What's wrong, Mike - not using a programmable thermostat? They can even be useful for AC, y'know. You can probably even install it yourself - should only be 4 wires or so. Let me know if you need help.:LOL:

Steve

I have two of them...my wife programmed them. They open and shut the winders on a regler basis.

Mike

Very cool!:LOL: I had no idea you guys were that automated. Ours are all Manuel windows. We push a button and some guy named Manuel comes in and opens them for us.:eek:

Anyway, back to topic...

Does anybody else live in a town/city with mandatory recycling?

Steve

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wes Tausend
You're not the only one to think he's "on to something". About 90 percent of the worlds mainstream rational scientists recognize that the climate is not only seriously changing, but that humans still are (or have been) encouraging it to happen.
...

Mike,

Sorry for the delay but I just got back from hauling another 32,376,000 pounds of soot ...er ...I mean coal, eastward towards powerplants. ....Hope it doesn't quit before I'm retired. :rolleyes:

This is a bit embarrassing but I can't find my exact source. I believe I did hear or read it because the 90% figure stuck with me. I thought it was in a documentary called " Global Warming: What you need to know ", that was produced by NBC for the Discovery Channel in 2006. It was narrated by Tom Brokaw. One of my DVD recorders recently copied the re-aired 90 minute segment from the Science Channel. A quick disc scan didn't find it and, where I thought it was, Brokaw merely stated "...the vast majority of scientists...", unless I missed it in my hurry. :confused:

Wherever I think I saw or heard, the 90% figure may be from a similar source such as this:
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change )
...which says in part, "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability.[2] ". Not quite the same. :o

I don't personally think the 90% figure I stated is too far off ...and I did hedge it by including the biased words "rational scientists" ...but 90% is impossible to prove beyond reasonable doubt without an extensive poll of scientists that everyone agrees is accurate. That isn't going to happen soon!

My full original paragraph that you quoted above reads:
'You're not the only one to think he's "on to something". About 90 percent of the worlds mainstream rational scientists recognize that the climate is not only seriously changing, but that humans still are (or have been) encouraging it to happen. Even G.W. has changed his tune short of just coming out and saying, "My God, they were right!" '

On the last sentence, a more trusted brief reference for this particular forum might be G.W. himself:
...From the White house Office of the Press Secretary June 11, 2001, it reads, in part,:
"My Cabinet-level working group has met regularly for the last 10 weeks to review the most recent, most accurate, and most comprehensive science. They have heard from scientists offering a wide spectrum of views. They have reviewed the facts, and they have listened to many theories and suppositions. The working group asked the highly-respected National Academy of Sciences to provide us the most up-to-date information about what is known and about what is not known on the science of climate change." Entire press release brief page at the link:
( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010611-2.html )

Nothing, as G.W. says, including Global Warming, is certain. But there is very strong accumulated circumstancial evidence that "global climate change" (better nomenclature, my opinion) is occurring and it's not something we would want to be wrong about ...if we can reasonably modify results to our favor. We need to hedge our bet(s). In reference to the coal I hauled, the Brokaw documentary also stated that China is building one coal-fired powerplant a week for the next seven years. This was in 2006 and China was the second largest CO2 emitter in the world at the time. We're number one. :eek:

One peculiarity of this whole thing about energy and sustainable energy.
All the carbon in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere, one might assume. Sustainable energy fuels such as ethanol take CO2 from the air and it is released back when burnt. So it breaks even. Sustainability.

So what about the fossil carbon in the ground? It seems unlikely that all of it was present in the atmosphere at once. Then again, it had to be in the beginning, not? Releasing it now a problem? I don't know. Maybe. Plant matter must have grown like crazy. Like grain for ethanol. And, "It's whats for dinner ...beef" ...tasty critters that ate plant matter. Mmmm ...beef. :)

I wonder if the guys that work at ethanol plants get to take a jug home once in a while. I could probably take a bucket of coal home ...but who would want to? ;)


...

