Global Warming?

[Redneck in training]

Did you know over 2000 above ground atomic bomb tests have been conducted. Nothing happened. We are all still here. Did you know that one guy survived ground zero at Hiroshima and is alive today.

HS

I did some research about energy involved.

Found it here: http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/envir215/energynumbers.pdf

World energy consumption is about 4X10^20 (That is 4 followed by 20 zeroes) Joules.
Hiroshima bomb released 10^14 (1 followed by 14 zeros) Joules.
So world consume 4.000.000 Hiroshima bombs/year. That is about 10800 bombs/day.

 

[houstonscott]

I did some research about energy involved.

Found it here: http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/envir215/energynumbers.pdf

World energy consumption is about 4X10^20 (That is 4 followed by 20 zeroes) Joules.
Hiroshima bomb released 10^14 (1 followed by 14 zeros) Joules.
So world consume 4.000.000 Hiroshima bombs/year. That is about 10800 bombs/day.

Yeah, oil and gas are incredible sources of energy. Clean abundant, cheap, and USA has enough for 2000+ years.

HS

HS

 

[Rob-D]

socialism
   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

socialism
   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.
Compare utopian socialism.

Origin:
1830?0; social + -ism

Related forms
preｷsoｷcialｷism, noun
semｷiｷsoｷcialｷism, noun
unｷsoｷcialｷism, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, ｩ Random House, Inc. 2012.
Cite This Source

No one today really wants to return to the times of really existing socialism.

World English Dictionary
socialism (ˈsəʊʃəˌlɪzəm)

n
1. Compare capitalism an economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state. It is characterized by production for use rather than profit, by equality of individual wealth, by the absence of competitive economic activity, and, usually, by government determination of investment, prices, and production levels

2. any of various social or political theories or movements in which the common welfare is to be achieved through the establishment of a socialist economic system

3. (in Leninist theory) a transitional stage after the proletarian revolution in the development of a society from capitalism to communism: characterized by the distribution of income according to work rather than need

Why Socialism Causes Pollution

Corporations are often accused of despoiling the environment in their quest for profit. Free enterprise is supposedly incompatible with environmental preservation, so that government regulation is required.

Such thinking is the basis for current proposals to expand environmental regulation greatly. So many new controls have been proposed and enacted that the late economic journalist Warren Brookes once forecast that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could well become "the most powerful government agency on earth, involved in massive levels of economic, social, scientific, and political spending and interference.

But if the profit motive is the primary cause of pollution, one would not expect to find much pollution in socialist countries, such as the former Soviet Union, China, and in the former Communist countries of Eastern and Central Europe. That is, in theory. In reality exactly the opposite is true: The socialist world suffers from the worst pollution on earth. Could it be that free enterprise is not so incompatible with environmental protection after all?

Read more
Why Socialism Causes Pollution | The Freeman | Ideas On Liberty

Don't forget Rob D you can move to the socialist country of your choice.

You being so much smarter and better informed than the 99.9% of us other dummies, It is so nice to have your great expertise. Don't you think you talents are being wasted on such a small forum as TBN???

Than we must be socialists! We're the second worst polluter in the world.

Two things that cause pollution: industry and human consumption. Developing nations use 1 watt a day per person, we use megawatts a day. We use 25% of the world's energy, who do you think creates more pollution us or a country with little or no electric from coal plants?

I'm not a socialists, I don't believe in a fully socialistic system BUT I do believe in socialistic programs within a democracy. As I said, it's not a black or white issue.... except to those individuals who don't understand how systems work. Those individuals are very afraid of what they don't understand or are ill informed about.
Those of use with fewer children pay more tax than those of us with more children, this is a form of socialism. We are paying people to have more children in an over populated world. Does that make this a socialistic country?

Read some history. Political ideologies fail because of man's corruption, the way this republic is now failing. The ideology of the republic orchestrated by great men like Jefferson and Franklin is being compromised by human greed... we all suffer when that happens.

Again, Franklin's poignant words: "It's a republic, madam, if you can keep it!"

I think you have a very narrow perspective of the world, parroting a right wing philosophy is as myopic as parroting a left wing philosophy. Go read different views like Howard Zinn's, "A People's History of the United States" find out why the Roman Empire failed, go read Gibbon.

Here's the question I ask all those people who narrowly focus on ranting radio hosts: What have you gained from listening to them?
I'm the one with free energy who knows about renewables and technology, not you. I'm the one polluting less and in a much better position if the power grid fails. So maybe if you started thinking about what is actually going on in the world instead of listening to people who want to give you someone to blame, which doesn't you absolutely no good, you might actually have a better life. But people always want to blame those who think differently than they do because that means the onus of their inability to cope with a changing world doesn't fall on them.
You want to blame Al Gore, tell me exactly what good that does you?
That's rhetorical, it does no good whatsoever!

