<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on So, not only are CO2 emissions actually contributing to climate change ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-23T21:15:12-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I got to drive the T Bird to the Wedding Ceremony]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724928]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[And the Edsel back to the reception. Over all the Edsel is the easier car to drive as it doesn't have these stupid things like a folding steering wheel that needs to be moved to-wards the passenger side to get in and out.Of course the Bride was at home in the T Bird and wanted to drive herself there till her Lord and Master put his foot down and refused to give her the keys. Then I had to drive the Chrysler Cruiser back to their home from the reception and that was downright nasty to drive. The person who was supposed to drive the Edsel was involved in a collision getting to the set off point and the Groom had to go and pick her up and pay the Tow Truck to bring the bent car back to his place so he was somewhat reticent to allow her to drive after that. Apparently crashing a car 500 meters from their front door was not a way to impress the Cars Owner.  Unfortunately when I handed them over all where straight I don't think that they bent them after I left either. As all 3 where parked away in their slots and hidden. Over all the day went off without any real problems and now all I have to do is recover from the ordeal. People there even thought I was somehow involved with the bride and they kept calling me her father. I just replied No I'm her mothers husband. Col]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724928]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[HAL 9000]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:57:50 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[When I was last living in Britain,]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724877]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[in the early 1990s, the Guardian and the Telegraph were about equally good as news purveyors, and at a higher standard than the SF Chronicle. The Guardian was somewhat socialist (it printed Doonesbury) and, as alas since the 1970s has often been associated with that standpoint, somewhat secular-inhumanist, whilst the Telegraph was somewhat conservative. Perhaps things have changed since then.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724877]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[john.a.wills@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 14:38:33 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[You're letting them live rent-free in your head, AV]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724842]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Don't bother what pollerticians say.Look at the science in stead. 99.7 % of peer-reviewed articles support and corroborate AGCC. There aren't people on both sides, you can't really say that.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724842]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 11:06:14 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[A rock and a hard place]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724548]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Neil, the politicians will make money no matter what the American people do.  If we continue on our current path of maximum consumption, short term they have Cap and Trade and possibly a Carbon Tax.  If we cut down on use and move to the new *green* technologies, we will pay through the nose for those new technologies.  Heck, maybe they'll create a new *Green tax*.The thing to understand about America is we never cut down and politicians know that.  Though there are some of us who use less because we're more prudent, most people will continue down their current path and just pay more.  If by some chance we all did cut down and start conserving without adopting new technologies, no problem, they'll just raise the price.  Politicians never lose.AV]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724548]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AV .]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 11:06:46 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[AV, one small point]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724509]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[What is going to make more money for your politicians in the short term. That you, the US, continues with your current lifestyle (which you won't, by the way) or that you all conserve a bit, recycle a bit and just use less without having to be coerced. God forbid that you should reduce your consumption of energy down to that of, say, the UK or Germany and have to face the lack, the squalor and barbarity of our lives. It would only be a small reduction - a paltry 50%. The latter would obviously make money for your politicians but I'm damned if I can work out how.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724509]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[neilb@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 09:23:43 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Indisputable facts]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724398]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Col, some people are more trusting of politicians and media than I am.  I don't believe anything they say because their ultimate goal is to find a way to make money from it.  If they can convince enough people that GW is man-made, and they have, it will justify a new Carbon Tax that everyone will happily pay for the rest of their lives or as long as they can keep the man-made GW story going.  There are still scientists on both sides of the GW acceleration issue, but nothing I've seen convinces me that man-made GW is an indisputable fact.  What is indisputable is that politicians and the media will work together to achieve the ultimate goal, a Carbon Tax on everyone.AV]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724398]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AV .]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 06:06:39 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Which lies?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724384]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You mean the peer-reviewed research?Whereas the average lifespan of &quot;research&quot; on your side seems to be three months in public, until it's proven fallacious, and then an eternity in the steaming undergrowth of people who don't grok science.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724384]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:07:44 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Yes, Neil - It IS like a religious debate]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724354]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[And I am debating with the believers who worship at the altar of environmentalism.They place 100 percent faith in that which has not been proven, nor can be proven; they have their Bishops who they blindly believe and follow; they believe in the doomsday prophecies being thrown around; they are spreading the word - evangelizing, if you will; they ridicule and criticize the &quot;deniers&quot;, even to the point of demonization so they have their devil to blame for the sins of mankind; they even profess their own sins and perform their own penance as a form of repentance.And their messiah, Barack Hussein Obama (or the United Nations), will lead them to the Promised Land!Yep, it's just like a religion, Neil. And I'm shaking my head in disbelief at how otherwise intelligent people can be so duped into drinking the global warming kool-aid.