UN claims global warming 'proved beyond a doubt'...

bmd wrote:

Cato wrote:

Why is government necessary to solve these problems[?]

Anthropogenic global warming is a classic example of a "Tragedy of the Commons." Individuals, acting in their own self interest, for their short-term benefit, destroy a common resource (in this case the atmospheric carbon balance), thus screwing everyone. Only societal pressure, via governmental action, can remedy such a problem.

Well the very first thing that has to be proven is that global warming truely exists and that human activity has caused it. That has yet to be done. In fact, as Sam Cogar has pointed out, the warmest years on record occured before World War 2. Additiionally you might want to explain why for the past 6 or 7 years the climate has been cooling. If the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the cause of warming, then the temperture should have risen over all, yet is hasn't. www.petitionproject.com and look at the summary of peer reviewed research. Maybe you can then explain to me why these 31,000 scientists believe they way they do.

bmd wrote:

Cato wrote:

Why is government necessary to solve these problems[?]

Anthropogenic global warming is a classic example of a "Tragedy of the Commons." Individuals, acting in their own self interest, for their short-term benefit, destroy a common resource (in this case the atmospheric carbon balance), thus screwing everyone. Only societal pressure, via governmental action, can remedy such a problem.

bm,

If that is the case then I humbly suggest the poster boy for global warming (AlGore) do something to reduce the amount energy from fossils fuels he and his family use in their mansion and their fleet of SUV's and jetting all over the globe.

AlGore & Co. want to tell the rest of us how to live, what sacrifices we must make, but they have no intention of makign any sacrifices of their own. They will continue to consume more and pollute more because they have zero intention of lowering their own standard of living. They just demand us common folk do it.

What a bunch of horse shit.

Screw your 11 warmest years, us true and honest scientists know better, to wit:

So now you are a scientist, Sammy?

A scientist would not use secondary and tertiary sources funneled through a Michelle Malkin blog as evidence.

Have you no shame?

As to you map of where measurements have been taken - so what? the locations don't span the globe?

What is your point?

If my brain is "toast", yours must be vacuum.

TerryRC wrote:
As to you map of where measurements have been taken - so what? the locations don't span the globe?

What is your point?

TRC, tell your kids I said it would be a really good act of kindness if they told you, ........ and then ask them that question about calculating Average Global Temperatures.

TRC, tell your kids I said it would be a really good act of kindness if they told you, ........ and then ask them that question about calculating Average Global Temperatures.

They KNOW how to calculate a weighted average, Sam.

Keep trying, though. Pretty soon Malkin, Limbaugh or Coulter will give you a new talking point.

Why is government necessary to solve these problems. If you look back at your reply, you first blame government, and then you want the very same government you place blame on to solve these problems. As Ronald Reagan stated once. Government isn't the answer, it is the problem.

Did I, Willy? I didn't blame the fed for anything. I just said the oil companies don't need subsidies, particularly since oil is a finite resource and we will have to wean ourselves off of it at some point.

As far as setting up plans for emergencies like pandemics, flooding and agrodisasters, isn't that one of the legitimate things the fed is for?

TerryRC wrote:
They KNOW how to calculate a weighted average, Sam.

No doubt in my mind, ........ and by the weight of your hand no less.

If your actions around your kids are anything like your actions on these Forums then your kids are surely scared to death to ignore or disagree with you about anything.

SamCogar wrote:

TerryRC wrote:
They KNOW how to calculate a weighted average, Sam.

No doubt in my mind, ........ and by the weight of your hand no less.

If your actions around your kids are anything like your actions on these Forums then your kids are surely scared to death to ignore or disagree with you about anything.

Look's like he hasn't a clue to what a "weighted average" refers. Then again, I'm not very surprised.

TerryRC wrote:Why is government necessary to solve these problems. If you look back at your reply, you first blame government, and then you want the very same government you place blame on to solve these problems. As Ronald Reagan stated once. Government isn't the answer, it is the problem.

