Who still believes in Global Warming?

[alanspoil]

Global warming was a joke, clearly

[curious]

This is what gets me about the climate change fruit cakes. First, they used the phrase "global warming" and tried to get everyone's emotions all riled up over "global warming". Then, when the scientific community pointed out that there was no "global warming" they changed their emotion laden catch phrase to "climate change" so that ANY change in the climate is attributed to fossil fuels.

Second, these fruitcakes never offer any REASONABLE solutions that can be accomplished in the short term. They only want to talk about an energy tax or solar panels or windmills. There are several problems with solar panels and windmills. Solar panels don't work when the sun isn't shining, and they don't work well when there is cloud cover, and their cost is astronomical. Windmills don't work when the wind isn't blowing. And, their cost is astronomical.

What bothers me is that electricity consumption in the United States could be reduced drastically if a few very reasonable technologies were used. These technologies have a well proven track record, are easy to do, and there are many people who already have the skills to provide them. If cutting electricity consumption was the real goal of the climate change fruitcakes (it isn't) we could easily achieve this. I'll give you just two solutions.

First, heating water consumes about 25% of the electricity used in homes. Solar hot water heaters could drastically cut this down to somewhere around 5%. A 20% reduction in electricity consumption is huge. All the homes in the United States could be retrofitted with solar hot water heaters in around five years. A solar hot water heater can be installed for around $1500. The payback period is between 3 and 5 years. The federal government could make loans available through the electric companies, the home or apartment owner's electric bill would stay the same for five years, then would be reduced after the loan is paid back. This plan would put over a million people to work manufacturing and installing solar hot water heaters. If you expand the program to the commercial and industrial sector then you would see huge savings. The best thing about this is that it doesn't actually cost anything because the money spent to install the solar hot water heating systems is reclaimed by reduced electricity bills.

Second, insulation is drastically inadequate. The building codes that cover insulation in new homes are laughable. Blowing insulation in the attic on top of the ceiling is preposterous. NASA developed a radiant barrier that rejects heat loss and returns the heat back to the source. So, in the winter time instead of all of your heat going out through the ceiling, use of a radiant barrier would turn the heat movement back into the home. In the summer time the radiant barrier would reject the heat trying to enter the home through the ceiling. Changing the building codes so that homes are properly insulated would cut electricity consumption for heating and cooling costs by 80%. Existing homes can be retrofitted and save 60%.

These two things, installing solar hot water heaters and using radiant barriers instead of the pink insulation (one of the biggest frauds in the history of mankind) would save 60% of home electricity usage. And they don't cost very much.

How is it then that the climate change nutjobs NEVER talk about these two solutions? I don't buy the climate change arguments but I would be in total support of a MANDATORY federal program administered through the electricity companies to provide solar hot water heaters and retrofitting the insulation in existing buildings (to use something that actually works). Both programs wouldn't cost very much and they would pay for themselves in roughly 5 years. AND, electricity consumption for the residential market would be cut by at least 60% (this is a low number, the actual number is much higher).

NOTHING that the climate change nutjobs will cut electricity consumption for the residential market by 60%, or will provide 60% of electricity by "natural" means in any time frame that has any meaning to us. Why is it then that these types of easy to do solutions are not being promoted by the climate change nutjobs? They only want to talk about an energy tax or technologies that will cost trillions and trillions of dollars and take centuries to implement, and don't work anyway.

[Hotdiggity11]

This is what gets me about the climate change fruit cakes. First, they used the phrase "global warming" and tried to get everyone's emotions all riled up over "global warming". Then, when the scientific community pointed out that there was no "global warming" they changed their emotion laden catch phrase to "climate change" so that ANY change in the climate is attributed to fossil fuels.

Uh, global warming and climate change are the same thing. Global warming is just a specific type of climate change. On top of that, both terms are still used frequently by the scientific community. This argument is so boring/over-used and shows you know nothing about scientific terminology and probably got the talking point off of some political talk show or chain letter.


Next.

[pavyracer]

This is what gets me about the climate change fruit cakes. First, they used the phrase "global warming" and tried to get everyone's emotions all riled up over "global warming". Then, when the scientific community pointed out that there was no "global warming" they changed their emotion laden catch phrase to "climate change" so that ANY change in the climate is attributed to fossil fuels.

Second, these fruitcakes never offer any REASONABLE solutions that can be accomplished in the short term. They only want to talk about an energy tax or solar panels or windmills. There are several problems with solar panels and windmills. Solar panels don't work when the sun isn't shining, and they don't work well when there is cloud cover, and their cost is astronomical. Windmills don't work when the wind isn't blowing. And, their cost is astronomical.

