What About Global Warming?

.....meet somewhere in between. I'm all for a clean environment, less (or no) pollution, etc, but there's no way I'll ever be convinced (at least with today's "evidence") that such pollution (or whatever you want to call it) parlays itself into affecting the global temperature and/or global climate, at least not on a permanent and/or catastrophic scale. I'll certainly concede that snowfall, for example, can be made dirty falling through a polluted sky, but there's no way that polluted sky (or emissions) is affecting the weather patterns. Hell, a weather forecaster is lucky to predict a week out; and these "expert climatologists" are predicting doom-and-gloom 100 years out. Give me a friggin' break!

If there was an impartial jury to hear the case, listening to both the prosecution and the defense, and they had to base their ruling on evidence that presented the case beyond a reasonable doubt, mankind would certainly be acquitted of causing global warming or climate change, or anything else other than dirty air. And no, it's not even close enough to reasonable doubt to justify acting or being alarmed "just in case". Add to that the fact that those screaming the loudest aren't doing anything about it themselves, it all points to nothing but a big scam.

And think about this. If "some" arctic ice IS melting, (but Antarctic ice isn't) how can it be due to "global warming" air temperatures that never rise above zero degrees Fahrenheit? It's colder than hell up there! And ice won't melt with such cold temperatures. How is it happening then, one might ask? How about the INTERNAL temperatures of the earth, increasing volcanic activity, and such.

Sorry, Neil. If I'm on the jury, I say not guilty to mankind for causing these things. Moreover, I say guilty to a lot of people for the attempted extortion of mankind.

"According to NASA 30% of the energy never makes it to the Earth and the remaining 70% is retained..."

I was able to confirm that much:

"Not all of this light is absorbed by the Earth. Roughly 30 percent of the total solar energy that strikes the Earth is reflected back into space by clouds, atmospheric aerosols, snow, ice, desert sand, rooftops, and even ocean surf. The remaining 70 percent of the TSI is absorbed by the land, ocean, and atmosphere. In addition, different layers of the Earth and atmosphere tend to absorb different wavelengths of light. Only one percent of the TSI, mostly in the form of UV radiation, is absorbed by the upper atmosphere, mainly by stratospheric ozone. Twenty to 24 percent of the TSI and a majority of the near infrared radiation is absorbed in the lower atmosphere (troposphere), mainly by water vapor, trace gases, clouds, and darker aerosols. The remaining 46 to 50 percent of predominately visible light penetrates the atmosphere and is taken in by the land and the oceans."

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/SORCE/sorce_02.html

However, I could not confirm the latter clause:

"According to NASA 30% of the energy never makes it to the Earth and the remaining 70% is retained [b]then 100% of that is re-radiated again back into outerspace.[/b]"

What I did read, at the same page cited above:

"For the Earth to remain at a stable temperature, the amount of longwave radiation streaming from the Earth must be equal to the total amount of absorbed radiation from the Sun."

I was hoping for some data, but maybe I'll check that Channel 4 show over the weekend.

How tedious.

I agree with you HAL. It is not science. It is politics.

HAL wrote, "if you tell a lie long enough eventually a lot of people will believe it and no matter what the facts of the matter they will continue to believe the lie."

In fact we agree again. If you tell an inconvenient truth often enough a lot of people will believe it...

I especially love the urgency of this crisis. We must act immediately or we will lose our major cities. We must act immediately or...(name your favorite bad thing here) will happen.

It is appropriately apocalyptic. The only really scary part is the loss of freedoms and the increased taxes. The added warmth is fine with me.

Abso wrote, Are you willing to explain why you see only political bias, and do not argue the scientific research directly?"

Sure. The politics are the dangerous parts. The science is merely interesting. What do we have, .5 degree change? And in the next hundred years a range of 1-4 degrees? Of course the future is based upon modeling.

And then there is that solar bias of mine.

And one more thing, this is just not that big a deal with me. I already spend too much time on TR. I intend to cut way back and get back to my real life.

By the way Abso, it has been a real pleasure discussing issues with you.