Did I, Willy? I didn't blame the fed for anything. I just said the oil companies don't need subsidies, particularly since oil is a finite resource and we will have to wean ourselves off of it at some point.

As far as setting up plans for emergencies like pandemics, flooding and agrodisasters, isn't that one of the legitimate things the fed is for?

And who gave them subsudies, but the politicans? As far as emergencies yes to some degree that is the purpose of government. However, not o the degree they seem to inflict themselves on the public.

bmd wrote:

SamCogar wrote:

TerryRC wrote:
They KNOW how to calculate a weighted average, Sam.

No doubt in my mind, ........ and by the weight of your hand no less.

If your actions around your kids are anything like your actions on these Forums then your kids are surely scared to death to ignore or disagree with you about anything.

Look's like he hasn't a clue to what a "weighted average" refers. Then again, I'm not very surprised.

bmd, you are getting as smart as TRC ........... and that is scary.

.

Stephanie wrote:

bmd wrote:

Cato wrote:

Why is government necessary to solve these problems[?]

Anthropogenic global warming is a classic example of a "Tragedy of the Commons." Individuals, acting in their own self interest, for their short-term benefit, destroy a common resource (in this case the atmospheric carbon balance), thus screwing everyone. Only societal pressure, via governmental action, can remedy such a problem.

bm,

If that is the case then I humbly suggest the poster boy for global warming (AlGore) do something to reduce the amount energy from fossils fuels he and his family use in their mansion and their fleet of SUV's and jetting all over the globe.

AlGore & Co. want to tell the rest of us how to live, what sacrifices we must make, but they have no intention of makign any sacrifices of their own. They will continue to consume more and pollute more because they have zero intention of lowering their own standard of living. They just demand us common folk do it.

What a bunch of horse shit.

In the tragedy of the commons to which bmd alludes, individuals act in their own self interests until there is no more grass for the cows (or something to that effect). Now what his little illustration (common to academics and therefore frightfully useless) fails to incorporate is that anthropogenic global warming, if indeed it exists, will not stop if China and India continue to grow exponentially, all the while ignoring the environmental standards of the present day United States. Just because one group of shepherds or cattlemen decide to cut off their animals at the commons, it is useless to them if another, larger, greedier cattleman just goes ahead and rapes the land anyway.

Al Gore proves that liberalism is all about telling someone else what to do (unless someone wants to kill their children, which is a curious exception). My wife and I share a small car, walk to the grocery store, buy second hand clothing, and use cloth diapers, but still somehow Al Gore needs to legislate a change in my lifestyle. What a prick.

Meanwhile, Al Gore's friends live in places like Southern California, a place without nearly enough naturally occurring local sources of potable water, with palacial estates comfortably cooled by the kind of cash that provides the accessibility to a well placed donation for the assuaging of any guilt. Drive the SUV, write a check for the carbon credit that you are never going to miss, declare yourself better than those hicks driving 4 by 4's in WVA, and drink your Chardonnay. Just don't try to sell that shinola down this way.

SB,

Before you go on such rants, you might bother to look up how states rank in their total per capita energy consumption. California ranks 48th, while West Virginia is 8th - at almost twice California's per capita consumption.

Just think of how low your energy consumption would be if you didn't have to pump water over the Tehachapi Mountains -- the highest lift of any water system in the world.

Of course, there are those who aren't happy with Southern-Californias and their thirst for water.

Perhaps that's why there are those in Northern California that would be happy to see you guys down south gone. Seems most Californians would be happy to give your area back to Mexico.

There are a number of factors impacting the difference in energy consumption between Californians and West Virginians. These include population density, infrastructure and climate.

I'd like to point out that like bm, our friend Sheik doesn't reside in WV. He lives in arguably the most politically corrupt state in the union.

California also imports more energy then any other.