What bothers me is that electricity consumption in the United States could be reduced drastically if a few very reasonable technologies were used. These technologies have a well proven track record, are easy to do, and there are many people who already have the skills to provide them. If cutting electricity consumption was the real goal of the climate change fruitcakes (it isn't) we could easily achieve this. I'll give you just two solutions.

First, heating water consumes about 25% of the electricity used in homes. Solar hot water heaters could drastically cut this down to somewhere around 5%. A 20% reduction in electricity consumption is huge. All the homes in the United States could be retrofitted with solar hot water heaters in around five years. A solar hot water heater can be installed for around $1500. The payback period is between 3 and 5 years. The federal government could make loans available through the electric companies, the home or apartment owner's electric bill would stay the same for five years, then would be reduced after the loan is paid back. This plan would put over a million people to work manufacturing and installing solar hot water heaters. If you expand the program to the commercial and industrial sector then you would see huge savings. The best thing about this is that it doesn't actually cost anything because the money spent to install the solar hot water heating systems is reclaimed by reduced electricity bills.

Second, insulation is drastically inadequate. The building codes that cover insulation in new homes are laughable. Blowing insulation in the attic on top of the ceiling is preposterous. NASA developed a radiant barrier that rejects heat loss and returns the heat back to the source. So, in the winter time instead of all of your heat going out through the ceiling, use of a radiant barrier would turn the heat movement back into the home. In the summer time the radiant barrier would reject the heat trying to enter the home through the ceiling. Changing the building codes so that homes are properly insulated would cut electricity consumption for heating and cooling costs by 80%. Existing homes can be retrofitted and save 60%.

These two things, installing solar hot water heaters and using radiant barriers instead of the pink insulation (one of the biggest frauds in the history of mankind) would save 60% of home electricity usage. And they don't cost very much.

How is it then that the climate change nutjobs NEVER talk about these two solutions? I don't buy the climate change arguments but I would be in total support of a MANDATORY federal program administered through the electricity companies to provide solar hot water heaters and retrofitting the insulation in existing buildings (to use something that actually works). Both programs wouldn't cost very much and they would pay for themselves in roughly 5 years. AND, electricity consumption for the residential market would be cut by at least 60% (this is a low number, the actual number is much higher).

NOTHING that the climate change nutjobs will cut electricity consumption for the residential market by 60%, or will provide 60% of electricity by "natural" means in any time frame that has any meaning to us. Why is it then that these types of easy to do solutions are not being promoted by the climate change nutjobs? They only want to talk about an energy tax or technologies that will cost trillions and trillions of dollars and take centuries to implement, and don't work anyway.

Solar Heaters: What you don't understand is they don't work in freezing weather. So if it's 25 degrees outside the water will freeze and burst the pipes in your solar heater. Now if all the US had Florida weather this could be feasible. Then you have the other problem on how to secure a solar heater on a house in Florida where you have to design the supports for hurricane winds else it will become a projectile.

So if you can't use solar heaters as the main source of heating water in 90% of the US households is not feasible. Because a house in New York or Chicago will have to use electricity or gas to heat the water for 6 months per year at which time the solar heater has to be emptied from water else the pipes will burst in freezing weather.

[rkelly110]

What I meant as far as LA was concerned, is the lack of smog, that was caused by humans
and their cars.

[Hotdiggity11]

What I meant as far as LA was concerned, is the lack of smog, that was caused by humans
and their cars.

Chattanooga used to be notorious for smog. Still has it to an extent [Since it will take a while longer for past environmental effects to fade away] but it is a pretty environmentally friendly city now. Part of the solution involved mandatory emissions testing for vehicles.

[pavyracer]

Chattanooga used to be notorious for smog. Still has it to an extent [Since it will take a while longer for past environmental effects to fade away] but it is a pretty environmentally friendly city now. Part of the solution involved mandatory emissions testing for vehicles.

Also removing all the steel mills and other heavy manufacturing helped a lot. Chattanooga sits in a valley by the river and is surrounded by mountains which traps all the emissions creating the smog since the wind can't blow it away.

[floridagolfer]

Global warming is real. Making a connection between that and sports wagering, however, you've lost me.

[Hotdiggity11]

Also removing all the steel mills and other heavy manufacturing helped a lot. Chattanooga sits in a valley by the river and is surrounded by mountains which traps all the emissions creating the smog since the wind can't blow it away.

Well, they pushed a lot of the industry into the south side of Chattanooga [Which is now among the shittiest part of the area] but yeah, the natural terrain sure didn't help the city's cause.

