7 Ways to Save the World

[Tonington]

Did you see that paste of mine about how England is only at 2% renewables, and is giving up? If there certainly are replacements, perhaps you should let them know.

They aren't giving up, they want the binding targets dropped from 20% to 15%. A day after that report that said they were abandoning the renewable commitment, the Minister stated they want to drop it to 15%, not abandon it.

Quite true I don't believe there is a problem, but that's irrelevant to the question I posed, wherein I said I would not argue that point, but would assume you are correct. Those wedges are nice, and would have some effect, but not enough to solve the problem.

Anything to back up your claims yet? So far you've been nothing but talk on the proposals here. Are you an economist as well, or perhaps an energy expert?

Ah yes, very substantial inertia. And if you start implementing solutions that require enforcement that inertia will turn to hostile resistance. You're beginning to admit what you're up against.

The inertia comes from the fact that energy companies have spent trillions of dollars developing the infrastructure which is now implicated as one of the sources of our problem. I never once said it would be easy. I don't see it as only myself being up against it. Human society as a whole is up against it.

OK. Please come up with a replacement for JetB fuel, and Diesel.

Still no citations ehh? You'd make a good politician with replies like that.

I trust scientists who rely on evidence. You trust scientists who have a history of fraud. Yup, big difference.

I don't trust scientists, I trust the evidence. You still don't seem to grasp the difference here.

If a blizzard is coming at me, I buffer the effects by building an airtight house, insulating and heating it. Using nature would require me to do what the moose do, shelter in some trees and internalize my metabolism to produce more heat. I well understand ecological systems and their extreme complexity, but we're talking about sustainable activity such as agriculture.

You really know how to take things out of context, I'll give you that.

I understand what you're saying, but your solutions would be ineffectual if the problem is as has been stated by the likes of David Suzuki.

You're the one bringing up arguments here that no one has posed. Save your strawman for the Halloween festivities.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

http://www.allwindenergy.com/5000W_Wind_Generator.htm
Chinese way into wind energy! Look at the amount of materials they saved and the amount of electricity they are able to generate! An evidence!

Update
*July5th, 2007, 04:50PM pg.5
*nuclear update pg.6
*Sept. 30th, 2007, 06:30PM pg. 8
*also, if I said the shapes having certain properties, they don't. Just sub into the equation to calculate the rough volume and surface area of an object.
*You can also use rope to measure the exact perimeter of a shape.
All you need to do is:
1) use rope to wrap around the shape without bumps
2) mark the end of the rope with a marker
3) stretch out the rope and put the rope's length on top of a gigantic ruler
*Lactose intolerant people may use soybeans or materials similar to milk
*TVs are better HDTV or Blu-ray
*laptops are better by OLED.

Detailed Definition of Green
*As near earth as possible
*Do more with less.
More: services and or goods
Less: less material in production and less usage of energy.
>one aspect of less is allowed, however both is perfered.

Education Plan
Since a lot of people isn't doing what they normally would at high potential, here's some information about the new school system.

1)Teachers must teach all of the examples. If the teacher cannot, link the people with tutors and other people.
2)Then bring some facts about reality.
This allows the students to wonder about the real world and not get their head confused. If there are outrageous facts, allow time for the students to discuss the possible solutions to it and then attack the solution at all fronts. If the solution survives every attack, then consider it to be true in the real world.
3)Then review.

:Have extra teachers for disable learners:
:Let Friday, Saturday, Sunday to have no class; this allows injured and ill people to catch up their schoolwork::
When the teachers are teaching, make sure the students use understanding to get half of the critical points of learning, put memorization to grasp the other half of the critical points. Working hard at repetive questions to strength the student's knowledge. Please tell the students the learning at a specific level is not reality; it is to train your mind for future levels and bring interest to the students.

Use assesment quizzes to get the rough skills and enthusiasm of the people. Use real quiz to count the marks and use unit tests and exams to get marks. Get more quizzes to raise their marks.

Wait on technology&Innocent verses Experience
Wait on technology
*Wait for multipurpose, low energy consumption products, which are recyclable.
*When these items are in transition, buy recyclable, and cheap (in cost) products.
Innocent verses Experience
*Encourage work with nature or no earth no people.
*Encourage dark humour and laughter of dark challenges.
*Encourage people to take on challenges.
This is the only way to get the experience without losing innocence.

