Jump to content

Global warming: Man-made or Natural


Recommended Posts

Oh, yeah. You heard it here first, on this forum months and months ago.


Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural?�By Dr. S. Fred Singer, posted January 7, 2008



The following is adapted from a lecture delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar entitled �Economics and the Environment,� sponsored by the Charles R. and Kathleen K. Hoogland Center for Teacher Excellence.


Wildfire.jpgIN THE PAST few years there has been increasing concern about global climate change on the part of the media, politicians, and the public. It has been stimulated by the idea that human activities may influence global climate adversely and that therefore corrective action is required on the part of governments. Recent evidence suggests that this concern is misplaced. Human activities are not influencing the global climate in a perceptible way. Climate will continue to change, as it always has in the past, warming and cooling on different time scales and for different reasons, regardless of human action. I would also argue that�should it occur�a modest warming would be on the whole beneficial.


This is not to say that we don�t face a serious problem. But the problem is political. Because of the mistaken idea that governments can and must do something about climate, pressures are building that have the potential of distorting energy policies in a way that will severely damage national economies, decrease standards of living, and increase poverty. This misdirection of resources will adversely affect human health and welfare in industrialized nations, and even more in developing nations. Thus it could well lead to increased social tensions within nations and conflict between them.


If not for this economic and political damage, one might consider the present concern about climate change nothing more than just another environmentalist fad, like the Alar apple scare or the global cooling fears of the 1970s. Given that so much is at stake, however, it is essential that people better understand the issue.


Man-Made Warming?


The most fundamental question is scientific: Is the observed warming of the past 30 years due to natural causes or are human activities a main or even a contributing factor?


At first glance, it is quite plausible that humans could be responsible for warming the climate. After all, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy releases large quantities of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The CO2 level has been increasing steadily since the beginning of the industrial revolution and is now 35 percent higher than it was 200 years ago. Also, we know from direct measurements that CO2 is a �greenhouse gas� which strongly absorbs infrared (heat) radiation. So the idea that burning fossil fuels causes an enhanced �greenhouse effect� needs to be taken seriously.


But in seeking to understand recent warming, we also have to consider the natural factors that have regularly warmed the climate prior to the industrial revolution and, indeed, prior to any human presence on the earth. After all, the geological record shows a persistent 1,500-year cycle of warming and cooling extending back at least one million years.


In identifying the burning of fossil fuels as the chief cause of warming today, many politicians and environmental activists simply appeal to a so-called �scientific consensus.� There are two things wrong with this. First, there is no such consensus: An increasing number of climate scientists are raising serious questions about the political rush to judgment on this issue. For example, the widely touted �consensus� of 2,500 scientists on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an illusion: Most of the panelists have no scientific qualifications, and many of the others object to some part of the IPCC�s report. The Associated Press reported recently that only 52 climate scientists contributed to the report�s �Summary for Policymakers.�


Likewise, only about a dozen members of the governing board voted on the �consensus statement� on climate change by the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Rank and file AMS scientists never had a say, which is why so many of them are now openly rebelling. Estimates of skepticism within the AMS regarding man-made global warming are well over 50 percent.


The second reason not to rely on a �scientific consensus� in these matters is that this is not how science works. After all, scientific advances customarily come from a minority of scientists who challenge the majority view�or even just a single person (think of Galileo or Einstein). Science proceeds by the scientific method and draws conclusions based on evidence, not on a show of hands.


But aren�t glaciers melting? Isn�t sea ice shrinking? Yes, but that�s not proof for human-caused warming. Any kind of warming, whether natural or human-caused, will melt ice. To assert that melting glaciers prove human causation is just bad logic.


What about the fact that carbon dioxide levels are increasing at the same time temperatures are rising? That�s an interesting correlation; but as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation. During much of the last century the climate was cooling while CO2 levels were rising. And we should note that the climate has not warmed in the past eight years, even though greenhouse gas levels have increased rapidly.