"For the Earth to remain at a stable temperature, the amount of longwave radiation streaming from the Earth must be equal to the total amount of absorbed radiation from the Sun."

So if the sun puts out a bit more energy the earth gets warmer.

No, having stronger hurricanes is not a benefit.

No, I do not think people were better off during the last ice age: I'm not talking about gradual changes in temperature that happen naturally over many centuries, I'm talking about more sudden changes in average temperature, measurable over much shorter periods.

No, I haven't suggested you give up any freedoms. I think the Left should put more money into manufacturing & research, to create the alternatives they want, not whine for the government to do it for them. But you didn't ask me that, you just assumed.

Global Warming is not (was not) a scientific discovery, per se, that went on a search for political support, but rather a political agenda that went on a search for scientific justification. (At best it may have also been a scientific theory that went on a search for research money!) Its premise, if you will, has a foundation in politics (or money), not science. For you (and others) to insist on debating just the science only shows that you're missing the bigger picture -- and the bigger piece of that picture.

Moreover, you're about as qualified as Brittany Spears to debate "science". What are your qualifications? What's your expertise? If you were called as an expert witness in a trial and were asked such a question, your reply of [i]"I read it in a science magazine"[/i] would not only disqualify you, but it'd turn you into a laughing stock. At best, all you could possibly do is present an expert on your behalf.

My expert witness, Professor William Gray of Colorado State University, says [i]Global warming is happening, but humans are not the cause."[/i]

Okay, your expert witness will challenge that.

Then I call to the stand my second expert witness, Dr. Fred Singer, Ph.D. in physics from Princeton and currently president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project research group. The Q&A might go something like this:

[i]Q: Here's a line from a recent Mother Jones article: "There is overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are causing global average temperatures to rise." Is that true?

A: It's completely unsupported by any observation, but it's supported by computer climate models. In other words, the computer models would indicate this. The observations do not.

Q: What's the best argument or proof that global warming is not happening?

A: The best proof are data taken of atmospheric temperature by two completely different methods. One is from instruments carried in satellites that look down on the atmosphere. The other is from instruments carried in balloons that ascend through the atmosphere and take readings as they go up. These measurements show that the atmospheric warming, such as it is, is extremely slight -- a great deal less than any of the models predicts, and in conflict also with observations of the surface.

Q: An epic New Yorker series said unequivocally that the permafrost, the Arctic sea ice and the Greenland glaciers are all melting. Is that true and is it because of global warming?

A: The Arctic temperatures have been now measured for a long time. They vary cyclically. The warmest years in the Arctic were around 1940. Then it cooled. And it's warming again, but it hasn't reached the levels of 1940. It will continue to oscillate. That's the best prediction.

Q: What is the most dangerous untrue "fact" about global warming that's out there in the media-sphere?

A: The rise in sea level. Again, the observations show that sea level has risen in the last 18,000 years by about 400 feet and is continuing to rise at a uniform rate, and is not accelerating, irrespective of warming or cooling. In fact, sea level will continue to rise at a slow rate of 8 inches per century, as it has been for the last few thousand years.

Q: If you had a 12-year-old grandkid who was worried about global warming, what would you tell him?

A: I would tell them that there are many more important problems in the world to worry about, such as diseases, pandemics, nuclear war and terrorism. The least important of these is global warming produced by humans, because it will be insignificant compared to natural fluctuations of climate.

Q: How did you become "the godfather of global warming denial"?

A: That's easy. Age. I organized my first conference on global warming in 1968. At that time I had no position. It was a conference called "The global effects of environmental pollution." At that time I remember some of the experts we had speaking thought the climate was going to warm and some thought it was going to cool. That was the situation.

Q: Climate is extremely complicated -- is that a true statement?

A: Immensely complicated. Which is a reason why the models will never be able to adequately simulate the atmosphere. It's just too complicated.[/i]

Okay, your witness, Absolutely

But here's another of mine:

Roy Spencer, principal research scientist for University of Alabama, says, [i]"Belief in dangerous manmade global warming is as much faith-based as it is science-based." [/i] (Oh my! FAITH based? And the athiests Absolutely, Neil, and deepsand are banging this drum the loudest around here!)

http://www.capca-carolinas.org/Fall%202006%20Presentations/Roy%20W.%20Spencer.pdf

..... and on it goes. At best, you call yours, I call mine, you call another, I'll call another..... Therefore, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS in the "scientific community".