Culture and Modern World Perservation
For specific culture like the Six Nations, just do the following.
1) Raise kids 0 to 17 years old on reservs. The reservs have elders to teach and school with only facts to teach the kids about the outer and inner world. The elders give culture and the fact school provide for future ideas.
2)When the person is 18 years old, let the person to go outside the reserve to earn money for reserve and oneself
3)Retire and reducate on reserve with children
4)Come back to reserve for special occassions and holidays.

Conquerer Plan-For the I had enough and I'll kill to get peace
To let everyone do this obey of harmonic ideals, do the following.
1)Take over all the successful countries
2)Gather all information adn technology of all cultures and combine these knowledge into a database
3)Force and give reasons to people to follow the harmonics of the nature and people.
4)Reward the helpers

Backup Plan
If a conquerer do not help the earth to go green, here's how to help earth to be happy and people be happy.
1) Build chainlinked boathouses. Each house hve their own flag and numbers engraved on their door for identification
2) Build everything in a vaccuum.
3) Restore earth's forest by using industrial and biological tools
For example, if you want to plant a forest, keep it away from harmful chemicals. If a harmful chemical is found, immediately couterattack with a chemical to ease the suffering of the forest
4) Clean water using biologically and chemically

Space Travel and Outer planets
For space travel, you must know how to open and close a worm hole or use electrons to teleport one item to another. This can be achieved by the usage of a nuclear reactor. Test with an apple before you do so. If it is achievable, then we may find another similar planet to earth.

Praise to everyone who helps! Byward markets' tree planting, Candian Tire's Shelf extension similar to Stockholm, electronic recyclables, France's new actions, engineers, compost and recyclables!

Links
http://www.eastwestmed.org
health of western and eastern medicine

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...1131476242/sr=1-6/ref=sr_1_6?v=glance&s=books
Books about mud in a better form!

http://www.allmyanmar.com/new allmyanmar.com/myanmar jade.htm
Myanmar or Burma Jade

https://www.nomad2go.com/shop/default.aspx
water pressure cleaners

http://www.amazon.ca/Self-Sufficient-Life-How-Live/dp/0789493322
books to help rural people

Praise to France's actions in transportation of electric vehicles!

http://www.greencrossinternational.net/en/comm/news.html
intermediate actions from the world!

http://www.gabrielross.com/
modern furniture

http://www.healthpostures.com/height-adjustable-desk.cfm
adjustable desk. Plasma 2 desk is okay

For a nonmachine desk, check ikea's desk with copier. cost $220. If they are still there.

EastwindsTm Laptop Caddy

Chairs with addjustable heights and angle backs. Less materials as possible to reduce the distance between the stomach and the desk. Plus it looks great. Example for manager or CEO's chair: Royale Leather Executive Office Chair / High Back w/ Gas Lift & Tilt and Ergonomic Lumbar Support

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/future_enviro/index.html
environment report from the redeemed science!

http://www.popsci.com/popsci/how20/600152d7d441b010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
rocket fuel made from food! Oragnic fuels, water split and hydrogen burn, e.t.c

http://www.ewg.org/reports/rocketlettuce/
Rocket fuels in lettus form.

http://home.businesswire.com/portal...d=news_view&newsId=20071026005182&newsLang=en
More about electric cars

Zap Xebra(R) is out. Pivo 2 by Nissan is there too! GM Impact is already there!

enn.com

http://www.voiceofcolor.com/en/index.asp
Pittsburg Paint!

http://mathforum.org/dr.math/faq/formulas/
sub the formulas to get the volume and surface areas. Use triangles to make your random shape. Geodesic dome is the best!

http://www.westworld.com/~elson/larail/PE/tunnel.html
Electric rail

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Congress:Top_100_Technologies_--_RD
The directory for energy. Solar stirling is the best for now!

Please use solar sail for future purposes. If people start to do the solar sail training, this will be very useful when earth's atmosphere disappears. Search wikipedia and internet for more information on solar sail.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

Egad and god of mercy, I'm still planning and thinking. I'm not at the action stage yet.
Forgot to tell you, if the atmosphere dies, there's going to be UV problems and water is going to boil away into space.

 

[typingrandomstuff]

Short Notice
Imac all in one and type green focus center in google for related green news.

I know one part of Gaia is true: earth have its own atmosphere and its own world. It have a world sort of seperate from space. The other sorts are costly. Put garbage to space. That need a lot of work. Colony settlement need a lot of oxygen.

