03/29/2009 03:00:03 AM EST

I have a question for my fellow young Turks and a comment

posted by pam

Can anyone give me a list of some good sights that talks about the science and proof behind global warming?  Also, I am sooo very sick of having to read anything by our Texas "friend", Ken.  I am more upset at my liberal peers that give him the time of day!!

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook

I really want to know more about what is going on with the earth's atmosphere and be more able to tell my friends why I think global warming is real.  Other than 98 percent of the worlds scientist believe in it and the polar ice caps are melting, I don't know much.

     Now about Ken, I am a mother and as a mother I am telling most of you who do not like to hear from him to just ignore him.  Don't respond to his baiting.  Don't respond to his bloggs.  Pretend his writing is just the  strange sound you hear from the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon.  And remember the Simpson's episode from one of the "Treehouse of horrors"- where the family has to get the evil cartoon advertisment characters to stop eating the towns people.  Didn't the Simpsons learn to "just don't look...just don't look",to get the characters to go away?!  Well, just think of Ken that way.

  BTW- Ken, if you respond to my blog, I am not going to respond back.  Just want you to know I am not trying to be rude but you need to go home and play with your own kind.

< Hate crimes in Russia.Statistics for february 2009 | Obama's Inner Tom >
 Display:
I have a question for my fellow young Turks and a comment | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 hidden)
A site (none / 0)

http://www.epa.gov/climatec hange/

Also for a start on things like this in the future, try wikipedia or just simply google it.

by Hilikus9191 on 03/29/2009 03:52:55 AM EST

Ger (none / 0)
Don't respond to his bloggs.

Also, don't call his message board threads "blogs." He's not a "blogger." He's not even a "ger."

by OneHitKill on 03/29/2009 09:44:15 AM EST

IPCC (none / 0)

If you have time and want to understand the issue of global warming read the IPCC report (they are the ones who won the nobel prize).  Here is the Synthesis report of theirs.

 

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/asse ssment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_s yr.pdf

by 5kfun on 03/29/2009 09:57:10 AM EST

great links you two (none / 0)
Science ..  its refreshing to see it making a comeback.


by Chinese Democracy on 03/30/2009 04:51:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Climate Change (none / 0)
In general terms, start with using the phrase "climate change", rather than "global warming". That is what all the real scientists, engineers and meteorologist are using, because the effects vary in different parts of the world due to changes in ocean currents.

Chances are if someone is using the phrase global warming, they don't know what they are talking about. That said, the Army Corps Cold Region Laboratory has made some good observations regarding the melting ice caps.

The short version is that there was an abnormal spike in temperatures a several years ago, possibly from sun spots, which led to the ice caps receding well beyond the normal seasonal shifts. The reduction in ice cap coverage exposed ocean to more direct sunlight, thus allowing the absorption of more energy and higher ocean temperatures. (Normally the ice sheet reflects the sun’s rays back into space.)The higher ocean temperatures have hindered the ability for the ice caps to reform completely. Barring some natural disaster like a volcano eruption, the effects become exponential.

All that said, the whole thing is a terrible waste of time and energy. We have replaced real current day problems related to fossil fuels with an abstract argument that even the best scientist cannot fully discount as part normal global cycles, only that we have accelerated it.
A great example is the anti-clean coal commercial. We may be able to burn coal more cleanly, however, getting it out of the ground is different story. A few pictures of mountain top mining and stream degradation would paint a much clearer picture of the problems with coal than a desert.  To make things worse, the right is using “global warming” as an excuse to build more nuclear plants. The carbon foot print for building a nuclear plant is massive, not to mention the costs. Then there is the unresolved waste issues, water intakes that destroy river diversity and long term safety issues. Did I mention the war for oil in Iraq or the 300k people that die from particulate matter every year? 

