Global Warming

[ATT]

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

At first, it seemed like a reasonable page with a guy making the case for what he thought until I started running into stuff like this every couple of paragraphs:

Our industrial and technological civilization depends upon abundant, low-cost energy. This civilization has already brought unprecedented prosperity to the people of the more developed nations. Billions of people in the less developed nations are now lifting themselves from poverty by adopting this technology.

And this (notice the copious use of the word 'prosperity' throughout (old copywriter trick):

Hydrocarbons are essential sources of energy to sustain and extend prosperity. This is especially true of the developing nations, where available capital and technology are insufficient to meet rapidly increasing energy needs without extensive use of hydrocarbon fuels. If, through misunderstanding of the underlying science and through misguided public fear and hysteria, mankind significantly rations and restricts the use of hydrocarbons, the worldwide increase in prosperity will stop. The result would be vast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives. Moreover, the prosperity of those in the developed countries would be greatly reduced.

This kinda got my goat, he's saying the data is too complex for a computer model to handle...does that mean we revert to manually collating terabytes of data? Or do we just fogetaboutit.

The computer climate models upon which "human-caused global warming" is based have substantial uncertainties and are markedly unreliable. This is not surprising, since the climate is a coupled, non-linear dynamical system. It is very complex. Figure 19 illustrates the difficulties by comparing the radiative CO2 greenhouse effect with correction factors and uncertainties in some of the parameters in the computer climate calculations. Other factors, too, such as the chemical and climatic influence of volcanoes, cannot now be reliably computer modeled.

The reason for the failure...who decided it was a failure? Don't answer that, I think I know...

The reasons for this failure of the computer climate models are subjects of scientific debate (87). For example, water vapor is the largest contributor to the overall greenhouse effect (88). It has been suggested that the climate models treat feedbacks from clouds, water vapor, and related hydrology incorrectly (85,89-92).

And then we pitch Big Oil again (...don't forget 'wealth' and 'prosperity').

The single most important human component in the preservation of the Earth's environment is energy. Industrial conversion of energy into forms that are useful for human activities is the most important aspect of technology. Abundant inexpensive energy is required for the prosperous maintenance of human life and the continued advance of life-enriching technology. People who are prosperous have the wealth required to protect and enhance their natural environment.

This reads more like an ad campaign (it's even all on one page, like the hucksters you run into selling stuff on the web), an ad campaign for big Oil...

If this guy would have just stuck to making his case without interjecting the Oil-hype, he would have been perceived in a better light, at least by me. As it is, it seems the Oil-agenda is driving his assertions and that pretty much tears it for me.

If we listen to both sides, we have Big Oil on one side and Big Oil on the other side (along with Globalist political control agendanistas, which means they're on both sides too).

Me? I'm gonna 'follow the money', because any interest group that would mount such an effort to convince the public that climate change was absolutely bogus, that Globalists were getting ready to take over the world and tout Big Oil as the savior of mankind, all in the same breath, is just so obviously 'in the pocket' that it leaves me no other rational choice.

[Cap-Z-ro]

To be kind, it would be naive to think that 'big oil' would sit back and allow a bunch of rival crooks steal their turf out from under them without trying to counter the move.

In case it gets overlooked, it wasn't 'big oil' that was exposed as criminal fraudsters in those emails.

Regards...

[Pirate88179]

I am all for 100% energy independence for the US.  And, the more I learn about things, I am all for 100% energy independence for each American as well.  Produce the energy where it is used, not in central power plants.  That is what I am working towards for myself and I hope others do this as well.  My electric bill runs about $30/month and my goal is to make it 0.  Of course, I have already checked and the electric company told me there is a minimum billing of $25/month no matter how little I use.  What a waste.

Bill

[ATT]

In case it gets overlooked, it wasn't 'big oil' that was exposed as criminal fraudsters in those emails.

Yes Cap, I know, I know...of course. Since there was criminality, I suppose I should at least wait for the indictments before making any rash decisions.

[ATT]

My electric bill runs about $30/month and my goal is to make it 0.

How do you manage that, Bill? The best I've done lately is about 120/mo (on a good month).
Of course I'm pumping my own water but have R-38 in the ceiling, double panes everywhere, wood heat, still can't squeak below the 120 mark (4 person household).