 

[Extrafire]

They aren't giving up, they want the binding targets dropped from 20% to 15%. A day after that report that said they were abandoning the renewable commitment, the Minister stated they want to drop it to 15%, not abandon it.

That's called back-pedaling. Just like when Stephane Dion admitted (the truth) that a Liberal government wouldn't be able to meet our Kyoto targets on time either, and then had to back pedal and say he was misquoted.

Anything to back up your claims yet? So far you've been nothing but talk on the proposals here. Are you an economist as well, or perhaps an energy expert?

You want me to quote all the experts who said those types of actions wouldn't even meet kyoto? or those activists who admit that kyoto would have no effect? You've heard enough of them to know I don't make that up.

But still, even if they're enough for Canada, how will you "bring in" the rest of the world in order to save the planet?

The inertia comes from the fact that energy companies have spent trillions of dollars developing the infrastructure which is now implicated as one of the sources of our problem. I never once said it would be easy. I don't see it as only myself being up against it. Human society as a whole is up against it.

Oh sure, blame the energy companies. Inertia comes from the fact that people don't want to reduce their lifestyle. No you didn't say it would be easy. My point is that I don't think it will be possible. Human society isn't up against the inertia, the inertia is an integral part of human society.

Still no citations ehh? You'd make a good politician with replies like that.

You want me to cite "experts" who say there are no replacements for all the fossil fuels? I suppose I could, there are a number of them and I've read their work, but I'd have to search for it, and it seems rather a wasted effort. You could already (using less effort than you have expended asking for citations) have simply typed a couple replacements for diesel and jetB fuels, greatly weakening my case. I don't even require citations, just give me a couple examples.

I don't trust scientists, I trust the evidence. You still don't seem to grasp the difference here.

I do indeed, and I've noticed you trust evidence (and the scientists) who support your point of view, while ignoring all contrary evidence.

You're the one bringing up arguments here that no one has posed. Save your strawman for the Halloween festivities.

I asked for a solution to a problem that's about to destroy the planet. You seem to think that we can control an incredibly complex climate system by altering one very tiny facet of it, like adjusting a thermostat. OK, assuming that you can, how? As yet you haven't shown me anything that will control that facet to the extent that it will have any effect on climate.

 

[Extrafire]

There it is, emphasis yours. You seem to believe that anyone who believes that climate change is a serious problem believes "the problem is as has been stated by the alarmists."

Well, that IS what I asked for an answer to.

Until you allow that there are people who do not deserve the title of alarmist, who study climate change extensively, who do not say that we must revert to industrial emission levels from about 300 years ago, until you allow these possibilities you do not allow the debate to continue along proper courses.

Oh, I acknowledge that there are such people, Bjorn Lomborg being one of them. And others too, but the media don't like them at all, because they don't subscribe to the worst case scenario. And there are others who adopt that position when challenged. But the alarmists rule for now. Common sense is not in vogue.

You have not in fact assumed that we are correct, rather you have assumed what we believe.

I get my impression of what you believe from what you post.

This thread is just one long straw man fallacy where you attack what you assume we believe. You denigrate Al Gore and David Suzuki because you believe that their failings are mine. You have absolutely no idea what sort of life I live but you have clearly assumed that I and others are not model citizens, "I suggest that you and Tonington, and Al Gore and all the rest of you guys do just that; become model global citizens", without any good reason.

True I don't know anything about your lifestyle and I may well be incorrect, but the idea that all of those who want to save the world (and that includes everyone from you to Al Gore) should set the example and the rest of us will follow is a valid one. That is, it's valid if the idea that Canada should set a good example and the rest of the world will follow is valid. You didn't respond to that point, which is how to "bring in" the rest of the world.

 

[Tonington]

That's called back-pedaling.

Call it whatever, just bringing your knowledge on the matter up to date.

You want me to quote all the experts who said those types of actions wouldn't even meet kyoto?

No, I want you to stop the strawman, and continue with the discussion. I posed answers to your question, you say they will do nothing. Using the context of this discussion, can you provide any proof against what I said. Kyoto was brought up by you, not me.

But still, even if they're enough for Canada, how will you "bring in" the rest of the world in order to save the planet?

I have very little knowledge of how foreign relations works on the inside. Sure there is stuff told to the public, but I have no idea what happens when the leadership meets. One thing I do know, is that a bargaining position is made better when what you expect from someone else, you have at least attempted yourself.

Oh sure, blame the energy companies. Inertia comes from the fact that people don't want to reduce their lifestyle. No you didn't say it would be easy. My point is that I don't think it will be possible. Human society isn't up against the inertia, the inertia is an integral part of human society.