Clearly there are better arguments against carbon based fuels. I hope this helps.

by sisco66 on 03/29/2009 10:02:11 AM EST

Be sure to read my entire post. (none / 0)


"Scientists are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet's climate. But they are not sure by how much it will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact effects will be. See the Science and Health and Environmental Effects sections of this site for more detail, or review the answers to some frequent science questions."  This is taken from http://www.epa.gov/climatec hange/basicinfo.html

 

 They go by correlation is causation. The problem with this is it is one of the first things they teach you in statitics NOT to do. Co2 is going up and the temp of the earth is going up so it must mean that Co2 is causing it. I have never seen anything beyond this as proof. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccrepo rts/assessments-reports.htm

Be warned this is a very loooong read. But this is where most of the stuff you hear about comes from. What I found most upseting about the entire thing is it appears writen by politicians or people close to politicians.

They repeated say things like "very likely" and "more likely than not".  The problem I have with this is I want acctual numbers. What is very likely? More likely than not only means a 50.1% chance, thats not really encouraging.

 They also at one point talk about the fact that Antartica is cooling for whatever reason, and then leave Antartica out of the discussion.

 My final issue with the science is that it is all because of "climate models", in other words imitation earth atmospheres by computer. What is my problem with this? they can not predict weather more than 3 days in advance with any hopes of being close and we are to believe they have any idea what will happen in 40 years. 

Funny thing is the ipcc report even says this, they cannot get smale scale models to work, only the full model, which makes no sense.

 

 All of this is why it became global climate change inplace of global warming, because they cannot be wrong now. As long as the earth changes temp they are right.

By they I mean politicians and the media. We are given yet again the extremist points of view, we have "OMG we are all going to die" and "nothing it wrong". I am willing to bet like always the truth is in the middle.

 This is much like the Y2K bug thing at this point. The news and politicians screaming about how bad it was going to be. Some places spent huge amounts of tax payer money on updates that, as we found out, where not needed.

 

 Now you may be asking why I do not trust these people. The reason is there is simple things we can do, that could even save us money, not cost us. Like baning factory farms. We know, 100% fact know, these farms are filling the groud, water and air with toxins, they treat animals poorly, waste food (the ratio of plant protien in to animal protiens out is BAD), waste and possibly even ruin antibiotics(I believe it is around 30% of the antibiotics in the country go to animals)and if global warming is real we also know that methane is much worse than Co2. 

 So why are we not talking about it? It is good for the earth, for us, for the animals and small family type farms. The only people that would suffer is big business. So they would rather save big business than everyone on the planet including the business???

 

 So my point is do not waste your time with is it real or not. If you need a reason to fight for "green", here is your reason, and anyone who fights with you over it is just dumb.

 We do not know what will happen if Co2 emissions stay at levels they are now or increase but that doesn't matter. If we continue to burn fossil fuels a few degrees is the least of our worries. The chemicals that we put into the ground, air and water is what we need to worry about. Co2 that comes out of a smoke stack is not toxic, but most of the rest of the stuff that comes out with it is. 

 In the past few months there has been a few studies that are very scary. One indicated that we could be in the middle of a mass extinction event, as much as 50% of the plants and animals alive anywhere in the world today may not be around in the not to distant future. Another study found that rates of females is up for all animals studied(normaly more males than females born for most animals) and fertility rates are droping.

In case you missed what I just said, It is possible that by the time someone reading this dies they may only see half the plants and animals they did as a child. For people that have spent their entire lives in cities that may not be a big deal. For someone raised in the country the thought of this is scary. 

 Both of these studies pointed primarly to the toxins in the environment.

 So if burning fossil fuels is a major source of toxins that are killing us, a major source of greenhouse gases that could be bad, and a major source of founding for extremist groups, why not stop buring fossil fuels? (Remember we need middle east oil, if we just stopped using their oil it would not be long before we run out of our own)

 Find me someone that doesn't agree with the bold text, and I will show you an idiot. 

 

by mattish on 03/29/2009 10:57:55 AM EST

weather vs. climate (none / 0)
Mattish had several controversial points.  The one I most object to is the comparison of weather prediction and climate change.  The explanation that small scale events can be difficult to predict compared to large scale events makes total sense.