[ChileCheese]

Here is what I dont get about the people who deny global warming,,, lets use American Conservatives, or Republicans as an example...
YOU ARE GOING TO DIE TOO!
AND YOUR CHILDREN!
AND YOUR GRANDCHILDREN!

[Hotdiggity11]

Here is what I dont get about the people who deny global warming,,, lets use American Conservatives, or Republicans as an example...
YOU ARE GOING TO DIE TOO!
AND YOUR CHILDREN!
AND YOUR GRANDCHILDREN!

[Turd Ferguson]

And those of us who don't listen to the radio or watch TV news get our information where? Comic books?

Actually I was thinking men's room walls.

A lot of the libertarians/conservatives/wingers or whatever give the same talking points that I see scrawled on shithouse walls in truckstops(except for the "best BJ in Louisville" type stuff).

[curious]

Uh, global warming and climate change are the same thing. Global warming is just a specific type of climate change. On top of that, both terms are still used frequently by the scientific community. This argument is so boring/over-used and shows you know nothing about scientific terminology and probably got the talking point off of some political talk show or chain letter.


Next.

You come on here and talk complete nonsense but pretend that you are "smart". I don't watch political talk shows and I don't read chain letters. Come up with another inane insult that you like to hurl at anyone who doesn't believe the same nonsense that you believe.

[Hotdiggity11]

You come on here and talk complete nonsense but pretend that you are "smart". I don't watch political talk shows and I don't read chain letters. Come up with another inane insult that you like to hurl at anyone who doesn't believe the same nonsense that you believe.

As of now, you haven't been able to back up anything you've said. On top of that, you display the fact you have very little knowledge about this topic, going by the fact that you think "global warming" has somehow been substituted for "climate change" when global warming is a type of climate change and thus the terms are often used together. Take a few months out to actually educate yourself on this topic then come in here and discuss it.

[Facepunch]

Here is what I do not understand about global warming.

If we are set to reach Peak oil by 2020, won't that effect the situation . Won't it kind of work itself out. I understand that more than 50% of our country runs on Coal, but there are many "fixes" being implemented to clean it up as much as you can such as the scrubbers and sluries that take out much of the pollution using limestone.

We are taking great steps to advance solar and wind power. Aside from going to war with developing countries like India and China I think that we are doing great things to limit pollution.
Cars are becoming more efficient etc.
If global warming is truly affected greatly by man, then aren't we on the right track?
Why do we need expensive taxation and legislation that does nothing to solve the problem? We already give tax breaks for energy saving appliances and solar panels etc.

[nyed1010]

Very interesting discussion/debate going on here. I think I read something earlier about the whole "climategate" issue. I thought I would post an article from factcheck.org that pertains to climategate:

[d1m@]

I think global warming is real, but it doesn's mean just tempreture rising, its a climate change, caused by us , and one thing is a fact, if we continue our current way we will **** earth very soon.

[DwightShrute]

All you guys that believe in the man made global warm hoax will end up being born in the an igloo in your next life. You will spend your days hunting seals and drinking seal blood.

[Hotdiggity11]

All you guys that believe in the man made global warm hoax will end up being born in the an igloo in your next life. You will spend your days hunting seals and drinking seal blood.

So you're saying I'm going to be Sarah Palin's 6th child? Good god...

[DwightShrute]

So you're saying I'm going to be Sarah Palin's 6th child? Good god...

[rkelly110]

I don't think all this crap about the weather/climate is going make any difference who's
fault it is. One great big eruption will send us in an ice age so fast we won't know what
hit us.

Didn't it snow in the middle of summer back in the 1800's after a huge eruption half way
on the other side of the world? Watching the discovery channel helps when discussing
these topics.

[curious]

Here is what I do not understand about global warming.

If we are set to reach Peak oil by 2020, won't that effect the situation . Won't it kind of work itself out. I understand that more than 50% of our country runs on Coal, but there are many "fixes" being implemented to clean it up as much as you can such as the scrubbers and sluries that take out much of the pollution using limestone.

We are taking great steps to advance solar and wind power. Aside from going to war with developing countries like India and China I think that we are doing great things to limit pollution.
Cars are becoming more efficient etc.
If global warming is truly affected greatly by man, then aren't we on the right track?
Why do we need expensive taxation and legislation that does nothing to solve the problem? We already give tax breaks for energy saving appliances and solar panels etc.

A couple of problems with your post. First, Peak oil is a myth. I leave it to you to read up on why this is true.

"We are taking great steps to advance solar and wind power". Not true. Total electricity production in 2009 was 3.9 billion megawatt hours. Total electricity production from solar in 2009 was 891 thousand megawatt hours. Solar accounts for .022275 % of electricity production.