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724354]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[maxwell edison]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2012 02:03:25 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[AV : that's a pretty classic straw man attack.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724301]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Nobody is saying that GC causes weather.Obviously, having an atmosphere + Eartch revolving around its axis + Earth orbiting the sun is what causes weather.GC modifies weather.So, you have to ask: why is Dr. Gray making a straw man attack?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724301]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 22:04:00 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Ach... I misposted the reply somewhere...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724277]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It was that last sentence I found to be out of step with the rest of your stance: &quot;But as to man's impact and the extent of it, that is still something that all of us should approach openly.&quot;]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724277]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:57:55 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Letting theologists modify science education...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724300]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Will they then let scientists modify Sunday School? Theory : doesn't mean what creationists think it means.- meanwhile, Creationism is hardly even a hypothesis  ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724300]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:56:42 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Last sentence:]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724289]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;But as to man's impact and the extent of it, that is still something that all of us should approach openly.&quot;I thought it felt out of place with the rest of your stance, since it sort of leaves things open that have been thoroughly closed ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724289]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 21:53:21 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Ansu]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724165]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Where did I say &quot;all of us&quot;? I was very clear in expressing a personal opinion. I do think there is overwhelming evidence that the climate is changing and warming. I do think there is evidence that man has contributed to this change. I do think there is room to debate whether man's contribution is the primary cause or the straw that broke the camel's back as it were.All I am suggesting is that there is room for debate here.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724165]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[JamesRL]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 12:10:59 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Ansu: It's like a religious debate]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724105]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The teaching of the Theory of Creation in science classes should be given equal parity with the Theory of Evolution, which is also just a 'theory'. The weight of evidence on the two sides - well, the total lack of evidence on one side - matters not one jot.And this before we add in the influence of those who don't wish to do anything to reduce the waste in the current lifestyles.You - we - are wasting our time.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3724105]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[neilb@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 10:34:00 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Winters and paper industry are a bitches, aren't they?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3723819]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Finland has the same exact problem. Even though most of the power is low-impact hydro (no massive dams or anything), getting to carbon neutral is fekking hard when it's pitch dark and shilt cold for 5 months of the year.Paper industry, long as it lasts, has very bad carbon figures. Of course, it would be fair to make the end destination of that paper pick up the carbon tab, but Finland is on such a moral high horse that they can't bring themselves to argue strongly for the mitigation of the treaties.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3723819]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 01:51:27 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[All of us being who exactly, James?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3723830]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The science is not in doubt... that's the strange thing here.Or is it a coincidence that the non-facts of the world's most powerful lobbies are being given a near-equal standing in this &quot;we should all be open&quot; thing that's going around.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3723830]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 01:35:10 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Don't flatter yourself...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3723809]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[you don't &quot;challenge&quot; anything. You just wave your hands and restate your unfounded street-man belief that the overwhelming majority of scientists are somehow mistaken, and that your lack of facts should trump their stacks of measurements.You're not a challenge... you're an ostrich with its head in a bush.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3723809]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 01:31:56 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Only one thing to say to that...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3723808]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Trolololol...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3723808]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AnsuGisalas]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 10 Dec 2012 01:25:34 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[And this is where the problems start]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3723764]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[A individual Storm or Weather Event as such can not be put down to Global Warming/Climate Change or whatever you prefer to call it, what Global Warming Theory says is that the Storms will get more intense but long before that starts the existing storms will become more frequent.So what was a once in a 100 year storm or at least a Storm of the same intensity as a Once in a 100 Year Storm will happen more often. Storms of that Intensity will be more common and instead of once in 100 years they may develop to once in 50 years or depending on how much warmer the atmosphere gets more common. Blizzards will also get more common and may even be colder as the Energy that drives the Weather has more energy so things get more intense.For Instance in 1974 Brisbane Australia experienced a once in 100 year Weather Event which led to massive flooding. The previous event which actually was