Which brings us to the politics of the issue, and therein lies the real debate. For some reason, however, you fail to see that.

neil said, "What do we do about getting a proper debate and independent research?"

I wouldn't worry about it. If there is anything to the science it will stand the test of time and peer review. We will all come around to agreeing with its assumptions, when it is shown that it can predict correctly what is occurring.

But if it is not real it will fall on its own. That is why I say the "science" is less interesting than the politics, and lots less dangerous.

[i]I said, "So if the sun puts out a bit more energy the earth gets (a bit) warmer."

Abso said, "Science requires quantifying your claims."

Well. Let us think about the options. Either it gets warmer, stays the same or gets cooler. If I am standing next to a blazing fire and it gets hotter am I likely to stay the same, get cooler, or will I get a little bit warmer? My experience says I will get warmer. What does yours tell you? [/i]

Flawless logic - as far as it goes!

If you're trapped inside an insulating chimney, you will get hotter than if you are standing next to a well-ventilated campfire!

:p

PS I appreciate your comments about the science, to the effect that if it's true, it will make provable predictions & if it isn't, it will not. I guess you do know something about science. How much, you haven't shown, but at least you do understand its basic workings. Well said!

"[i]First, you can question the methods of data collection.[/i]

Yes, that's always an option... as long as you personally weren't the one who collected it :)

[No, the person who collected generally doesn't publish unless they believe the data collection valid, or unless they think they can get away with it. If you really believe they are trying to get away with something, why all this ad hominem crap? Why not attack the claim at its strongest point, if it really is a crock?]

[i]Second, you can question the interpretation of the data. Are the data being interpreted within their proper context?[/i]

"Proper context" seems to be variable, as well as usually politically, rather than scientifically defined.

[That assertion is yours to prove.]

[i]The latter in most cases is easy enough for a layperson, who has passed college statistics 101.[/i]

Yes, you can always attack the messenger if you don't like the message. Maybe he didn't go to college (he was probably working his ass off while they were sleeping theirs off in the back of the classroom).

[The point was the limited understanding of statistical analysis needed to understand a lot of scientific research, not college attendance. Maybe I should have emphasized [b]101[/b]? The same/equivalent class can be taken in junior/community college (depending whether you live in California or not), or learned from a textbook without paying for instruction & a certificate. I stand by the essence of my statement about statistics: it isn't difficult to learn a powerful amount of it, if you're motivated to do so.]

Or maybe his second cousin's wife had a felony drug conviction.

[I'm not interested in your rap sheet. Just the facts, man.]

That would likely make anything he had to say not worthy of consideration.

[Of course, you're free to dismiss whatever you like, on whatever grounds you like. Much of what you've written above looks nonsensical to me, and is hopefully unconvincing to everybody else. Not that you're necessarily wrong, just that your argument isn't very persuasive.]

Of course, keen minds such as those working on this "problem" wouldn't look on that as much of a challenge, so we can probably discount that :)"

Smily face, right, just keep grinning, Uncle George will clean it up eventually. Jeepers!

is the last thing that I want to do myself. We are not - ever - going to get informed debate on this any more. The media have taken charge and have dragged the politicians along with them. There's nothing the media like more than good headlines and "catastrophe" is as good as it gets.

I'm stuck in the unfortunate position that I believe that there's some truth in a lot of things such as human influence on climate change, smoking dangers to non-smokers, trans fats not being good for you, Man's role in the ozone depletion, the link between ultra-violet and skin cancer and others - all these things being categorically denied by the good Dr. Singer and the ACSH. What I don't know - and probably never will - is whether any elements in the list I have posted above are in any way meaningful to me. Is the "disease" real? Is the "cure" worse than the disease? How can I ever know now?

We, you and I, are a good example of the polarisation of this debate which is why I've generally stopped commenting except where someone posts some significantly and obviously bad science.