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years


The Earth currently is experiencing a warming trend, but there is scientific evidence that this warming seems to be part of a 1,500-year cycle (plus or minus 500 years) of moderate temperature swings. It has long been accepted that the Earth has experienced climate cycles, most notably the 90,000-year Ice Age cycles. But in the past 20 years or so, modern science has discovered evidence that within those broad Ice Age cycles, the Earth also experiences 1,500-year warming-cooling cycles. Evidence of the global nature of the 1,500-year climate cycles includes very long-term proxies for temperature change – ice cores, seabed and lake sediments, and fossils of pollen grains and tiny sea creatures. Shorter-term proxies include cave stalagmites, tree rings from trees both living and buried, boreholes and a wide variety of other temperature proxies.

So, is the Earth currently experiencing a warming trend? Yes. Are human activities, including the burning of fossil fuel and forest conversion, the primary – or even significant – drivers of this current temperature trend? The scientifically appropriate answer – cautious and conforming to the known facts – is: probably not.

S. Fred Singer, an Adjunct Scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, is Professor Emeritus of Environmental Science at the University of Virginia, and President of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He was the first Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service and served five years as Vice Chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. He received the first Science Medal from the British Interplanetary Society and won a NASA commendation in 1997 for his research on particle clouds.

No,he didn't miss it.But anyways,For the below,"we" referrs to Humans and "effect"means one or all of the following"change course,shorten or lengthen duration,disperse or otherwise cause effect".

Can we effect a rain storm?
Can we effect a snow storm?
Can we effect a high or low pressure system?
Can we effect a monsoon?
Can we effect "El Nino"?
Can we effect "La Nina"?
Can we effect a hurrican?
Can we effect a earthquake?
Can we effect a tsunami?(after-all it's just a wave-right?:rolleyes:

Let me answer for you seeing as how people of your ilk have a problem with truth & logic.The answer is no(duh) to all of the above.So tell me,Boy wonder, how can a race of people who can't even get a April shower to make a 2 degree turn to port is going to change the atmospheric temperature of the whole F&^KING planet?To think that we can is the 2nd most arrogant assumption on the planet.The first being that man is so F'ing important that we are alone in the universe.
Mother nature is nothing short of a B.ITCH.And we are nothing but a zit on her ass.If she wants to get rid of us-she'll do it.And there isn't a god-damn thing anyone is going to do about it.:(

Zappa was a genius.Literally.It was a sad,sad day when he left.:CRY:

The question was:

My answer: Yep.

What do you think would be the result of nuclear war? Ever heard of nuclear winter? 'We' have control over those nukes, not mother nature.
And I suspect that all of the questions you ask below, except the last two, would also probably be caused/changed by the resulting climate change created by nuclear war, and therefore, 'we' can.

Duh...:rolleyes: Good job Bill...


Steve

Good Lord.Nuclear winter?WTF does the POSSIBLITY of nuclear winter have to with the incremental temperature increases?Is that the best you can do?:JEKYLHYDE

If we "blow ourselves off the Earth"*,the temperature of the affore mentioned planet is a pretty friggin' moot point-isn't it?Boy,you folks are a safe distance from genius.**)

Thanks for validating my point.:LOL:

Well, Bill,
You asked a question, and I answered within all the parameters of that question. It's not my fault that your question was so open ended that I could lob a few nukes through all the loopholes you left in it.

Maybe you should set more specific criteria next time.:p :LOL: Next time, try thinking a little harder before you ask.

BTW, if you want to get a little more realistic, look up silver iodide. And then spend a week or two in Beijing when they need rain. Try to remember that you don't actually need to duck when the rockets explode.:MECOOL:

Steve

Sorry,NO SALE.You KNEW the parameters of my question but you chose to supply the bull$hit"nuclear winter" answer.Speaking of which,that answer is so far out in left field Al Gore hasn't mentioned it.

Think a little harder next time?nahhh,the thought i put into it THIS time was perfect,as it elicited a response from you that perfectly illustrates what is wrong with liberals.:JEKYLHYDE

Is he here legally? BTW, your "Nuclear (nuculear) winter" answer was pure pustulence (to quote Freddie).

Mike

I expect to find kindred spirits on this site, but not on this topic. When I saw he won the Nobel on my Google page I realistically assumed it was simply misfiled into the wrong category. It was under CNN, not Joke of the Day.

There is no doubt that the earth has gone threw numerous cooling and warming cycles in it's history. Did the dinosaurs cause the last warming cycle by burning fossil fuels? Maybe they just had too much bad gas huh.

Oh, and by the way, how much does goody goody Al earn off Carbon credits?

Hey, one more little item. Where does the temperature get measured? A meteorologist in CA is doing a study on the sites. He has found nearly half of them to be out of compliance with locational standards. Check out this link and ask yourself. Next time its 90 degrees out, would you rather lay on the asphalt or the grass. Why?

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/200...rature_22.html

Al is his own type of terrorist.

Rich,

What a dumb meteorologist. I especially like one of the links somebody included in the comments below the norcalblogs site:
( http://www.wdbj7.com/Global/story.asp?S=6814820 ) :LOL: :LOL:

The idea of fouling our own nest doesn't have to be a partisan issue. It's too bad, in a big way, that Gore took up the issue and made it look liberal.

One of our greatest conservative presidents, Teddy Roosevelt(R)( http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/tr26.html ), was also a Nobel Peace Prize winner. He basically gave us our National Park system and was also an enthusiastic wildgame hunter. He'd probably turn over in his grave at some of the pollution we now have ...but he, too, using common sense, would likely have been a skeptic regarding some claims made by the extreme left.

About 1/4 of US pollution is produced by the auto/petroleum combo. In 1987, auto companies reported their best mileage, 26 mpg. Ronald Reagan was our president. A few years later the mileage had dropped to 24.7 ...Clinton was in. Clinton exempted SUVs from CAFE. GM threw him an inauguration party. :rolleyes:
So now we are that much more dependent on foreign oil. Thanks, Bill C.
Hillary is no better when it comes to corporate influence.

Corporate influence is permeating our political ranks on both sides these days. It's hard to trust the influx of information and it's all about the money. One doesn't have to be a crazy environmentalist to admit there is a limit to wrong vs the right thing to do.


...

Wes,in Ca.when particulates in the air reach 80 PPM,this triggers an alert.Would you or anyone else care to guess what the particulate concentration(PPM)is of the air blowing onshore?

I'm not giving you crap,just showing another example of how we are getting taken to the cleaners(pun intended) in the name of the enviroment

I'm thinking you're getting at the particulates in the air are pretty high when they arrive. If so, China perhaps?

One new coal-fired Chinese powerplant a week ...for the next seven years. :eek:

Rats. Called to work. On the road again.... :rolleyes:


...

You got it.The PPMs in the onshore winds are around 50.So we are getting our balls broken over cleaning up the air when the air arriving on our shores has more crap in it than the local Californians put in the air.

But the enviro-nazis never let the facts get in the way of their religion.

CB I hadn't heard that. I believe it. I remember some of the best sunsets I enjoyed years ago were due to the volcano in the Philippines, and then a couple of years ago I remember watching a news report on the Sunsets in Florida due to the dust storm..... FROM AFRICA!

If I think of the amount of tax payer money which has gone to fund
http://www.valleyair.org/index.htm
between salaries, taxpayer funding of mis-information, I get sick.

I laugh at all the years we have been told that our 'own' air is our 'own' problem - ie no outside influences...

when in this year alone two major fires have spawned air quality alerts hundreds of miles away. People are so dim witted, they want problems solved, as long as it isn't in their backyard.

If conservation is such a problem, why don't they outlaw Christmas lights, trees?

if Auto pollution is SUCH a problem, why not pick one day a month where NO ONE drives. WHY? IT WON"T MATTER!!!!

JT has some valid points.
Many of us in New England remember all the acid rain that used to fall here as a result of all the factories in places like Michigan and Ohio. I spent about 6 months in China a few years ago. They had no EPA to mandate any sort of clean air anything. The cities were smoggy, they smelled, and everything seemed to be a bit gray. I suspect that the west coast gets a lot of soot from all of the Chinese coal plants.

If everyone didn't drive for one day during the month that would drop our auto emissions by 3% (provided that all days have equal emissions levels - and they don't). That would drop our total emissions levels by about .75% (provided that the number supplied by Wes is correct). It's a start, but I suspect that there are more efficient ways to come up with bigger numbers.

Steve