Am I smarter than you? If intelligence is the ability to constructively resolve one's problems than who is smarter, you pay for electricity and I maximize the benefits of the system we both live in. You blame Al Gore and I don't concern myself with him. If tomorrow the power grid fails you get to stick a wet thumb in your ear while I go about life as usual. You know nothing about the technology that makes life better while I utilize it to its maximum. So you tell me who's smarter.


Rob

 

[Rob-D]

Yeah, oil and gas are incredible sources of energy. Clean abundant, cheap, and USA has enough for 2000+ years.

HS

HS

There is no proof that fossil fuel will last 2000 years, we don't know. The last great oil find was in 1969, however when OPEC allowed countries to sell oil based on reserves there was a miraculous rise in reserves.

Now we have to face the issue of pollution from coal and oil, that damage has been well documented. Fossil fuel is not clean energy, I showed you with several links how smog, acid rain, etc. are causing tremendous problems in the world.

Oil is cheap? I know people who can't heat their houses in the winter because they can't afford the fuel costs.

Rob

 

[houstonscott]

Than we must be socialists! We're the second worst polluter in the world.

Two things that cause pollution: industry and human consumption. Developing nations use 1 watt a day per person, we use megawatts a day. We use 25% of the world's energy, who do you think creates more pollution us or a country with little or no electric from coal plants?

I'm not a socialists, I don't believe in a fully socialistic system BUT I do believe in socialistic programs within a democracy. As I said, it's not a black or white issue.... except to those individuals who don't understand how systems work. Those individuals are very afraid of what they don't understand or are ill informed about.
Those of use with fewer children pay more tax than those of us with more children, this is a form of socialism. We are paying people to have more children in an over populated world. Does that make this a socialistic country?

Read some history. Political ideologies fail because of man's corruption, the way this republic is now failing. The ideology of the republic orchestrated by great men like Jefferson and Franklin is being compromised by human greed... we all suffer when that happens.

Again, Franklin's poignant words: "It's a republic, madam, if you can keep it!"

I think you have a very narrow perspective of the world, parroting a right wing philosophy is as myopic as parroting a left wing philosophy. Go read different views like Howard Zinn's, "A People's History of the United States" find out why the Roman Empire failed, go read Gibbon.

Here's the question I ask all those people who narrowly focus on ranting radio hosts: What have you gained from listening to them?
I'm the one with free energy who knows about renewables and technology, not you. I'm the one polluting less and in a much better position if the power grid fails. So maybe if you started thinking about what is actually going on in the world instead of listening to people who want to give you someone to blame, which doesn't you absolutely no good, you might actually have a better life. But people always want to blame those who think differently than they do because that means the onus of their inability to cope with a changing world doesn't fall on them.
You want to blame Al Gore, tell me exactly what good that does you?
That's rhetorical, it does no good whatsoever!

Am I smarter than you? If intelligence is the ability to constructively resolve one's problems than who is smarter, you pay for electricity and I maximize the benefits of the system we both live in. You blame Al Gore and I don't concern myself with him. If tomorrow the power grid fails you get to stick a wet thumb in your ear while I go about life as usual. You know nothing about the technology that makes life better while I utilize it to its maximum. So you tell me who's smarter.


Rob

Two Books you might want to read before you quote a TR again. You might find you have been used, and don't really know what you are talking about. Give them a read. I don't think your dangerous to the union but you are damaged goods. I think eventually the future of progressives and socialist in America will have to be discussed when the country is returned to the constitution.

1) American Progressivism,

2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism

HS

 

[Rob-D]

Two Books you might want to read before you quote a TR again. You might find you have been used, and don't really know what you are talking about. Give them a read. I don't think your dangerous to the union but your damaged goods. I think eventually the future of progressives and socialist in America will have to be discussed when the country is returned to the constitution.

1) American Progressivism,

2) Woodrow Wilson and the Roots of Modern Liberalism

HS

OK, you get the same questions as Crash.

Who's smarter me who doesn't pay for electricity and uses technology to it fullest or you who doesn't know anything about the technology that makes life easier while paying for electricity?

Who's better off if the grid fails, you who hates liberals or me who doesn't care about liberals or conservatives but doesn't even have to flip a switch or start a generator?

Modern liberalism? Wilson died in the mid 20's, couldn't have been very modern and what does that have to do with the environment and policies made during Gifford Pinchots Forest Service days?

American Progressivism? Glen Beck? That's exactly what I'm talking about, you read Glen Beck , now tell me exactly how your life has been improved from reading an ultra right wing ranter? What he told you radiation is safe? You can't make statements as you did about radiation and know anything about science.

Rob

 

[EE_Bota]

Who are these people?

Let's see, Hey it's Rush! Andrew Walden, he's the guy spreading rumors that ***** is muslim.

Wind Power Information, Wind Power Facts - National Geographic

"Industry experts predict that if this pace of growth continues, by 2050 the answer to one third of the world's electricity needs will be found blowing in the wind."

Wind energy facts - Interesting energy facts

Wind energy facts
Wind energy is a renewable energy source.