And if the energy companies weren't saying things like "They, the ecofreaks want you to live in a hut, walk 10 miles for groceries, and wear hemp sacks for clothing" the inertia wouldn't be as bad. That is their scaremongering. They have the trillion dollar infrastructure which will eventually be lost. Regulations have been proven at achieving energy efficiency, and that's one thing they don;t like at all.

You want me to cite "experts" who say there are no replacements for all the fossil fuels?

I think you may hold the record for starwmen arguments on this site. You said the wedges would not be enough to solve the problem, and you continually assert something which I have not said. I never said it would replace all fossil fuels. Can you cite anything which would disprove the climate stabilizing wedges? How many times do I have to ask the same thing? If you have none, or can't find them, just say so and we can move off this point.

You could already (using less effort than you have expended asking for citations) have simply typed a couple replacements for diesel and jetB fuels, greatly weakening my case. I don't even require citations, just give me a couple examples.

But that is not anything I have ever said. I'm not trying to weaken your case, I'm asking you for proof of your claims that my case, as I presented it, won't work.

I do indeed, and I've noticed you trust evidence (and the scientists) who support your point of view, while ignoring all contrary evidence.

Do you trust the science in the Oregon Petition?

I ignore science that has failed the litmus test. If it doesn't accurately reflect the current conditions, then it's garbage. You have proven to be steadfast in your selection bias. Not once have you ever critiqued on this website any scientific publication I made a link to. Instead you post studies and that claim something different, some of which I did critique when you weren't posting . Get over yourself.

I asked for a solution to a problem that's about to destroy the planet. You seem to think that we can control an incredibly complex climate system by altering one very tiny facet of it, like adjusting a thermostat. OK, assuming that you can, how? As yet you haven't shown me anything that will control that facet to the extent that it will have any effect on climate.

Notice I didn't actually respond to how to save the planet. I don't believe we're going to destroy the planet. I don't believe we can control an incredibly complex system to the extent that you mention, I believe we can minimize our contribution. I believe if we do minimize our contribution, we can avoid feedbacks that would make the system much more chaotic, and unpleasant for future generations. You assume too much.

 

[Niflmir]

Well, that IS what I asked for an answer to.

Oh, I acknowledge that there are such people, Bjorn Lomborg being one of them. And others too, but the media don't like them at all, because they don't subscribe to the worst case scenario. And there are others who adopt that position when challenged. But the alarmists rule for now. Common sense is not in vogue.

This is exactly why this entire thread has become one long strawman protracted by you, Extrafire. You state here that the question is "What is the solution to the problem as posed by the alarmists?" But 'alarmists' is an ill posed concept that encompasses basically everyone or no one. I don't know what view you are imposing upon the category 'alarmist', and that is why I claim you are not allowing this debate to take its proper course. You have not stated clearly the assumptions that you are unwilling to negotiate that you impose upon the 'alarmists' but any solution that is posed to the actual problem of anthropogenic global warming you write off because the actual problem that we are aware of is not the problem of those you call 'alarmists'.

Furthermore, your initial post said nothing about assuming views about some poorly defined group, instead it said:

But let's pretend that the world really is facing a global warming crisis brought about by the use of fossil fuels, as so many of you believe. I like many/most of the suggestions because they reduce pollution but if they were implemented by everyone in Canada, it wouldn't even meet our Kyoto commitments, which would be extremely difficult. Here's why:

We have 2 choices if we want to meet them:
....
So show me I'm wrong. Tell me what would work.

So you were merely willing to admit that global warming had anthropogenic causes.Your assumptions have repeatedly been turned onto their heads and now you retreat to the unassailable position that an undefined group of individuals has specific beliefs about global warming and that the proposed solutions you are aware of now won't work because they do not solve the problem as posed by this group or because of some assumptions you have regarding politics, economics and sociology.

I have called you on this in my previous two posts. Your responses reaffirmed my view. You need to accept that what the models say about stabilisation may be true and look into the details of accurate physical predictions, not back of the envelope sloppiness. You need to accept that the industrial countries can have enough united political power to see that industrializing countries implement clean technologies in a stable manner, you need to look at the success of past diplomacy to see this not the failings of a few nations currently. You need to accept that the emission levels are not linearly proportional to economic activity and that more variables are at play than the GDP, look at the array of nations and compare their GDP versus emissions to see the failing of this view.