4 Letter word [b]WORK[/b] out of the road and you want what exactly?

The good Dr who you mentioned above has recently been involved in Climate change Studies Allegedly but he has also undertook at least 3 studies funded by Phillip Morris to debunk the theory that Smoking had any adverse Health affects.

He has presented evidence several times to various US Government enquiries saying that firstly there is not direct Scientific Proof that those who Smoke have a higher chance of Lung Cancer than those who don't, he's also on record as saying that from his observations that Smoking isn't Addictive and has gone on to say that Secondhand Smoke has no adverse Side Effects on those not smoking. The fact that you can not find anything with a quick Goggle search doesn't meant that it didn't happen and that there is no evidence of him doing this just that he hasn't [b]Published[/b] anything of merit along these lines that has been accepted by any reputable Scientific Publication. As for his evidence you would have to look up the various Enquiries held by the US Federal Government into the Tobacco Industry. It's there my friend without a shadow of a doubt he's the same man that I saw 2 nights ago on TV saying that Smoking had no adverse side effects to a Congressional Committee.

When Looking at the link here where they have his photo

http://tinyurl.com/2kqysb

It's the same man who not only appeared before a televised US Government Enquiry something like Congressional Enquiries or the like defending the Smoking Industry but he is now doing the same thing for the Oil Industry.

So Yes I do Question this particular Persons Motives.

Col

It's good to know that, as London sinks into he Thames, that I'll be able to come over there and slap you a resounding "Told you so!". Unless I've drowned, of course.

:)

I will say, though, that the US politics is interesting. We have you, Max and others frothing at the mouth over the actions of politicians and scientists from the US, the world at large and ([i]shudder![/i]) the perfidious United Nations who you believe are all hell-bent on wrecking the US economy and enslaving your people into a lifetime of dependency hand-outs and control. Yet your government is doing NOTHING. The only policy that your government has on fuel use is a rather woolly strategy aimed at shafting the Arabs by using less ME oil and you're even doing that ineffectually. Actually, "totally crap" would be a better description.

SO WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM?

Sit back, shut up and let the rest of the developed world tie itself in knots over Kyoto and others. Oh, you are. Except for the "shut up" bit, of course.

All we did back in the Clinton days was ask you - nicely - to stop producing [b]quite[/b] so much carbon dioxide as you currently produce. Back then, you agreed (a bit) but since you've had this CLOWN in charge, you'd think that we wanted to bend you over a table and perform international rape!

Ah, well. You saved our asses in five world wars, two alien invasions and at least six meteorite strikes so we should be grateful. I'd be speaking German, no, Russian, no, I'd be an incubator for a giant beetle inhabitant of the planet Smeeegheeed if it wasn't for you.

The planet is your plaything. We can't stop you f'cking it up so we shouldn't even try.

[i]Why not attack the claim at its strongest point, if it really is a crock?[/i]

... I don't know that "it's a crock". I also don't know that it's not. All I've ever said is that there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion, one way or the other.

[i]and is [b]hopefully unconvincing[/b] to everybody else. Not that you're necessarily wrong, just that your argument isn't very persuasive.[/i] (emphasis added)

And then you demonstrate exactly what I said (sigh).

"[/i][b]hopefully unconvincing[/b][/i]" and "[i]Not that you're necessarily wrong[/i]"

seems to indicate you're more interested in keeping a message from being accepted than in whether that message is right or wrong.

That's because "man-caused global warming" IS A POLITICAL ISSUE. It IS NOT a scientific issue.

I don't drag politics into the issue, but rather politics has inserted itself into the issue. Go ahead and disagree with me (and Neil) all you want, but the "science" has been hijacked by politics and their accomplices in the media. If you can find a way to get politics OUT of the issue, I would discuss "global warming" as much as I discussed things in the EL thread -- and that's not at all!

That's my whole friggin' point, Colin!

Because there are forces, from both within and without, who ARE trying to force the government to do something. Without resistance and dissent, they'd get their way. But actually, if one really studies the "actions" of those advocates, one has to wonder why 8 years of a Clinton-Gore administration ALSO did nothing.