Due to high electricity demand, California imports more electricity than any other State. States in the Pacific Northwest deliver power to California markets primarily from hydroelectric sources, while States in the Desert Southwest deliver power primarily from coal- and natural gas-fired sources. Hydroelectric power comes to California primarily through the Western USA interconnection, which runs from northern Oregon to southern California. The system, also known as the Pacific Intertie, is the largest single electricity transmission program in the United States. Although the Pacific Intertie was originally designed to transmit electricity south during California’s peak summer demand season, flow is sometimes reversed overnight and has occasionally been reversed during periods of reduced hydroelectric generation in the Northwest. California restricts the use of coal-fired generation within its boundaries; however, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) operates the coal-fired Intermountain power plant in Utah, which delivers three-fourths of its output to LADWP and other California municipal utilities. A recent California law forbids utilities from entering into long-term contracts with conventional coal-fired power producers. Intermountain’s existing contracts with southern California cities are set to expire in 2027.

source

bmd,

There are so many places to go with this.

1-As Stephanie has pointed out, I live in Illinois and not in West Virginia, a fact that is noted under my screenname. As Stephanie has also pointed out, it gets colder in Illinois and West Virginia than it does in the bulk of California. Sure San Diego does not spend as much on heating and cooling as Chicago does. Did you think we wouldn't notice?

2-Per capita energy consumption is, of course, skewed down by high density housing such as can be found in many places in California. Al Gore and his Malibu posse do not live in high density housing. Of course, you know that well already.

3-You did nothing to counter my water argument. Is it all of a sudden environmentally healthy to get water from elsewhere as you do not have enough of it yourselves?

4-You seem to completely let slide the obvious hypocrisy of so many. How can you claim to know what is best for the country (a reduced carbon footprint) when your leader refuses to take his own advice?

5-I wonder how the materials used for your boat could have been better used, say for the purposes of building housing or what not. Surely you would resent someone like, say, me, telling you that you should not be able to sail, and yet you feel just fine telling someone in the Northeast to change their light bulbs. If the high efficiency deals are such a bargain, they are going to win in the end anyway. We have them in the Sheik house. Physician, heal thyself. Take your liberal buddies and show us how green living is truly done, and then we can follow suit. Better yet, Al Gore should show us how to live on less than two homes and no private jets, so that we can learn to be green by example.

Aaron wrote:Just think of how low your energy consumption would be if you didn't have to pump water over the Tehachapi Mountains -- the highest lift of any water system in the world.

Of course, there are those who aren't happy with Southern-Californias and their thirst for water.

Perhaps that's why there are those in Northern California that would be happy to see you guys down south gone. Seems most Californians would be happy to give your area back to Mexico.

Our municipal water come from wells tapping the aquifer at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains. We don't get any of our water from the California State Water Project. In fact, in really wet years there are natural springs just down the street from our house.

Stephanie wrote:There are a number of factors impacting the difference in energy consumption between Californians and West Virginians. These include population density, infrastructure and climate.

The bottom line is that California is one of the most energy efficient states in the nation, period.

Stephanie wrote:I'd like to point out that like bm, our friend Sheik doesn't reside in WV.

Oops, forgot about that; Illinois ranks 33rd in per capita energy use.

SheikBen wrote:bmd,

There are so many places to go with this.

1-As Stephanie has pointed out, I live in Illinois and not in West Virginia, a fact that is noted under my screenname.

Yeah, yeah, I addressed that in an earlier post. My bad.

SheikBen wrote:As Stephanie has also pointed out, it gets colder in Illinois and West Virginia than it does in the bulk of California. Sure San Diego does not spend as much on heating and cooling as Chicago does. Did you think we wouldn't notice?

And it gets a whole lot hotter in much of CA than it does in either IL or WV. It takes more energy to cool a house than it does to warm it a similar amount.