In short, proactive stabilisation is a solution to the real problem. Nobody thinks that a one-shot stabilisation is a solution to an ill posed environmental problem.

 

[Extrafire]

No, I want you to stop the strawman, and continue with the discussion. I posed answers to your question, you say they will do nothing. Using the context of this discussion, can you provide any proof against what I said. Kyoto was brought up by you, not me.

If I searched I could find those experts who stated that nothing that has been proposed thus far by the "global warming industry" (or celebrities) will even come close to even meeting the Kyoto targets, and that Kyoto would have no effect on climate. That's a given, everyone acknowledges that. I didn't think anyone (other than a few schoolchildren) really believed otherwise anymore. If I'd known that someday I'd actually find someone who did, I'd have kept references. You're really reaching to the bottom of the barrel to salvage your solution.

I have very little knowledge of how foreign relations works on the inside. Sure there is stuff told to the public, but I have no idea what happens when the leadership meets. One thing I do know, is that a bargaining position is made better when what you expect from someone else, you have at least attempted yourself.

That's quite true. However, when someone else states emphatically that they have no intention of following suit, you might want to assume that they aren't going to do it.

And if the energy companies weren't saying things like "They, the ecofreaks want you to live in a hut, walk 10 miles for groceries, and wear hemp sacks for clothing" the inertia wouldn't be as bad. That is their scaremongering. They have the trillion dollar infrastructure which will eventually be lost. Regulations have been proven at achieving energy efficiency, and that's one thing they don;t like at all.

Bull****. Inertia comes from people who don't want to give up the finer things in life. I know lots of people who believe like you do, and the most they'll do is change their light bulbs and (maybe) buy a more fuel efficient second car. After all, if the biggest environmental guru in the world (you know who) won't make the slightest attempt to lessen his enormous personal carbon footprint, why should they make personal sacrifices?

I think you may hold the record for starwmen arguments on this site. You said the wedges would not be enough to solve the problem, and you continually assert something which I have not said. I never said it would replace all fossil fuels. Can you cite anything which would disprove the climate stabilizing wedges? How many times do I have to ask the same thing? If you have none, or can't find them, just say so and we can move off this point.

Oh, that's what you want. See above.

But that is not anything I have ever said. I'm not trying to weaken your case, I'm asking you for proof of your claims that my case, as I presented it, won't work.

Again, see above.

Do you trust the science in the Oregon Petition?

I ignore science that has failed the litmus test. If it doesn't accurately reflect the current conditions, then it's garbage. You have proven to be steadfast in your selection bias. Not once have you ever critiqued on this website any scientific publication I made a link to. Instead you post studies and that claim something different, some of which I did critique when you weren't posting . Get over yourself.

Don't know the Oregon petition. I've only heard of it. Remember the Heidleburg appeal? Oh, no, that was before your time. I read that one. Signed by something like 4000 scientists. (Environmentalists tried to find non-scientist signatories, and thought they had one; Ronald MacDonald! But it seems there is a real scientist with that name.)

And please! you made a link to the Mann hockey stick. Like that's science!

Notice I didn't actually respond to how to save the planet. I don't believe we're going to destroy the planet. I don't believe we can control an incredibly complex system to the extent that you mention, I believe we can minimize our contribution. I believe if we do minimize our contribution, we can avoid feedbacks that would make the system much more chaotic, and unpleasant for future generations. You assume too much.

Ah! Well, that's a reasonable position (although I don't subscribe to the feedback fear). Since you responded to my question on how to save the planet, I assumed that's what your proposals were. But if you intended it as you now say, well, I think your suggestions were quite good.

 

[Extrafire]

I have called you on this in my previous two posts. Your responses reaffirmed my view. You need to accept that what the models say about stabilisation may be true and look into the details of accurate physical predictions, not back of the envelope sloppiness.

The problem is, models have consistently proven to be useless. They can't even predict current climate using known conditions. To accept what they say about stabilization is to be gullible.

You need to accept that the industrial countries can have enough united political power to see that industrializing countries implement clean technologies in a stable manner, you need to look at the success of past diplomacy to see this not the failings of a few nations currently. You need to accept that the emission levels are not linearly proportional to economic activity and that more variables are at play than the GDP, look at the array of nations and compare their GDP versus emissions to see the failing of this view.

You need to accept reality, that not all nations are as gullible as ours and are not likely to be led down the garden path so easily.