P.S. The [i]"vitriol that you pour onto the leftist environmentalist whacko traitors is extreme"[/i]? Oh really? Well, Neil, those leftist environmentalist whacko traitors, of whom you speak, advocate having ME tried for crimes against humanity for my "global warming" denial. And you call ME extreme?

want to put you on trial for Climate Denial.

Actually, I'm interested in finding out if you've really room to moan. I've had no exposure to what US politicians who have a real chance of wielding power want to do to you in the name of global warming. Could you point me at a couple of sources of what [b]might[/b] (i.e. there's a good chance) be pushed on you by a Democrat administration so that I can compare them to the likes of Mayor Red Ken Livingstone and his aim to turn London into "The Greenest City in the World".

Neil :)

Frivolous lawsuits, in the name of global warming, being filed against auto makers (and others?). It will achieve absolutely nothing, except add to the cost of an automobile, not to mention the fact that it will place additional burdens on an already struggling auto industry. We need to find ways to boost our auto industry, not beat it down even more.

CO2 "reduction measures", by way of regulation and control. Any attempt at forcing business and industry to adopt "new technologies" before the natural market forces lead to such change, will only cost the consumer more to purchase that particular product or service.

Carbon credits and/or carbon taxes, especially the ones being advanced by the United Nations. The power of taxation is the power of control. We've seen it in the USA since 1913, and the United Nations is foaming at the mouth to get its claws of control into the USA. No thanks. Moreover, if the USA's very own global warming zealots get their way, you can bet your sweet bippie that some sort of carbon tax is on the horizon. (By the way, what's a bippie?)

The Democrat Party and the Democrat Party activists are using "global warming" as a wedge issue, one to influence people to vote for them. Their disingenuous claims are a veiled attempt to scare voters, hopefully securing their support for the sole purpose of gaining power. Once in power, they can then use their positions to advance their more socialist agenda (nationalized health care, for example, something that would never fly unless they're in the majority).

I could go on, but that will do for now.

----- Rant warning!

Bottom line: It never was, it isn't now, and it never will be about [i]protecting the environment or saving the planet[/i]. It's about control. Control over business and control over individual lives. Drive what I say you can drive, not what you want to drive. Sell what I say you can sell, not what you want to sell. Make it the way I tell you to make it, not how you think it should be made. Reduce dependence on foreign oil, but I won't let you drill for your own. And on it goes.

Not only that, but all the advocates make me want to puke. All the disingenuous Al Gores of the world are sickening. I don't want them preaching to me, all the while not doing what they ask others to do. I can't stand hypocrites, and they're hypocrites of the worst kind. And to segue into another example, people like Bono preaching to the world to spend more money to "help the poor", all the while taking his own money out of his very own country in order to avoid taxes. They're all advocates for some pet cause, one that in reality, they couldn't care less about. They do it to get exposure, to sell books, to sell films, and stroke their own over-inflated egos. And they take the public for being fools, trying to get them to buy into it. (Of course, some of them are so damn stupid, they have no idea what they're spewing.)

And it's the politicians and advocates, not only leading the pack of global warming zealots, but who make up almost ALL of the "cause". It's 99 percent all this crap, and only 1 percent science. And people like Colin have the nerve to suggest I'm always dragging politics into the issue. He has it bass-ackwards!

----- End of rant!

Abso said, "PS I appreciate your comments about the science, to the effect that if it's true, it will make provable predictions & if it isn't, it will not. I guess you do know something about science. How much, you haven't shown, but at least you do understand its basic workings. Well said!"

Yes. I know something about science. I know something about engineering. I know something about history. I know something about the military.

Thank you.

"You and sn53 and others are getting exactly what you want in terms of your government's response"

True. Today. But there are socialists in the wings would would be King. They love Euro-socialists more than their country or its Constitution. We must remain vigilant.

"...and yet the vitriol that you pour onto the "leftist environmentalist whacko traitors" is extreme."

Leftist environmental whacko is an accurate label. "Traitors" is another thread. It is for people who are working for their nation's defeat. Being stupid is not traitorous, just stupid.