SheikBen wrote:2-Per capita energy consumption is, of course, skewed down by high density housing such as can be found in many places in California. Al Gore and his Malibu posse do not live in high density housing. Of course, you know that well already.

Have you ever been to Malibu? It probably has a higher pop density than WV or most of IL.

SheikBen wrote:3-You did nothing to counter my water argument. Is it all of a sudden environmentally healthy to get water from elsewhere as you do not have enough of it yourselves?

Check my earlier post.

SheikBen wrote:4-You seem to completely let slide the obvious hypocrisy of so many. How can you claim to know what is best for the country (a reduced carbon footprint) when your leader refuses to take his own advice?

Who's my leader?

SheikBen wrote:5-I wonder how the materials used for your boat could have been better used, say for the purposes of building housing or what not. Surely you would resent someone like, say, me, telling you that you should not be able to sail, and yet you feel just fine telling someone in the Northeast to change their light bulbs. If the high efficiency deals are such a bargain, they are going to win in the end anyway. We have them in the Sheik house. Physician, heal thyself. Take your liberal buddies and show us how green living is truly done, and then we can follow suit. Better yet, Al Gore should show us how to live on less than two homes and no private jets, so that we can learn to be green by example.

Newsflash!! A 27 foot boat ain't all that much in the way of materials. In fact, I've seen a couple of derelicts chopped up with chainsaws and tossed into dumpsters. A boat about the size of mine doesn't even fill a regular-sized dumpster (not the big construction job-site type) with a bit of room to spare.

As I said earlier, bottom line is that California is one of the most energy efficient states in the nation. On top of that, at least according to our gas and electric bills, our house is well below the average in our area, and in CA, for energy use.

bm,

Is it your contention that people in your area have to cool their homes as much as people in mine have to heat ours? You may need to cool your home as much as maybe 30 degress Fahrenheit? I have to heat my home 40, 50 degrees and more on a nearly daily basis for months on end.

bmd wrote:

Aaron wrote:Just think of how low your energy consumption would be if you didn't have to pump water over the Tehachapi Mountains -- the highest lift of any water system in the world.

Of course, there are those who aren't happy with Southern-Californias and their thirst for water.

Perhaps that's why there are those in Northern California that would be happy to see you guys down south gone. Seems most Californians would be happy to give your area back to Mexico.

Our municipal water come from wells tapping the aquifer at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains. We don't get any of our water from the California State Water Project. In fact, in really wet years there are natural springs just down the street from our house.

So you're saying southern California doesn't get it's water from the San Francisco Bay area, the water doesn't traverse over over the Tehachapi Mountains, higher then any other point in the world, it doesn't consume 3% of Californias energy to get that water there and northen Californians don't want to kick southern Californians back to Mexico and all the links I posted are wrong???

Aaron wrote:
So you're saying southern California doesn't get it's water from the San Francisco Bay area, the water doesn't traverse over over the Tehachapi Mountains, higher then any other point in the world, it doesn't consume 3% of Californias energy to get that water there and northen Californians don't want to kick southern Californians back to Mexico and all the links I posted are wrong???

There ya' go, trying to put words in my mouth.

I'm saying that the water that comes out of the faucet in our kitchen comes from a set of municipal wells less than a quarter of a mile from our house. Most of the communities in this part of SoCal use local water. It's something of a holdover from when this part of the galaxy was mostly citrus orchards. Citrus takes lots of water, so the farmers/co-ops/municipalities tapped the ground water and local watersheds long before there was a California Aqueduct system.

I also happen to be a transplanted Northern Californian. We may make a fuss about SoCal from time to time, but it's more rhetoric than anything else. We also hate the Dodgers, and still can't stand the Rams.

As for that 3%, we still use far less per capita than WV.

Oh, and since when were the Tehachapis "higher then any other point in the world"??? Tejon Pass is only about 4K feet above MSL. Hell, it's note even the highest point on I-5. Now, I realize that those little hills you call "mountains" back east may seem sort of impressive to you, but out here we hardly even get excited until ya' get above about 10,000 feet.