Wind fared better, out of the total 3.9 billion megawatt hours, wind produced 73.9 million megawatt hours. Let's see 73.9 million divided by 3.9 billion is 1.89 per cent. Wind has a big self limiting problem. Wind power is only useful when the wind is blowing. But, you cannot turn an electricity generator on and off, it has to always be running, so wind power can affect peak load only, it cannot replace base load, and peak load does not necessarily occur when the wind is blowing.

"If global warming is truly affected greatly by man..." It is not.

"then aren't we on the right track?" Not even going toward the track. It is possible to greatly reduce consumption of electricity using well proven, well known, off the shelf technologies, but the federal government and/or the "green" lobby don't event discuss these technologies let alone support them. Nothing is ever done or said about consumption, only about production, which is idiotic.

[The Madcap]

Actually I was thinking men's room walls.

A lot of the libertarians/conservatives/wingers or whatever give the same talking points that I see scrawled on shithouse walls in truckstops(except for the "best BJ in Louisville" type stuff).

I'm just happy to know that whatever town I'm travelling through, there's always a reliable place to find the number to call "for a good time."

[statnerds]

If GW were real, and if human pollution was the cause, shouldn't the U.S. be telling the World's biggest polluters, China and half of Asia, to stop? Shouldn't you people be picketing in Tiananmen Square?

I welcome a little GW. It has been in the 20's for the entire month of December here in Pittsburgh.

What I find the funniest about the GW crowd is their undying, unquestioning faith. So instead of God, you turn to GW? How can you not even consider the fact that you are being lied to, manipulated and controlled? And drop the fukkin arrogance. Our time on this planet has been short, and will be over soon. If the Earth survived 4 billion years without us, it can survive a few thousand with us.

[Hotdiggity11]

If GW were real, and if human pollution was the cause, shouldn't the U.S. be telling the World's biggest polluters, China and half of Asia, to stop? Shouldn't you people be picketing in Tiananmen Square?

I welcome a little GW. It has been in the 20's for the entire month of December here in Pittsburgh.

What I find the funniest about the GW crowd is their undying, unquestioning faith. So instead of God, you turn to GW? How can you not even consider the fact that you are being lied to, manipulated and controlled? And drop the fukkin arrogance. Our time on this planet has been short, and will be over soon. If the Earth survived 4 billion years without us, it can survive a few thousand with us.

Why would the U.S. be telling anyone to stop polluting when we emit the highest amount of GHG per person in the entire world?

[belvedere86]

usa and china are the biggest polluters!

[Hotdiggity11]

usa and china are the biggest polluters!

Pretty much. Until we can clean up our own problems, telling another country what to do would sound quite silly.

[Tomahawk]

The fact is that the Earth is warming, no one can deny that. It what we don't know:
1. Was it coused by us?
2. Or is this a natural cycle? Small ice ages and warmings used to follow eachother.

What we know is that the ice is melting and the polar bears are dying, but we don't know why.

But using green power and renewable sources won't make global warming faster, that's another fact, so why not try if we have nothing to lose?

If we coused the warming we are going to win by using green energy. If the warming is a natural cycle we won't lose anything by using green energy.

So we either win or lose nothing. That's a great bet to make.

In conclusion we should produce more energy from green sources.

[Hotdiggity11]

The fact is that the Earth is warming, no one can deny that. It what we don't know:
1. Was it coused by us?
2. Or is this a natural cycle? Small ice ages and warmings used to follow eachother.

What we know is that the ice is melting and the polar bears are dying, but we don't know why.

But using green power and renewable sources won't make global warming faster, that's another fact, so why not try if we have nothing to lose?

If we coused the warming we are going to win by using green energy. If the warming is a natural cycle we won't lose anything by using green energy.

So we either win or lose nothing. That's a great bet to make.

In conclusion we should produce more energy from green sources.

Actually, you will find several individuals here who will deny that the climate is currently warming.

[Hotdiggity11]

[AribaAriba]

I think nothing is wrong on concerning GW, the hard heat players here are the oil companies that makes a fortune on selling energy around the globe. It gives awareness to North America that it will have to look for other alternate energy resources such as wind turbines, hydro, wave energy which are all unlimited source of energy(if it gives ultimate focus and budget).

[mikejamm]

usa and china are the biggest polluters!

======================================== ==================
Exactly! The bottom line is China continues to build and fire up 2 to 5 coal power plants a week, to satisfy their insatiable power needs. They care not about environmental concerns or the emissions put out by the tons of toxic sulfur released into the atmosphere which falls back to earth as acid rain, killing plant and eco systems, along with contamination of fresh water supplies. These poisonous gases, along with those released by other developing third world countries are devastating earths protective ozone layer, the only thing that keeps that big ass red ball called the Sun from frying us with killer radiation.