I also read the IPCC report and was dismayed by the "very likely" language and similar terms.

One thing I would add if we are making worries is to be frightened of ocean acidification.

Oh, and calling into question the credibility of scientists for going with the term "climate change" instead of "global warming" is far too cynical. Sure, there are political reasons for using one term over the other, but in this case the political do not reflect a distortion of data to satisfy an underlying agenda.
David

by yturks on 03/29/2009 11:36:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
climate change (none / 0)
Climate change is a more accurate description of the end results. The word climate encompasses more than just temperature.  Too often our political sound bites and definitions are misleading resulting in a major disconnect between reality and our population, including the people using the terms.
Acidification – very concerning. Bobby Kennedy speaks about this quite a bit.

by sisco66 on 03/29/2009 01:24:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Climate change is not the way to say it... (none / 0)

and they know it.

  Climate change is real, the earth does this without us. As long as they just say climate change they are never going to be wrong. This is what media and politicians are likely to say.

 

 What scientists are likely to say is man induced climate change, or is man effecting climate change. This is a very real question.

This is something we do not know much about. I am a big fan of Bill Maher but when people like him laugh at people for questioning something they have been told by others is real without any backing I have to question how smart they really are.

 If religous people are stupid for just listening to other people and taking that as fact, then why is it ok to listen to someone just because they are a "scientist". Just because someone says something doesn't make it right. For a long time they all thought Issac Newton was right, and then some guy showed up and said you are all wrong, and here is why. (btw Newton was not really wrong, more incomplete. He was going in the right direction, Einstein had to redo some stuff)

 People assume that weather is easy to predict. It is not. There are a lot of factors. Sun, seasons, the weather the day before, volcanos.... this list goes on and on. This is where you hear the use of the butterfly effect, change one small thing and you could have a big change somewhere else because of it.

People also need to remember how small of a change we are talking about, for some reason people have this image of 120 deserts where there was was normally snow all year. It isnt like that.

 

 And if you are wondering what first got me looking into this extremist viewpoints I see.

 My favorite is "We will see more hurricans like Katrina, as in the Cat 3 hurrican that would not have done much had the people in chage listened and fixed the levees"

 It is the greatest threat man kind has ever faced... suuuuure. Never mind how close we came to nuclear war, or the fact that the USA has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire planet, and thats just what we have.

 

 I am sorry but when they start giving out Nobel prizes to people for climate isses that took a class in the 60s on climate, I have to wonder, who the hell can we trust? If he really cared why didnt he run for president after 2000, I cannot think of many ways to get your ideas to the public then that, and if you win you get real power to do something about it. 

 

 

by mattish on 03/29/2009 02:40:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
bah (none / 0)

 "And if you are wondering what first got me looking into this extremist viewpoints I see."

 

should read as

And if you are wondering what first got me looking into this issue, it was the extremist viewpoints I saw.

 That is a bit better.

by mattish on 03/29/2009 02:42:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
climate change... (none / 0)
Is what the engineering and scientific community are using to describe the effects and figuring out how to deal with them from a design and forecasting standpoint. As in severity of storms, flood levels and conveyance capacity. Then there is the structural engineering side as well.  Things are changing, regardless of the cause, and we have to be prepared to deal with it.


The issue of "Global Warming" is used in the political arena, but as you stated it is not accurate and only covers one aspect of possible changes.

by sisco66 on 03/29/2009 09:40:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dave, what about Ocean Acidification? (none / 0)
From Discover: No More Speculation, Scientists Prove Ocean Acidification Is Already Underway

"...The study, published in Nature Geoscience, is the first to look specifically at acidification and pin it to greenhouse-gas pollution, which is driven especially by the invisible product of burning oil, gas and coal. “It is the invasion of anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 that is causing this particular source of acidification,” said co-author William Howard [AFP]..."