Take the per capita energy use for all the states (and D.C., just for good measure), and rank them, highest to lowest. Then take the Novermber election results. Use the difference in the proportion of votes that McCain and Obama received in each state (i.e, if McCain received 49% of and states votes, and Obama received 45%, with the remainder going to "third party candidates", then the metric for that state would be 0.04. Rank the states (and D.C.) again using these data. Here are the ranks, sorted alphabetically by state, with energy use first, then conservative-liberal rank:

Alabama 7 Alabama 5
Alaska 1 Alaska 6
Arizona 45 Arizona 18
Arkansas 13 Arkansas 7
California 48 California 42
Colorado 39 Colorado 28
Connecticut 46 Connecticut 41
Delaware 20 Delaware 43
District of Columbia 37 District of Columbia 51
Florida 44 Florida 25
Georgia 26 Georgia 20
Hawaii 42 Hawaii 50
Idaho 22 Idaho 4
Illinois 32 Illinois 44
Indiana 9 Indiana 24
Iowa 14 Iowa 29
Kansas 16 Kansas 11
Kentucky 6 Kentucky 9
Louisiana 3 Louisiana 8
Maine 23 Maine 40
Maryland 43 Maryland 45
Massachusetts 49 Massachusetts 46
Michigan 40 Michigan 38
Minnesota 19 Minnesota 31
Mississippi 12 Mississippi 13
Missouri 28 Missouri 22
Montana 10 Montana 21
Nebraska 18 Nebraska 12
Nevada 33 Nevada 33
New Hampshire 47 New Hampshire 30
New Jersey 36 New Jersey 36
New Mexico 21 New Mexico 35
New York 50 New York 47
North Carolina 38 North Carolina 23
North Dakota 4 North Dakota 17
Ohio 25 Ohio 26
Oklahoma 11 Oklahoma 2
Oregon 35 Oregon 37
Pennsylvania 31 Pennsylvania 32
Rhode Island 51 Rhode Island 48
South Carolina 15 South Carolina 16
South Dakota 24 South Dakota 19
Tennessee 17 Tennessee 10
Texas 5 Texas 15
Utah 34 Utah 3
Vermont 41 Vermont 49
Virginia 27 Virginia 27
Washington 30 Washington 39
West Virginia 8 West Virginia 14
Wisconsin 29 Wisconsin 34
Wyoming 2 Wyoming 1

Now, is there a correlation? The data are not normal, so we can't use parametric stats. But!!! The Pearson Product-Moment method should suffice (it's a very standard statistical method, developed for just this sort of nonparametric situation). The answer? The Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient (rho, in statistico-speak) is 0.72. What the &$^%&! does that mean, you ask? Well, if there were no relationship between the two data sets, rho would approach zero; if the ranks for each state were identical for both data sets, rho would approach one. So, even without getting into assigning a significance value to this stat, 0.72 is pretty highly correlated.

What can we infer from this? Per capita energy use and conservatism are closely related. The more conservative a state is (at least as indicated by the most recent presidential election) the more folks in that state burn up energy. So, guess what? Them wine-drinking, sushi-eating libs really are, on the whole, practicing what they preach.

Stephanie wrote:bm,

Is it your contention that people in your area have to cool their homes as much as people in mine have to heat ours? You may need to cool your home as much as maybe 30 degress Fahrenheit? I have to heat my home 40, 50 degrees and more on a nearly daily basis for months on end.

As I said, cooling a house always takes more energy than heating it.

I might add, with respect to the California Aqueduct, that the vast majority of the water moved via the aqueduct isn't used by urban systems. About half of the delivered water goes to agriculture directly (mainly in the Central Valley). But only about half of the water that goes into the system ever gets delivered; the rest is "lost" in the system (mainly because when they built the aqueduct, they neglected to line the bottom, DUH!).