 

[Tonington]

If I searched I could find those experts who stated that nothing that has been proposed thus far by the "global warming industry" (or celebrities) will even come close to even meeting the Kyoto targets, and that Kyoto would have no effect on climate. That's a given, everyone acknowledges that. I didn't think anyone (other than a few schoolchildren) really believed otherwise anymore. If I'd known that someday I'd actually find someone who did, I'd have kept references. You're really reaching to the bottom of the barrel to salvage your solution.

For the last time Extra, I'm not arguing Kyoto. I provided strategies aimed at stabilizing the climate, not meeting Kyoto targets. Prove them wrong. If you can't, just say so. So far you're all talk.

That's quite true. However, when someone else states emphatically that they have no intention of following suit, you might want to assume that they aren't going to do it.

The message from China is one of mixed signals. Another option to get them in line is to also get America inline, as China's positioning seems to be dependent on what the US does. So by that reasoning, more pressure should be placed on the US, but it appears things are moving along finally in the US. Perhaps the upcoming elections will bring welcome change. But again, I admittedly have very little background in how foreign affairs works at that level.

Bull****. Inertia comes from people who don't want to give up the finer things in life.

You're one of those it's black or it's white kinda guys. Nice excluded middle.

Oh, that's what you want. See above.

Ok, nothing there which answers my question.

Again, see above.

See above.

Don't know the Oregon petition. I've only heard of it. Remember the Heidleburg appeal? Oh, no, that was before your time. I read that one. Signed by something like 4000 scientists. (Environmentalists tried to find non-scientist signatories, and thought they had one; Ronald MacDonald! But it seems there is a real scientist with that name.)

1992 is not before my time. It's before I was interested in this issue, but not before my time. Did you read it by chance? Could you perhaps quote the relevant sentences in that document which relate to climate change? The Heidelberg appeal does not actually specifically reference problems with environmental science, and in fact, 49 of the 72 Nobel laureates that signed that document, also signed the World's Scientists Warning to Humanity produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists. Subsequent to that original document, 1500 scientists including 110 Nobel laureates signed onto another UCS document in 1997 "Call to Action."

And please! you made a link to the Mann hockey stick. Like that's science!

I did? Where? I'm not entirely sure that I did, but even if I did, Mann's reconstruction is but one of many proxy studies which has produced similar hockey stick graphs.

Ah! Well, that's a reasonable position (although I don't subscribe to the feedback fear). Since you responded to my question on how to save the planet, I assumed that's what your proposals were. But if you intended it as you now say, well, I think your suggestions were quite good.

What is is specifically about the feedbacks that you don't subscribe to? I mean those come from the many studies which have shown that temperature leads carbon dioxide, that water vapour is indeed a strong and noted forcing, with strong and fast feedbacks, among the many other feedbacks that exist in the climate system. Natural climate change is driven by feedbacks. And we can see in the paleo data how disruptive those feedbacks are, and at what levels we can expect to see them.

In our case, even when we meet those levels, the results won't be immediately noticed, because the rate of change now happening is on scales much faster than the past natural changes.

 

[mrmom2]

China won't do a damn thing if its going to hurt their economy thats a none starter .They'd like nothing better than to watch the West bankrupt itself trying to meet some CO targets . That may or may not change a damn thing

 

[Extrafire]

For the last time Extra, I'm not arguing Kyoto. I provided strategies aimed at stabilizing the climate, not meeting Kyoto targets. Prove them wrong. If you can't, just say so. So far you're all talk

.Kyoto won't stabilize.

If your strategies won't achieve Kyoto, they won't stabilize either.

The message from China is one of mixed signals. Another option to get them in line is to also get America inline, as China's positioning seems to be dependent on what the US does. So by that reasoning, more pressure should be placed on the US, but it appears things are moving along finally in the US. Perhaps the upcoming elections will bring welcome change. But again, I admittedly have very little background in how foreign affairs works at that level.

Anyone who thinks that China will follow our lead when they've stated they won't is naive. They have expressed concern, but considering their opposition to taking action, I would suspect it's pure politics.

1992 is not before my time. It's before I was interested in this issue, but not before my time. Did you read it by chance? Could you perhaps quote the relevant sentences in that document which relate to climate change? The Heidelberg appeal does not actually specifically reference problems with environmental science, [...]

That's what I meant by "before your time". I read it. It was an appeal to science, calling for a rejection of irrational ideology. Can't recall the exact words now. It was issued before the Rio conference as a plea to the delegates, I believe. It was ignored.