Very scary and underdiscussed issue.

by Tom Hanc on 03/29/2009 02:38:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
goes back to my point I think. (none / 0)
Climate change is the least of our problems. There are other much bigger issues that we KNOW are a problem. And if we solved those problems, the climate change issue would be gone since they are all created by the same things.

by mattish on 03/29/2009 03:13:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Except that (none / 0)
ocean acidification is caused by CO2, meaning the bottom line is that we need to address CO2.

We can worry about which climate change effects are worse later.

by Tom Hanc on 03/29/2009 05:04:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
right (none / 0)

That is what I am saying.

Ground, water, air being filled with toxins? Yes

Ocean acidification? Yes

Terrorist funding? Yes

Climate change? It is possible

 

 So we can all agree that the first 3 are very bad, and the fourth are probably bad. They are all caused by, at least in part, the same thing.

We cut out fossil fuels and we at least reduce some of the damage being done. There are other things we need to do but it appears this would be the biggest part. Doesnt matter how you look at it, being alive > being dead. 

by mattish on 03/29/2009 08:31:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, that's the bottom line (none / 0)
Even if someone doesn't believe in the global warming piece, there are other excellent reasons to stop burning fossil fuels.

Far too many conservatives and libertarians can't seem to grasp that concept...some just enjoy the role of contrarian too much.

by Tom Hanc on 03/29/2009 08:39:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
exactly (none / 0)
So why open the door for them to distarct everyone on this issue. Particularly given the nuclear angle they have been using.

by sisco66 on 03/29/2009 09:48:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think you are talking about this. (none / 0)

 "All of this is why it became global climate change inplace of global warming, because they cannot be wrong now. As long as the earth changes temp they are right."

 

 My point isnt that scientists are doing this. It all looks like politicians are doing it. The language used makes me wonder.

On the very rare times I see a real scientist talk about this issue they use very different language than this.

 

 My issue is they are turning an important issue into a political issue. This is the kind of crap that causes things not to get done that should be.

 This is like the issue of recycling, people running around screaming that we are going to be buried in garbage and the truth was not even close to that. Then programs got started to recycle products that are more harmful to recycle then toss in a landfill. So in the end people that thought they where helping the earth are likely to have done as much or more damage then what would have happened had they done nothing. 

 

 You can think of it this way. There is a room full of people from all walks of life, they are locked in this room, the walls of the room burst into flames. What happens? Everyone in the room is going to try to put out the flames. They will use whatever they can come up with and there will be little discussion.

 Now same idea as before and we toss in some politicians. What happens? The politicians trick everyone into arguing over who started the fire and which type of hose to use to put out the fire. Truth is that it doesnt matter who started the fire or what type of hose you use, just put out the  god damned fire before everyone dies. 

by mattish on 03/29/2009 03:32:16 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Understand (none / 0)

I am not sure how much you understand about science and math topics but do you understand the concept of radiation , radiative forcing, and half life?

Radiative Forcing

 

 If you understand this concept you will understand why the planet will warm.  Yes climate change is a scientifically correct term, but so is global warming.  When the radiative forcing increases the net energy into the planet the globe will have to warm in order to equilibriate, hence the term global warming.  On a global scale the temperature will go up, on a local/regional scale the climate will change in varying ways, up down temp/precipitation/winds, etc etc.

 

 

by 5kfun on 03/29/2009 02:33:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
GW vs CC (none / 0)
Changes in ocean current will result in some places being warmer and some places bieng colder. It also mean that some places will get more rain and other places will get less. To make it worse, it will be in constant transition.

Global warming is a bit one dimensional and one size fits all for the true nature of the problem.

All that said, the solutions are the same.

by sisco66 on 03/29/2009 09:46:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bush Co (none / 0)

Glad to see you are buying into the Bush Co. message propigated by Frank Luntz

 

The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist" ;, because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".

 

Why climate change over global warming? "while global warming has catastrophic communications attached to it, climate change sounds a more controllable and less emotional challenge"

 

by 5kfun on 03/29/2009 10:29:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
the opposite is true (none / 0)
In reality the opposite is true. I am engineer and this is a huge issue in my field. These changes are having real consequences, catastrophic consequences.