Yes, we humans can retreat to our air conditioned homes and offices for now, trees, plants, and animals can not. This polar bear is just one serious example of what is happening right now in front of us. Research satellite photos of how much glaciers are retreating and melting since the science came on line in the early 70's, and it's plain to see that our planet is indeed warming up and man is the sole cause. Allowed to continue, and not only will we see massive storms, flooding and climate devastation unlike any before, but smaller countries and villages whose only sources of fresh water are now melted away, will begin to fight and die for a life giving resource that we all must have to survive.

It's already happening in the Andes Mountains, elders that live in these regions, state that never have they seen so much "black" in what was once snow covered mountains. And snow melt, which provides them with streams of fresh water, have been reduced to small trickles barley flowing over rocks.

So yeah, it's a hell of a snow storm if you're on the east coast this year and yeah it's cold right now, because that's the season we're in, but the summers are getting more extreme too and mother nature isn't fuk'in around when it comes to reacting to what the hell we're doing to her. The real question is, when will we get the message and change the ignorance of world leaders and those who blindly think there isn't a problem ? Most likely after it's way to fuk'in late! All this great technology and inventive minds that can put a smart phone in the palm of our hands and we're still burning fossil fuels, storing massive, cancer causing chemicals in huge coal sludge ponds, slashing, burning and killing tropical rain forests and the creatures that dwell within them. So what do you think will be the over/under on when Earth will serve mankind its eviction notice?

[jaythegreat]

if you believe in global warning i have some property in florida i want to sell u

[katstale]

U have to leave the hoax believers alone. They also believe women play with a regulation basketball, polar bear populations are decreasing, taxing something gives you more, that some kid (any kid) in Africa is celebrating Kwanza, etc etc Leave these people alone and encourage them to gamble. We need them.

[curious]

The fact is that the Earth is warming, no one can deny that. It what we don't know:
1. Was it coused by us?
2. Or is this a natural cycle? Small ice ages and warmings used to follow eachother.

question: How much is the earth warming? Where are you getting the temperature readings from? over what time period? Details please

What we know is that the ice is melting and the polar bears are dying, but we don't know why.

Please provide evidence to back up this claim. The evidence that I see shows just the opposite. There were 5,000 polar bears in the late 70s, today there are 26,000. Here is a quote from Polar Bears International ""the world's leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 sub-populations of polar bears, five were declining, five were stable, two were increasing, and seven had insufficient data to make a determination." So, at the least you can say that the question has not been answered, but when we look at raw numbers it tells a population that is thriving, just not everywhere.

But using green power and renewable sources won't make global warming faster, that's another fact, so why not try if we have nothing to lose?

I'm fine with this, but what really bugs me is that conservation dwarfs anything that production could do, by several orders of magnitude, yet the green crowd never talks about conservation.

If we coused the warming we are going to win by using green energy. If the warming is a natural cycle we won't lose anything by using green energy.

Actually, you will lose a great deal of money because the green technologies which are being promoted are extremely expensive, and the green technologies which are cost efficient, and some of them highly so, are not being talked about at all by the green promoters. I wonder why that is? I can tell you why. The green technologies which are extremely cost efficient are easy to do and don't require high priced "experts".

So we either win or lose nothing. That's a great bet to make.

I agree with this with one caveat. If ALL the green technologies are put on an equal plane, and conservation is by far the best approach we have right now, then I think you are right. Currently that is not happening.

I'll give you just two examples. First, the building codes which dictate how new homes are insulated are pathetic. The methods that are needed to build homes which heat and cool themselves are well understood and are extremely cost effective. Yet, they are not in the building code, instead horribly inefficient and ineffective approaches to insulation are in the building code. This has to be changed. Second, solar hot water heating is the number one "green" technology available to us in terms of the cost vs the payback and the energy saved over time. Yet, the building code does not require solar hot water heaters in new homes, neither the government nor electric utilities have programs to finance solar hot water heaters and have them paid for over time with the costs that they save. The solar hot water heaters available are mostly over priced, mass production of the proper solar hot water heater configuration would make them cost around $1500, and they would be paid for in a few years. The electric utility could finance them at a profit and keep the electric bill the same for the number of years it takes to pay them off, then reduce the electric bill to the real rate. The government could enforce compliance with this.

In conclusion we should produce more energy from green sources.

I would change this statement to say that we should produce more energy from green sources, or save energy by using effective conservation methods which are currently available and are extremely cost effective.