"I, and those of us who feel that we have a legitimate worry, have had to sit back over the years of the Bush administration"

You may do as you wish with your own country. Just keep your hands off my freedoms and liberty. It really doesn't matter that you "feel".

"and watch the World's greatest polluter"

Really? Is that some sort of a record? The World's Greatest Polluter"? Wow. I had no idea. Everywhere I look around me is clean.

The former communist nations are the truly dirty places, the truly polluted places.

"continue on as if nothing is happening and nothing different is going to happen."

Or continue on as if global change has always occurred and will continue to occur. Even if it hurts your feelings.

"There seems very little that anyone can do from inside or outside of your country and your government to prevent the continuing trend of rising CO2 derived from fossil fuels of which one quarter of the yearly total is generated by the good ol' US of A. (Note that the venerable Dr. Singer doesn't deny THAT, at least)."

My advice to you is for you to bloom where you were planted. If you feel strongly about it then do whatever you think you must in your country. And leave mine alone.

"I accept that we, as foreigners, have no "right" to say or do anything contrary to the will of the mighty US"

We agree after all.

"but you have to accept that at the very least "IT PISSES US OFF"."

But you see, I don't really care if you don't like it. I think your real problem just might be p e n i s envy.

"Ah well. We can wait and see what the next administration does."

Here is to hoping for a Euro-socialist to control the US. That really is the hope of the world, isn't it?

neil wrote, "The projections are, though, for it to accelerate in the future so any number of studies showing what has happened won't do either of us any good in predicting what will happen."

There just may be a reason why the doom and gloom is all projected/predicted.

If the science is real it will stand the test of time and peer review. We have the time as the gloomy predictions are all in the future. We must act NOW because if we don't my model shows I will lose my funding...

[i]I, and those of us who feel that we have a legitimate worry, have had to sit back over the years of the Bush administration and watch the World's greatest polluter continue on as if nothing is happening and nothing different is going to happen. There seems very little that anyone can do from inside or outside of your country and your government to prevent the continuing trend of rising CO2 derived from fossil fuels of which one quarter of the yearly total is generated by the good ol' US of A. (Note that the venerable Dr. Singer doesn't deny THAT, at least).[/i]

Build me an electric...does Britain even manufacture any automobiles any more?

I hope the irony isn't lost on you, Neil.

[i]But Dr. Allegre had allegiances to more than his socialist and environmental colleagues. He is, above all, a scientist of the first order, the architect of isotope geodynamics, which showed that the atmosphere was primarily formed early in the history of the Earth, and the geochemical modeller of the early solar system. Because of his path-breaking cosmochemical research, NASA asked Dr. Allegre to participate in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Matching his scientific accomplishments in the cosmos are his accomplishments at home: Dr. Allegre is perhaps best known for his research on the structural and geochemical evolution of the Earth's crust and the creation of its mountains, explaining both the title of his article in l' Express and his revulsion at the [b]nihilistic[/b] nature of the climate research debate.[/i]

I have [b]much[/b] more to learn!

"a campfire in an open camp", maybe with a cool breeze. There's something funny-looking about a "well-ventilated campfire".

Oh well, I've written more important things than that, badly.

You can see it in neilb's message:

"Actually, I'm interested in finding out if you've really room to moan. (Translation: I want to know if you're likely to suffer enough for my liking.) I've had no exposure to what US politicians who have a real chance of wielding power want to do to you in the name of global warming. ([b]No exposure?[/b] You know a great deal about GWB's climate policies, when it suits you to know [b]that![/b]) Could you point me at a couple of sources of what [b]might[/b] (i.e. there's a good chance) be pushed on you by a Democrat administration so that I can compare them to the likes of Mayor Red Ken Livingstone and his aim to turn London into "The Greenest City in the World". (Translation: I want to know if you're likely to suffer as much as I expect to suffer.)

maxwell edison:

"It's about control. Control over business and control over individual lives. Drive what I say you can drive, not what you want to drive. Sell what I say you can sell, not what you want to sell. Make it the way I tell you to make it, not how you think it should be made. Reduce dependence on foreign oil, but I won't let you drill for your own. And on it goes."