Do yourself a favor and look up the word climate, then you will understand. This has nothing to do with whether your left of right, or what the cause is.


by sisco66 on 03/30/2009 07:49:06 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't insult my intelligence (none / 0)

I too am an engineering working on this problem, and I have some formal training in Air Quality Engineering.

 

The terms "Global Warming" and "Climate Change" are both technically true.  On a Global scale the radiative forcing caused by the species above will lead to an increase in the earths mean temperature, a "Global warming."  Because of the impact of decreased salinity and increased energy on Ocean Currents which will in turn impact the moisture distributed by the Hadley Cells there will be local instances of Climate Change. 

It is like the difference between Liberal and Progressive.  The far right is trying to smear the term Global Warming like the smear Liberal and the "Democrat Party."

by 5kfun on 03/30/2009 08:52:08 AM EST

[ Parent ]
air and water quality very good (none / 0)
Excellent,


So you understand that because of hydrological cycle, air and water quality are tied together. At least water quality is partially dependent on air quality. I have not played with a global climate model in years, but I am actively involved in water resource engineering and conservation. In addition our federal highway funds are tied directly to air quality models, in meeting attainment for VOC’s and NOx. Unfortunately, that becomes a political game, with too many loop holes.
That said, the EPA is now treating stormwater discharges as sewer discharges, with very strict standards on nitrogen byproducts and phosphorus. A good portion of the nitrogen problem in our waterways is due to atmospheric decomposition of NOx from atuo emmissions.  Imagine what the effects are from India and China.
Since you are in the field, I am very surprised by your adamant defense of a one dimensional description.  I don’t perceive the same dilution of the underlying problem by giving it a more encompassing title.  Acidification is perfect example.

All that said, you would be in agreement that we need fully electric and hydrogen cell cars ASAP?

by sisco66 on 03/30/2009 06:40:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why? (none / 0)

When describing a problem in a 2 word catchphrase there are concerns beyond what is the scientific connotation.  Global Warming sounds more severe and congures an emotional impact on general citizens, Climate Change sounds more benign.  If you want to get to real solutions you need the citizens fired up - so using the phrase Global Warming is preffered.

 

I think the PHEV (like the volt) are great solutions, but the only true solution is rethinking the community.  The problems associated with Hydrogen generation, storage, and distribution make Fuel Cell cars a very infeasible solution.   

by 5kfun on 03/30/2009 07:24:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Radiative forcing (none / 0)
In my mind this needs to be the real focal point of climate change discussions.  The important factor is not CO2 or GHG it is radiative forcing.  This is what we really need to be monitoring and managing within a reasonable range. 

As a fun side note with radiative forcing, much of the "Aerosol" category is particulate air pollution from burning fossil fuels.  In a way one type of pollution has been helping to balance another (much like Mr. Burns diseases in the one episode of the Simpsons...I'm invincible!). 

by alphasigmookie on 03/30/2009 02:41:50 AM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm not quite agreeing with that (none / 0)
That's like saying we should be monitoring the symptoms rather than the concentrating on the cause of the disease.  Sure, you treat the symptoms if you can, and especially when that's all you can do, but ultimately your best bet is to find the underlying cause and fix it.  CO2 is one of the things we can control, they know it is a factor, and so we ought to do what we can to control it. 

by bfaul on 03/30/2009 05:00:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
people speaking my language (none / 0)

I didn't realize that in the TYT community there are so many other people (2 at least) who seems to think of human-induced climate change the same way I do. It's real, but it's overblown and a distraction.

David

by yturks on 03/29/2009 11:15:57 AM EST

amen! (none / 0)
  A distraction is an understatement when you consider the justification for more nuclear plants.

by sisco66 on 03/29/2009 01:15:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
World War (none / 0)

So you must think that the strong possibility of massive migration leading to regional wars that could develope into nuclear war is an overblown concern?