Wind energy is a pollution-free energy source.

Wind energy is very abundant energy source in many parts of the USA.

Wind energy is mostly used to generate electricity.

Wind energy is mostly used renewable energy source.

Wind energy unlike some thought very economically competitive.

Wind energy is one of the lowest-priced renewable energy sources.

Wind energy is the fastest growing segment of all renewable energy sources.

Wind energy is very exploited in Germany where Germany leads the way with 8750 MW of electrical energy produced from wind energy.

Wind energy is more exploited in Europe than in America, because of favorable climate conditions and because of USA traditional relying on fossil fuels.

Wind energy basically transformed form of the Sun's energy.

Wind energy has no fuel expenditures.

http://www.awea.org/learnabout/publications/upload/AmericanWindpowerBrochure.pdf

"Did you know that already, 20 percent of Iowa's
electricity comes from wind power? In 2009 alone,
the U.S. wind industry installed enough new
capacity to power nearly 3 million homes."

You posted a good source, right next to an article about a spice that cures diabetes!

It's someone's opinion, where's the data showing 14,000 abandoned wind mills. Where's the proof of that?
Rush said it, it must be true!

Rob

I'm afraid that wind turbines everywhere will slow down the earth's rotation by effectively making the planet "bigger" due to compelling more of the earths atmosphere to follow the earths rotation.

Birds are concerned too, and are launching kamikaze attacks on wind turbines, but with less effect than their attacks on air liners.

Does anyone wish to deny my claim? The evidence is there...don't be a denier...we hate them. Even so, I will not be held responsible for bird attacks on deniers.

As for the general point about abandoned windmills...I would be willing to salvage them for the very excellent materials contained within, but also to halt misdirected and needless kamikaze attacks.

 

[Rob-D]

I'm afraid that wind turbines everywhere will slow down the earth's rotation by effectively making the planet "bigger" due to compelling more of the earths atmosphere to follow the earths rotation.

Birds are concerned too, and are launching kamikaze attacks on wind turbines, but with less effect than their attacks on air liners.

Does anyone wish to deny my claim? The evidence is there...don't be a denier...we hate them. Even so, I will not be held responsible for bird attacks on deniers.

As for the general point about abandoned windmills...I would be willing to salvage them for the very excellent materials contained within, but also to halt misdirected and needless kamikaze attacks.

I thought they would speed up the planet like the guy who put windmills on his car to make energy and get better mpgs!


Rob

 

[mostly_gas]

We don't know, the only way to know what man's influence is on the environment is to remove him from the equation which is not possible.

You keep saying that, but do no explain why. I do not buy that scientist/engineers cannot quantify man's by-products?

That is: Is the planet warming and because of man it is warming faster;
Is the planet cooling but because of man not cooling as fast as it would without man.
etc., etc.

Blow up an atomic bomb, does the planet's temperature change? Sure, but how much? What's the entropic result?

What can we do? Address the things that are destroying the planet which happen to be the same things we believe are causing CC.

Very objective.

Rob

No numbers means not objective. If Man made influences are as significant as some claim, why are they so hard to quantify. Could it be that the "noise" (non man caused factors) is so great that the "signal" (man caused factors) cannot be measured? How is it the we can "know" CO2 is a green house gas and rank it compared to other green house gases and yet cannot quantify the actual amount of green house effect?
Having followed the "debate" since the 80's. IIRC a number of issues were deemed unable to quantify have been at least partially quantified.

 

[mostly_gas]

You misquoted the statement. It states "nearly all scientists, and all major scientific bodies"

I have heard of the petition project
Kevin Grandia | Infamous Oregon Global Warming Petition Alive and Well

Reposter Saw it on reposter The petition project has been thoroughly debunked. Climate skeptics, get over it!

.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology

The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.

So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%
---------------------------------
So 1/10th of a percent of the 30,000 are educated in the field and 1/2 of a percent are somewhat educated in the field. So with that totals 30 to 150 signatores who are qualified....I suggest that there are more scientists than that working for the fossil fuel industry.
-----------------------------------
Common Anti Global Warming Climate Change Denial Claims Arguments and Myths | EcoSalon | Conscious Culture and Fashion

The 31,000-strong "Petition Project" is proof that there's no scientific consensus on climate change! Except that it's not. An investigation by the Seattle Times into the "scientists" who signed the petition found that dozens of names were made up including "Perry S. Mason", "Michael J. Fox", "John C. Grisham" and Spice Girl "Geri Halliwell"?

Only 0.1% of the Petition Project signers have a background in climatology. An unrelated survey found that 97.5% of actual climatologists who actively publish research on climate change believe that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.

26 scientific organizations and the Academy of Sciences from 19 different countries all support the consensus, and a survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject of global climate change published between 1993 and 2003 found that not a single paper rejected the consensus position.


Loren

This after quoting a puff piece.
Is consensus science or opinion?
many polls use the word significant yet do not quantify it. That might be as interesting as the other opinions.