I did? Where? I'm not entirely sure that I did, but even if I did, Mann's reconstruction is but one of many proxy studies which has produced similar hockey stick graphs.

You did, on page 6 (I think) of the "How the GW myth is perpetuated" thread. Nobody really admits to believing that one any more. They tried to pretend the medieval climate optimum never happened in order for global warming alarmism to appear valid. Are you still using it???

4) With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al.. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero. In the past, however, it has always been claimed that the method has a significant nonzero validation skill. Methods without a validation skill are usually considered useless.

[...] Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.

7) We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used. National Academy of Sciences

Debuking hockey stick
Was the 20th Century Climate Unusual?
The `Hockey Stick': A New Low in Climate Science

What is is specifically about the feedbacks that you don't subscribe to? I mean those come from the many studies which have shown that temperature leads carbon dioxide, that water vapour is indeed a strong and noted forcing, with strong and fast feedbacks, among the many other feedbacks that exist in the climate system. Natural climate change is driven by feedbacks. And we can see in the paleo data how disruptive those feedbacks are, and at what levels we can expect to see them.

In our case, even when we meet those levels, the results won't be immediately noticed, because the rate of change now happening is on scales much faster than the past natural changes.

I understand how feedbacks work. I just don't subscribe to the fear mongering that uses feedbacks that aren't supported by evidence, as much of the alarmism does. I read a report somewhere debunking those ones, so I'm not worried at all about it.

 

[Tonington]

I'm through with you on this. By disproving Kyoto (a strawman which I never brought up in here) you have not disproved stabilization.

 

[jack.windsor]

I think it's more lack of getting informed than anything else.

Changing your light bulbs would drop your electric bill 15%.

Change your appliance to Energy Star ratings. Drop it another 30%.

It really doesn't take alot.

Here's an interesting piece of information. If every American household changed just ONE incandescent bulb to Energy Star, it would be equivalent of removing 800,000 cars off the road.

http://www.epa.gov/region01/ra/column/archive/2006/changealight_20061004.html

i second that, I've changed pretty much all light bulbs in my house to LED light bulbs ... the quliaty of light is great I can highly recommend it to anyone.

 

[jack.windsor]

Thanks for this thread. I find it very useful and informative, moreover i am really planning to use it as plan of action.
There is cost involved is pretty much all efforts related to saving the environment, however I think those of us who can afford to take this burden should do so right now - the clock is ticking!

 

[Extrafire]

I'm through with you on this. By disproving Kyoto (a strawman which I never brought up in here) you have not disproved stabilization.

I don't recall in all our give and take, you ever commented on the sea salt option. No one did. I wonder why. Maybe because it doesn't fit the political aims of the climate alarmists.

Here's an interesting tidbit - A blue-ribbon panel in Science magazine concluded that there is no known technology that will enable us to halt the rise of carbon dioxide in the 21st century. Not wind, not solar, not even nuclear. The panel concluded a totally new technology-like nuclear fusion-was necessary, otherwise nothing could be done and in the meantime all efforts would be a waste of time. They said that when the UN IPCC reports stated alternative technologies existed that could control greenhouse gases, the UN was wrong.

“Attempting to stop climate change is an expensive act of utter futility, you might as well try to stop the clouds scudding across the sky, in fact that’s exactly what you’re doing”

“The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it. And the biggest scandal about the current global warming scam, and it is a scam, is that it’s taking our attention away from the real climate change problem. There is a real climate change problem, there’s a threat of cooling as well as warming. Cooling may have already started…the solar physicists are predicting we’re going to have a phase of global cooling. It’s not even being discussed at the highest scientific and bureaucratic and political levels because of all the frenzy about imaginary global warming.”

– Dr. Bob Carter, B.Sc. Geology, Ph.D. Paleontology, University of Cambridge, Australia

 

[typingrandomstuff]

I had some time off

Global Cooling by the other batch of "Scientists"
No. The globe is not cooling. I thought a bit about this throughly. If you look at the weather pattern for long range forcast, you will see snow and then ice and water near cities. The places where there are few people are mostly snow. There are extra amount of snow because global warming melt off a chunk of ice from the polar caps.

I forgot the cap's direction, but one part of the cap is melted. The snow is then carried to places like Canada to make it feel cold. Where there are a lot of city activities, the place warms up again to make ice, rain. This is because of the release of Carbon dioxides.