 

http://www.grist.org/pdf/Ab ruptClimateChange2003.pdf

 

As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor.

by 5kfun on 03/29/2009 02:35:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
yes (none / 0)
given that most of those places have an abundance of sun or wind. The reason that all these fringe countries have nukes now is because we gave it to them back in the 1970's.  It has not worked out so well for us, eh?

Globalization has not helped us either. We cut our own throats by shipping jobs and technology overseas only to increase competition for the limited resources.  Hopefully it is not too late to turn things around. And we certainly don’t need any more nuclear plants here to do it.

by sisco66 on 03/29/2009 09:56:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
See my comment about ocean acidification (none / 0)
Then we'll talk!

But seriously, this newly confirmed threat from climate change seems like a more immediate one.

by Tom Hanc on 03/29/2009 02:40:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Rain? (none / 0)
How much of this is caused by rain? Polluted rain that is. Auto emissions and coal fired electric plant load up the atmosphere with nitrogen and sulfur that form acid rain. Just think about China and India.

by sisco66 on 03/29/2009 10:01:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
CO2 (none / 0)
CO2 dissolved in water and leads to acidification.

by 5kfun on 03/29/2009 10:24:52 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Acid Rain (none / 0)
and acid rain is caused by what? And the ocean have are made up of what?

by sisco66 on 03/30/2009 07:50:42 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Difference (none / 0)

There is a difference, a huge difference, between acid rain and ocean acidification.  Acid Rain is more of a problem impacting fresh-water lakes while ocean acidification is due mainly to dissolved CO2.

Also you will note that we do not directly emit the acids that rain down on us, there is a lot of gas phase chemistry going on - but we do directly emit the CO2 that dissolves as carbonic acid.

by 5kfun on 03/30/2009 08:57:17 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Apparently I don't need to. (none / 0)
The same burning processes that create CO2 also create acid rain.  If you notice, my initial comment was actually a question. Burning coal has already caused mercury content in some fish to be too high for regular human consumption.  So how much of the acidification is due to dumping and other man made emissions besides CO2? Do you think every issue has one cause and one solution?

by sisco66 on 03/30/2009 06:04:47 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Causes and Solutions (none / 0)

I think every problem has multiple causes, and multiple solutions.  But I am also a realists, and I know you can only do a limited amount of things at a time.  Figuring out what the major problems are, then working to tackle those problems leaves you a lot better off than trying to tackle everything and failing.

by 5kfun on 03/30/2009 07:27:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
solutions (none / 0)
Don't you think that getting off of fossil fuels will be a big step in solving numerous problems? Healthcare costs, trade deficit, auto industry, need for a military presence in the middle east, CO2 and acidification, not to mention creating millions of jobs in the process.

by sisco66 on 03/30/2009 09:51:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Big Step (none / 0)

Getting off Fossil Fuels is more than 1 step, it is many, many, many, many steps.

 

Our whole industrial society is based off burning fossil fuels for heat, power, and electricity.  It is going to take at least a generation to shift away from coal/nat gas/petrol.

by 5kfun on 03/30/2009 11:30:56 PM EST

[ Parent ]
electric car (none / 0)
We are ready to force GM into bankruptcy, rather than helping accelerate the one product that could save the country from a whole host of problems, and the world for that matter.

We just went through the biggest housing boom in modern times. Unfortunately, Enron helped twiddle down the energy code in 2000. This is a huge topic, way to much for a thread. Having bought a new home a few years ago, I was appalled by what has happened to energy standards. I had no idea they went backward, much like the autos did.

We have to have a holistic approach while we have the public’s attention.  

by sisco66 on 03/31/2009 07:31:15 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Coal (none / 0)
Also note that we have lots of coal!  Coal is a fossil fuel, and can be cleaned up somewhat.  If you are truly concerned about all of those things you mention then you will support "clean" coal as an interim step. 

by 5kfun on 03/30/2009 11:32:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
yes but... (none / 0)
Clean coal is a myth. Tell me how to get it out of the ground without polluting everything around it or leaving a legacy of leaching and fires and I might buy in. Ask Bobby Kennedy how he feels about it.