People who expect the right to control they haven't earned make me [b]sick![/b]

Maxwell, I apologize for not being clearer about the politics of this issue all along. I've been recently paying attention to the cultural aspects of the various parties to this and some other debates, and I'm decided: Leftists can kiss my hairy mule!

I'll be looking into the scientific research you have posted to support your position next, but I plan to be thorough, so I might not say much about it for a while.

But here there is no Political argument about Global Warming, Climate Change or whatever you want to call it here. Every Politician accepts it is real and happening [b]NOW![/b]

Maybe it could be the fact that we are as a country in the middle of the worst drought in our entire history where places like the Murry River have not reached the ocean in the last 6 years and this river system is very important to the livelihoods and lives on many Australians. It's also accepted that the Farming Practises that are currently being used here are the cause of a Salinity Problem that is getting worse and that covers most on AU by the way but in the inland it's much worse than most other places even if there is a major salt buildup on the external bricks of the house that I'm living in.

About the only thing political involved is an argument between the major parties on how to fix the problems. Neither of which have a clue and because they have insisted on having [b]Yes Men[/b] as their leading Scientists in the CSIRO who advise the Government on what they need to do there is no clear cut way of finding a solution. Incidentally both sides are responsible for the mess and both have heavily contributed to it as well with their take it all Now approach and worry about the results latter when we are no longer in office so it will not be our problem.

About the only possible good thing to occur out of the current drought is that the Water Table has been lowered so the salinity issue has temporally been pushed away and isn't of a major concern compared to the lack of available fresh water. But when a solution is found to allow enough water into the inland the Salt issue will again raise it's ugly head with a vengeance.

Col

global warming, but there is global warming.
So sea level's are rising, so coastal areas will end up under water.

So seeing as it's not 'our' fault we do nothing? We sit in our deck chairs and hope the trend reverses before the water washes our hankies off our heads?

Huh?

In the words of Mr Cheney.

If you uropeans want to make your industries less profitable by dealing with pollution, go right ahead, we are going to make more bucks.

Live on CNN, he said that, p1ssed off the rest of the world in one sentence.

Making a buck now is more important to america than the future of the human race.

Blame him, not your democrats and not us.
Him and people like him are as guilty of the polarisation and politicisation of the issue as stumpy the commie eco-freak.

But every bit as fast and mostly faster than the total slug of a car that I hired when I was in the US last.

Irony only works if the statement that you make is actually obviously untrue.

:)

The Aston Martin, Land Rover, Jaguar, Lotus, TVR etc.

Though to be fair there is a Jag with a diesel engine which is relatively economical.

But it is true that Britains and europeans tend to drive smaller cars. Your roads are smaller, your city streets smaller, you gas incredibly expensive. You will find that places like Quebec City, which have narrow streets similar to European cities, also tend to favour small cars.

I love watching Top Gear (BBC car show) review American cars and scowl, but simply put they are built for wider, straighter roads where handling is not as important, and gas is relatively cheap.

James
James

I completely forgot about Jaguar, Aston Martin, Land Rover, and your other marvels of fuel-efficiency!

:p

You asked, [i]"Let's say there is no such thing as human caused global warming, but there is global warming. So sea level's are rising, so coastal areas will end up under water. So seeing as it's not 'our' fault we do nothing? We sit in our deck chairs and hope the trend reverses before the water washes our hankies off our heads? Huh?"[/i]

No, Tony. You deal with it. Are you so feeble that you need someone to hold your hand and tell you what to do? You just deal with things that happen in life, Tony. You just deal with them and do what's necessary!

The rest of your message is pure and meaningless crap.

You said, [i]"Making a buck now is more important to America than the future of the human race..."[/i]

Get real, you pompous ignorant jerk! (And you wonder why many Americans, including this one, couldn't care less what you think!)