worse in the amount of water dropped and spread across the flood plain which is where Brisbane is located was more severe but had less of an impact on people simply because there where fewer of them directly impacted but it was severe enough to leave a Destroyer 300 feet away from the river when the waters receded and resulted in a massive engining project to return it to the water where it could be repaired. That occurred in 1893 so the 1974 floods where about due though a few years early to what statistics said could happen. In 2011 Brisbane again experienced severe flooding despite massive Flood Mitigation work being done and the construction and subsequent enlargement of a new dam since 1974 to supposedly stop massive waves of water running down the Brisbane River from it's catchment. In 1974 the flooding was relatively localized to the South Eastern Corner of Queensland and only adversely impacted on those communities on the Brisbane River Flood Plain.In 2011 the flooding was no where near as severe in the depths of water involved but it was much more severe from the point of view that it was 90% of Queensland that was impacted by flooding not just the South Eastern Corner and the flood waters ranged all the way up the east coast and through most of the inland areas. That is something that has not happened in our Recorded History but that in itself doesn't mean a lot as Australia is a very young country with records not going back all that far mostly no more than 100 years or so. That gives you some idea of just how severe the 1893 Floods in Brisbane actually where to a relatively newly established settlement.But the point is that the Trend is getting shorter 81 years between the 1893 to 1974 Flooding event and  37 years to the next major flood event in 2011.That in itself may not be of any importance because there is not the Historical Records to tell us if this is a common event the flooding and that we have just been lucky or that it is getting to be a more common occurrence.What we need to do is look at older parts of the world where Accurate Records have been kept for much longer periods of time and see if there is a correlation of these events getting closer and closer together. Of course depending on where that place is there may be more than just floods to take into account.Things like areas in the Higher Latitudes could be subject to flooding and major snow falls which have to be taken together where as places in the Tropics and Sub Tropics are very unlikely to have any Snow Falls so flooding from Severe Storms is a more likely occurrence.There has yet to be an Planet Scientist who has claimed that any storm is the result of Global Warming that is restricted to Politicians and Media who go for the easy answer and do not rely on Science to sprout their ramblings so every storm can be attributed to other naturally occurring events. For that matter every Severe and any other storm can be contributed to Natural Events in the Atmosphere generating that Severe Weather Event, so you do not look at the actual storms but the frequency of them and that unfortunately can only be done after the event so the only way to prove that Global Warming or whatever you chose to call it is happening is after it has occurred and the Higher Temps have been recorded for many years along with the frequency of Severe Weather Events.This is not something that happens quickly as the Planet moves to a different Time to Humans and what to us is an extremely long time is nothing but the blink of an eye to the Planet. The entire history of Humanity is but a very short time to the Planet and currently our records are not nearly far enough back to provide the required proof that some people demand. With all Science there are those who accept it and those who deny it. A very good example of that happened within the last year where a Group of Scientists who where terrified of the Hadron Collider tried to get a Court Injunction to prevent any experiment that may have produced mini Black Holes. They argued that any Mini Black Hole that may be produced would not blink out of existence but continue to grow till it ate the planet and solar system. The same thing happened before the first Atomic Bomb Test where a group of Scientist who where more conservative than those working on the Manhattan Project tried to prevent the first test arguing that once the Reaction started it would continue and destroy the planet. They reasoned that once the Chain Reaction started it would be self perpetuating and could never run out of energy to cause it to cease happening.Also some people reasoned that because Internal Combustion Engines where powered by Explosions that the Internal Combustion Engine was an inherently dangerous thing and would be exploding all over the place causing untold death and destruction. None of those 3 examples where anywhere near as bad as some people claimed that they would be and the Mass Hysteria that they generated is still with us today and rears it's head more often than many people accept.The bottom line is that all Science is the Observation and Recording of Events and that is all that Science can ever be. Now for some indisputable Fact the World is going to end at 12.00 PM December 21 2012. That is the Belief of a very advanced race that Inhabited the Southern Americas and who simply disappeared. As it is on the Internet and I read it there it must be true because no one would place lies or untruths on the Internet would they? But the real message here is it's not what one or some people believe will happen, means that it is going to happen just that they believe that it will.Sometimes that's not a bad thing and sometimes it is a terrible thing. So we need to keep in mind that everything that we experience  Good or Bad will only ever be proven after it is a Indisputable Fact.Col]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3723764]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[HAL 9000]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2012 16:00:17 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Dr. Gray has an interesting paper]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3723740]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Go to - tropical dot atmos dot colostate dot edu slash forecasts slash.  Under the news section, he has an excellent paper about Hurricane Sandy.  He concludes that Hurricane Sandy was not caused by anthropogenic global warming, rather it was because of Thermohaline Circulation.  There is a lot of historical hurricane data that is very interesting as well.A storm like Hurricane Sandy is rare, but there have been several almost equally destructive hurricanes to hit New York City in the past such as the Hurricane of 1821.  This is the link -  history1800s dot about dot com slash od slash crimesanddisasters slash a slash Hurricane-of-1821 dot htm.  I don't think CO2 emissions were an issue then, yet that was quite a freak storm as well, though it hit at low tide.  Hurricane Sandy hit at high tide and during a full moon making it the perfect storm.My conclusion is that CO2 may not be the real culprit here.  It may contribute to GW/CC in some way, but historical data suggests that storms like this occur whether you have CO2 present in the atmosphere or not.AVPS: Sorry about the crazy links.  I can't seem to post this with them.  There is no w w w in them.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/103-397790-3723740]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[AV .]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 09 Dec 2012 12:27:27 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