That said, we need a transition period.

by sisco66 on 03/31/2009 07:23:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Si (none / 0)
Tell me how you get the Si out of the ground for solar panels without doing the same damage.   There is no such thing as a "free lunch"

by 5kfun on 03/31/2009 08:07:04 AM EST

[ Parent ]
is there a comparison? (none / 0)
I actually had to look it up. I had never thought about it.
It does not appear that there is any comparison to mountain top mining or the legacy effects. Plus it is renewable, not one and done. Our whole world is built on si chips at this point.

good try though

by sisco66 on 03/31/2009 09:55:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
reply (none / 0)
I was going to reply to this comment but decided to post a separate blog in response.  Maybe it is just my narcisim, but I think the topic needs more discussion and didnt' want my amazingly inciteful comments to get lost in the flow of this thread. 

by alphasigmookie on 03/30/2009 02:24:11 AM EST

[ Parent ]
To the fellow americans (none / 0)

As much as I respect the american  values there are many other things I dislike as well and one of the things I find damaging to the US  is a current divisive politcs  over who is right and who is wrong which is in my opinion consuming America from the inside in negative way.

  It hurts me to see how american people underestimating the problems they are in right now,particularly the economic crisis which is unprecedented with possible elevation into a full blown economic chaos and to waist time blaming each other over mistakes when you guys have a huge closing in tsunami threat if the nation is not going to act properly to the facing challenges is to me just absolutely ignorant.

 The nasty politics behind the blame game is unfortunetly turning the attention away from the real problems and solutions to resolve the issues.

 I just wanna remind you peeps that divisive politics had brought down many great nations as history teaches us and it will do so.The society must be united in tough times and that's the only way to confront the problems.

 

by Ryskeldi Satke on 03/29/2009 12:53:43 PM EST

yep (none / 0)
I 100% agree with you. However, when one group is still tryng to rewrite history after causing the second republican great depression in 100 years, it is very hard to remain civil, let alone find common ground.

by sisco66 on 03/29/2009 01:26:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The same group that... (none / 0)

Wont let us clean our enviroment.

Wont let us stop wars.

Wont let us get proper healthcare.

Wont let us do anything useful.

  I do not care about them anymore. Civil? to hell with them. They are putting me and my family at risk by refusing to do anything about anything.

Civil? The crazy bitch is right, people need to be armed and dangerous. Armed with open palms to slap the stupid out of the people that are holding the rest of us hostage. Need to slap the crazy bitch first :)

by mattish on 03/29/2009 03:08:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
My feelings (none / 0)
exactly!

by sisco66 on 03/29/2009 09:14:44 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Amen (none / 0)
Man, do I feel your resentment.  I thought Osama bin Laden was bad, but he can't come close to doing the damage these people are capable of doing.   He managed to kill thousands of people with deliberate planning.  Their lack of planning is likely to kill hundreds of millions, possibly billions.

by bfaul on 03/30/2009 04:43:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
try this one in particular (none / 1)

The main site that I like to visit on this topic is http://www.realclimate.org/

This is a site where actual climate scientists blog about various climate topics.  They will talk about new scientific literature that comes out on the topic, press releases that get it right or get it wrong as far as the science goes and other areas of interest in the field.  Most of them have been measuring ice cores and water and atmospheric conditions for years, long before it was a political hot topic.  I trust their opinions because they actually take the measurements and create and tweak the models that attempt to make sense of an extremely complicated topic.  They are not alarmist or reactionary but they no longer question the reality of man-made climate warming.  As far as they're concerned general scientific opinion has long since accepted that it is happening and the measurable evidence is moving inexorably toward its validation.

They have numerous links to other climate opinions and sites.

by bfaul on 03/30/2009 04:34:52 PM EST

Article to Read (none / 0)
Here's a good recent article on Slate.com about how the obsession with global warming is a distraction from other threats.

http://www.slate.com/id/221 6012/

by yturks on 04/22/2009 10:02:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I have a question for my fellow young Turks and a comment | 53 comments (53 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: