China, USA and India any effort is shot.

But we should make bigger strides to do things that are beneficial anyway. Like strongly ecouraging fuel efficient vehicles with tax breaks, guzzler taxes. Changing car rules to allow production of ultra efficient city cars. Oil saved through efficiency would not harm the economy. More renewables for power. More Nuclear. It would be a big help in the trade balance of provinces that are net oil importers.
 
Alberta'sfinest
#17
Here in Canada, we won't have to deal with the loss of standard of life like much of the US and EU, mainly because we didn't overpopulate our land to keep up with production demands. People here will simply have to re-align themselves to a mostly domestic economy. Our oil will last plenty long enough to set up a sustainable system for our populous, and a lot of it is going on right now under our noses. Technically, apart from losing cheap products through importation, Canada will remain much the same and will probably be the torch that others will follow once their own populous gets down to a sustainable level. Most of the people here will simply go from exporting, to replacing the workers for products that used to be imported.

I'm personally working on some of the technology that will make Canada viable. I working on reducing the cost and creating a simple thermal heating system that draws heat from the ground, and then is extracted through heat pumps. The power consumed would end up being around $15 per month, but if solar or wind power were implimented in the system, the operating cost would be zero. The installation cost should be about $10,000 installed, and will last longer than your house.

Another project I have going is a new horticultural light. It uses LEDs controlled through a ballast that I designed. The power consumption of the light is about 1/6 the current grow light with the same foot print. Features also include a variable spectrum that can be custom tweaked to manipulate the appearence and taste of fruit. The power use of the light would be about 1.8KW per day.

And my last project which I have no time for is a new fuel delivery system that can be installed on any fuel injected vehicle, and could multiply mileage up to ten times the cars starting mileage. It's essentially a plate with small canals milled into it like a long winding river. As the fuel flows through the plate it's microwaved. The plate has to be kept at high pressure, so that the fuel stays in liquid form, although It's actually boiling. As it's injected, the fuel instantly atomizes, and the water in the fuel causes the combustion to multiply many times over, reducing the amount of fuel needed to make the same amount of power. The cost of the device should come in around $4000 installed. I'm going to go further with this technology by using it to build the ultimate hybrid. Instead of batteries, I'm going to use a capacitor bank to hold the charge created by a small generator that uses the new fuel delivery system. I'm shooting for 150mpg, but the car will be no slouch. The electic motors should be able to put out an equivelant of about 300hp, and through a speed control, you could program it to 150hp when you lend it to your kid, or your driving in the winter. The only downside of it is that it may need to be run on alcohol instead of gasoline, but this is likely to be the fuel of the future as we'll have plenty of extra grain when nobody else needs it.

Just in case anyone was wondering why these products aren't available yet, it's because I'm not that old, and R&D is expensive. I've thought about applying for a grant to fund the development of these products, but I don't know where to get in contact with the right people. If anyone knows where I can apply for such a grant, please leave me a link.
 
Freethinker
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Alberta'sfinest

I working on reducing the cost and creating a simple thermal heating system that draws heat from the ground, alonger than your house.

Ground based heat pump systems like this are already available.

The next two smack of snake oil big time.

You are certainly not going to get Ten Times the gas mileage with a magic carburator or fuel atomizer or whatever. Gas engines are already about 30% efficient. Meaning they turn 30% of the potential energy of gasoline into motion. So the perfect engine would only triple the rating if it were 100% efficient.

With a modern fuel efficient engine a 15% increase in engine efficiency would be huge news

The real improvements in MPG will come from smaller lighter, more aerodynamic vehicles. Regen braking and possible an electric drive system that does away with the transmission and has the motor just drive a generator. Then, in theory, the motor can always run in the most efficient range.
 
Alberta'sfinest
#19
Engines are 30% efficient, not are vehicles as a whole, they're much worse than that. I'm not making the engine more efficient anyways, I'm making the fuel more efficient. An engine is 30% efficient because it puts off 70% as heat.A turbine driven generator powering a hybrid would be the best option, but i'm trying make our current technology that used a lot of resources to create more viable.
Increasing the fuel efficiency is simply increasing it's volatility. We get in accidents, so we prefer stable fuels such as gas, compared to unstable fuels such as nitroglycerin. My system works like alcohol being heated. Alcohol at room temperature is very stable, even moreso than gasoline. Heat it into a stream of steam like in a double still and then ignite it, and the explosion would kill you. The reason is that it takes a certain amount of energy to start the reaction, but because the fuel would be closer to the ignition point, the fuel uses less of it's energy to ignite the sorrounding fuel, and the efficiency increases.The closer you are to the point of ingnition, the better it ignites. Now by using microwaves instead of a heat source, I can contain this superheated alcohol under pressure wich allows it to stay near the point of ignition while remaining liquid. As it's injected, it turns instantly to hot volatile vapor, which is more efficient as it's on the verge of combusting. It will give you more out of the fuel, but you'll still only get 30% efficiency from the more efficient reaction to perform work.

I know that ground heat based system are available, but they also cost 4-10 times as much as mine does. There are a couple houses in my area that use it, and it cost them $80,000 dollars to have it installed. mine can be installed in a weekend by someone with a little skill and plumping knowledge, and would only cost about $8000(12,000 installed) for a comparable heating system. My main focus is on reducing the price, and increasing the efficiency of current products, although sometimes they need to be completely redesigned like my horticultural light. Since the cost is similar to a boiler heating system, people start saving instantly without getting a second mortgage. Most houses wouldn't stand long enough to use enough Natural gas to make it worth investing in the current systems, so there is no incentive to having a greener home. I'm creating the incentive by offering a low cost solution with big savings.
 
Freethinker
#20
Then you are talking about combustion efficiency which is already pretty good. There is only so much energy in fuel, you are not going to get more by vaporizing etc...

I haven't found the numbers, but fuel these days is nearly completely burnt. It must be already above 80% combustion efficiency...

I think you will have more luck with the affordable Geo heat pump.
 
Dexter Sinister
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Alberta'sfinest

I've thought about applying for a grant ... If anyone knows where I can apply for such a grant, please leave me a link.

www.nserc.gc.ca/index.htm (external - login to view)

I'm inclined to be a little doubtful about your third project there, the micro-channelled fuel zapper. You're telling me I could get 320 miles per gallon in my 1993 Camry with this device? Have you done the energy calculation, i.e. how many Btu in a gallon of fuel versus how many Btu it takes to keep a few thousand pounds of car going at highway speeds? And what's up with the claim about water in the fuel enhancing combustion? Water and gasoline don't mix very well, and if you do try to mix them they'll separate pretty quickly as soon as you stop agitating them. You'll need a blender in the fuel tank to keep them emulsified.
 
razorgrade
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by Karlin

www.dissidentvoice.org/Dec05/Adams1202.htm (external - login to view)

[I found a new news outlet!]

The propoaganda that led the public to believe that global warming is not real is guilty of conspiracy in the greatest crime of all time against the planet earth.


By definition, a "scientific consensus on global warming" is the view of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. That view is now this:
"Human-induced global warming is occurring and it is presently necessary to take action to curtail production of greenhouse gases."

But Americans don't know there is one, and so they don't feel the urgency they would if they did know. Therefore, their greenhouse gas reductions are not going to occur.

quote:
"the percentage of Americans who believes a scientific consensus exists is still disturbingly small, around 50% (PIPA 2005). This is a remarkably small percentage considering an unassailable scientific consensus has existed for well over a decade. That progress in understanding has been extremely slow is due, in no small part, to the efforts of the energy industry to misinform the public. "


Read more at the link!
Karlin

just like the number of people who believed that Columbus (external - login to view) would fall off the edge of the earth (external - login to view)!

most of us would not be here today if he had
 
Jersay
#23
Quote:

just like the number of people who believed that Columbus would fall off the edge of the earth !

So why is the world getting warmer?

Why are we having more natural disasters?

Global warming, because of pollution, known fact.
 
Karlin
#24
As far as global warming goes, sure, its got to be having an effect to pump some 150 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere every year for 100 years.

But there is that other big issue - bad air toxic pollution from emissions.

We want to reduce the pollution, as well as the greenhouse gasses that cause global warming.
How? Simply Reduce emissions!! - there are two reasons we cannot deny anymore. Take your pick but you cannot deny the problem is there and the solution is to reduce fossil fuel emission. It is not unreasoanble.

Kill two bad birds with one stone - Reduce Fossil Fuel Emissions

If we have it wrong about global warming, we are still getting a huge benefit to our health by reducing the pollution. Emissions are harmfull and we have let industry make a bundle by letting them get away without cleaning up after themselves.

We can tell that we are not making any progress in making significant progress in fighting global warming until we hear our politicians start to say "Fossil Fuels" as being the focus of what needs to be reduced.
We do not hear that we must "Reduce the Use of Fossil Fuels" Watch for it, they just won't finger the primary problem product.
 
Freethinker
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Karlin

We want to reduce the pollution, as well as the greenhouse gasses that cause global warming.
How? Simply Reduce emissions!! - there are two reasons we cannot deny anymore. Take your pick but you cannot deny the problem is there and the solution is to reduce fossil fuel emission. It is not unreasoanble.

Kill two bad birds with one stone - Reduce Fossil Fuel Emissions

It seems insane that we are not doing more. Add one more benefit. Economics. We will save money if we burn less fuel.

The problem is that people generally only act in their own short term interest. I think we can only get movement with more gas taxes and more tax rebates on fuel efficient cars. The european car fleet probably has 50% + fuel economy advantage over the North American fleet because of expensive gas.
 
jimmoyer
#26
Just finished watching a 60 Minutes CBS show on
global warming this sunday night Feb 19.

1979 showed the polar cap into Canada.
Now very receded.

I think our only chance is some leadership and some
inventor to find short term profit in oil independence.

Pitting capitalists and government and environmentalists
against each other is no solution.
 
I think not
#27
The US has been increasing it E85 use. It is now available in about 43 out of 50 states. For those who don't know what E85 is, it's 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. GM, Ford and Chrysler has been spitting out E85 use vehicles at a rate of 1,000,000 per year. By 2015 it is etsimated that 50% of autos in the US will run on E85 and that's good news in my book.
 
Freethinker
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by I think not

The US has been increasing it E85 use. It is now available in about 43 out of 50 states. For those who don't know what E85 is, it's 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline. GM, Ford and Chrysler has been spitting out E85 use vehicles at a rate of 1,000,000 per year. By 2015 it is etsimated that 50% of autos in the US will run on E85 and that's good news in my book.

Not the solution. It takes more energy to create ethanol than you get out of it.

healthandenergy.com/ethanol.htm (external - login to view)
  • Adding up the energy costs of corn production and its conversion into ethanol, 131,000 BTUs are needed to make one gallon of ethanol. One gallon of ethanol has an energy value of only 77,000 BTUS. Thus, 70 percent more energy is required to produce ethanol than the energy that actually is in it. Every time you make one gallon of ethanol, there is a net energy loss of 54,000 BTUs.
 
jimmoyer
#29
But ethanol production has 3 benefits, getting
better at prices than regular gas, and as a farm subsidy,
and one more angle at oil independence.

And that's what keeps the ethanol program thriving.
 
I think not
#30
Freethinker

That's old news, here's your update:

Quote:

The US Department of Agriculture reports a net energy balance for ethanol production of 1.67. In other words, for every one unit of energy used to produce ethanol and its accompanying co-products, 1.67 units of energy results. However, the US Department of Energy reports that petroleum refining can actually have a negative energy balance. For example, every unit of energy expended in gasoline production is reported to result in only 0.79 units of energy in the form of gasoline.

www.cleanairchoice.org/outdoor/E85Background.asp (external - login to view)
 

Similar Threads

1
global warming?
by kakaufg | Dec 21st, 2009
8
Media Promote Global Warming Fraud
by Curiosity | Feb 5th, 2007
21
Global Warming - General Consensus
by PubicHero | Dec 7th, 2006
no new posts