It become snow again because of the constant ice cap melting. The other reason is mining. Since there are few fuel for burning, the earth can generate few heat within the earth's core. This causes the earth's temperature to be slightly colder. Overall, human activity of fossil fuel causes that specific area to be warmer while the earth is trying to make it colder.

You can call the cold part a name, but the lack of understanding is the risk of the scientists. Read the news carefully and watch the long-range forcasts. Read books and gather information.

Efficiency
People say efficiency is not helping in enn. I do not think they understand efficiency. Efficiency is to consume less energy with more service. In this case, efficiency for people to do stuff is to spend less fuel and haul more items. As a result, I'm going to remove enn from the environment and business links. It is no longer a reliable source.

Loans and Marketplace
In addition to fend off loans in the new market, there are few changes to brokers or insurance providers. The addition is to let the company fully describe what they sell and let the government have no power above the accounting terms. Government should not be involved in market unless they are banning or taxing something. When government wants to do that, avoid it. A lot of government ban and tax items, which disturbs the market.

Use bank cards and cheques for long distance. Account the cheques according to its country of origin or use dollar signs. To ensure your money is not lost with a password, have a bank to inform you about every transaction of your account. When you are informed, you can decide weather that transaction is alright or not.

Random Tips
Paper: birch or other trees + any item with sticking proteins and is transparent at SATP as film. Some natural perfume can hide the smell.
Ink: berries, squid ink and others can be used for dies.
Other ingredients: 1/8 less of leached unpoisionous metals compress in the appropriate high temperature. For more information: go to the paper making companies.
Tides: Try to change less of the weather. It is already weird as it is.
Spills: Don't try to deliver oil in the middle of a storm.

Efficiency and Environmental
Multipurpose, low energy consumption, lower costs, higher performance, and as close to earth as possible is the definition of efficiency and environmental success.

Links
www.thesolarguide.com/renewable-energy/top-ten.aspx
Solar power and other renewable energy tips

www.seawaterpower.com
Water power

http://www.istc.ru/ISTC/sc.nsf/stories/istc-contribution-to-fuel-cell-program.htm
Fuel cells

http://www.re-energy.ca/t-i_windbuild-1.shtml
Wind turbine building

www.environmental-expert.com
It says in the address

www.poormansguide.com
If you are poor, poorman can handle that

http://www.worldinfozone.com/country.php?country=Russia
Russia facts

http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/mos/moskva.htm
Deluxe Moscow railway

http://smarteconomy.typepad.com/smart_economy/2006/05/russian_scienti.html
Russia's contribution

http://www.eco-web.com/index/category/9.1.html
more directory to the environment

http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/projects/sdp/
Russia and U.S.A partnership in solar panel

http://www.worldproutassembly.org/archives/environment/
environmental news

http://www.infiniacorp.com/main.php
solar stirling

http://www.stirtech.co.uk/home.htm
LTD. stirling technology

http://www.ebrd.com/projects/psd/psd2006/36725.htm
Hydro OGK

http://www.worldofrenewables.com/index.php
as said in web address

http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/home/natural_cleaners/
a general natural detergent guide

http://energy.sourceguides.com/businesses/index.shtml
business of world country

http://www.natural-formulations.com/Products/Laundry/Laundry.htm
products for natural detergent

http://taiwanjournal.nat.gov.tw/ct.asp?xItem=24659&CtNode=122
http://taiwanjournal.nat.gov.tw/site/Tj/ct.asp?xItem=24156&ctNode=122
links about taiwan's part in renewables

http://www.exworld.org/environment.htm
environment news directory

http://www.grassrootsstore.com/
grass roots

http://www.ethicalhost.ca/renewable-energy-hosting.html?gclid=COry6Z_A748CFQKkIgodRmBpFA
green hosting

http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/
news about some amazing facts

 

[typingrandomstuff]

That's what the president want people to believe: everyone is not helping except the west. Dig deep into the truth and you will find another. I lack the course of action because utopian failures like Hitler acted before he got the big picture. I don't want to be a utopian failure.

 

[Extrafire]

Global Cooling by the other batch of "Scientists"
No. The globe is not cooling.

Depends where you measure from. If you start 16,000 years ago, it's a warming trend, but that includes the last ice age. If you leave out the ice age and measure from 10,000 years ago, it's a cooling trend. If you measure from 2000 years ago, it's a faster cooling trend. If you measure from 200 years ago it's a warming trend. If you measure from 9 years ago it's a cooling trend.