I'm amazed at how people are so feeble and helpless when it comes to dealing with life. Not to mention people's inability to cope in society without having to vote themselves the fruits of another's labor, but whenever the wind blows they're friggin' helpless. Our very own California coast is eroding, but if the New Orleans residents lived on top of the hill, they wouldn't have the sense to move east without someone holding their hands telling them where to go and what to do. Are Londoners like that as well, Tony? Are you so helpless that you won't know what to do if the waters rise?

It's said the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and what may have started out as good intentions to help people has ended up making them as helpless as little babies. The [i]"government is there to solve all problems"[/i] mentality has created a bunch of dependents and/or pansies.

I pity people like you, Tony, who apparently can't cope with life's problems without blaming other people for them and/or expecting other people to solve them for you. It's no wonder you lost your empire! (And it's the reason we'll lose ours if we can't turn it around.)

Rolls Royce, Bentley, Lotus....

But to be fair again, Ford in UK builds mostly small cars as do Rover, Vauxhaul.

You know what, I realize that in terms of numbers, UK has more auto manufacturers than the US, though some of them are in financial turmoil.

James

OK, I'll take my lumps on those but until I see the likes of the Ford Ka or (bletch!) the Smart on US roads in large numbers, I'll continue to reckon that I'm ahead on points.

http://www.pepecar.com/img/vehiculo/ford_ka_g.jpg
http://dailygameplan.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/fortwo_smart_car_5.jpg

Neil :p

p.s. Don't come the old crap about you "driving more". The reason that I owe Maxwell a steak is that I lost a bet about the difference in per capita miles between the US and UK and it was closer that I thought!

Well actually there was the Ford Festiva which was sold in the US (it was a Kia, before Kias were marketed in NA).

The Smart Car has been sold in Canada for a couple of years now - there are a few in my neighbourhood actually. I understand the Penkse group is going to import them into the US (in Canada, they are sold at Mercedes Benz dealers, as they are MB cars).

The Smart Car by the way is roughly HALF the price of a Prius and gets pretty great mileage(in Canada its diesel only and gets about 60 mpg). But the Toyota Yaris is cheaper and seats 4, and gets pretty good mileage too.

James

I've made a couple of "bets" with you: I lost the one about outfitting the space shuttle (or some other existing craft) so it could make a quick trip to the moon, but I lost nothing. But you lost a steak dinner with the other bet. Therefore, when I lose, I eat crow; when you lose, I eat steak. Either way I get fed.

You gotta' know when to hold em', know when to fold em', and know when to raise the stakes (or steaks!). Do you play poker? I'd love to invite you to a game.

(But wait a minute, I've already choked on the crow, but have yet to feast on the steak!)

Perhaps the problem is that since cities are the major source of things "bad for the planet", and since cities are mostly chock-full of liberals, and since liberals are always wanting "someone else" to pay for fixing problems they create, there's nothing being done :)

Hey! There's an idea.... Make the residents of a particular city pay for the damage to the planet that their city causes.

Boy, talk about an [b]exodus[/b] :0

But they have cut back the allocations for farmers Irrigating but not the costs so they are paying the same for less.

Currently there are 2 dams in the Locker Valley which have never had any water in them and the farmers in those areas are paying for water that they can not get granted they do need to pay for maintenance and this is what the Water Board is claiming but after 5 years things start to get a bit draining when you are paying for something that you are not receiving.

As for the Murry River System the Idiot State Governments issue water Permits to Irrigate so one state will have heavy Irrigating at the heard waters who virtually drink the river dry and then there is wonder why there is very little water available further downstream. But still the allowed amount of water for irrigation has been dropping steadily for the past 6 years and that is the actual volume not some figure made up from a Per Capita Basis.

As for the discussion on drinking recycled water it's actually already happening as the people of Adelaide are drinking the Sewerage produced in Cantberra which is treated and then feed into the River and is eventually drunk by every major settlement down river.

As the infrastructure is going to take a lot of time to put in place for recycling Sewerage the QLD Government is currently rushing through a Desalination Plant to offset the immediate needs but eventually the Sewerage is going to be recycled and fed back into the drinking water system.

Col

small wonder that Leftists are for federalizing absolutely everything, eh?

Liberal has an historic meaning, which I will not sully by applying it to today's Democrat Party.