What about the fact�as cited by, among others, those who produced the IPCC report�that every major greenhouse computer model (there are two dozen or so) shows a large temperature increase due to human burning of fossil fuels? Fortunately, there is a scientific way of testing these models to see whether current warming is due to a man-made greenhouse effect. It involves comparing the actual or observed pattern of warming with the warming pattern predicted by or calculated from the models. Essentially, we try to see if the �fingerprints� match��fingerprints� meaning the rates of warming at different latitudes and altitudes.


For instance, theoretically, greenhouse warming in the tropics should register at increasingly high rates as one moves from the surface of the earth up into the atmosphere, peaking at about six miles above the earth�s surface. At that point, the level should be greater than at the surface by about a factor of three and quite pronounced, according to all the computer models. In reality, however, there is no increase at all. In fact, the data from balloon-borne radiosondes show the very opposite: a slight decrease in warming over the equator.


The fact that the observed and predicted patterns of warming don�t match indicates that the man-made greenhouse contribution to current temperature change is insignificant. This fact emerges from data and graphs collected in the Climate Change Science Program Report 1.1, published by the federal government in April 2006. It is remarkable and puzzling that few have noticed this disparity between observed and predicted patterns of warming and drawn the obvious scientific conclusion.


What explains why greenhouse computer models predict temperature trends that are so much larger than those observed? The answer lies in the proper evaluation of feedback within the models. Remember that in addition to carbon dioxide, the real atmosphere contains water vapor, the most powerful greenhouse gas. Every one of the climate models calculates a significant positive feedback from water vapor�i.e., a feedback that amplifies the warming effect of the CO2 increase by an average factor of two or three. But it is quite possible that the water vapor feedback is negative rather than positive and thereby reduces the effect of increased CO2.


There are several ways this might occur. For example, when increased CO2 produces a warming of the ocean, a higher rate of evaporation might lead to more humidity and cloudiness (provided the atmosphere contains a sufficient number of cloud condensation nuclei). These low clouds reflect incoming solar radiation back into space and thereby cool the earth. Climate researchers have discovered other possible feedbacks and are busy evaluating which ones enhance and which diminish the effect of increasing CO2.


Natural Causes of Warming


A quite different question, but scientifically interesting, has to do with the natural factors influencing climate. This is a big topic about which much has been written. Natural factors include continental drift and mountain-building, changes in the Earth�s orbit, volcanic eruptions, and solar variability. Different factors operate on different time scales. But on a time scale important for human experience�a scale of decades, let�s say�solar variability may be the most important.


Solar influence can manifest itself in different ways: fluctuations of solar irradiance (total energy), which has been measured in satellites and related to the sunspot cycle; variability of the ultraviolet portion of the solar spectrum, which in turn affects the amount of ozone in the stratosphere; and variations in the solar wind that modulate the intensity of cosmic rays (which, upon impact into the earth�s atmosphere, produce cloud condensation nuclei, affecting cloudiness and thus climate).


Scientists have been able to trace the impact of the sun on past climate using proxy data (since thermometers are relatively modern). A conventional proxy for temperature is the ratio of the heavy isotope of oxygen, Oxygen-18, to the most common form, Oxygen-16.


A paper published in Nature in 2001 describes the Oxygen-18 data (reflecting temperature) from a stalagmite in a cave in Oman, covering a period of over 3,000 years. It also shows corresponding Carbon-14 data, which are directly related to the intensity of cosmic rays striking the earth�s atmosphere. One sees there a remarkably detailed correlation, almost on a year-by-year basis. While such research cannot establish the detailed mechanism of climate change, the causal connection is quite clear: Since the stalagmite temperature cannot affect the sun, it is the sun that affects climate.


Policy Consequences


If this line of reasoning is correct, human-caused increases in the CO2 level are quite insignificant to climate change. Natural causes of climate change, for their part, cannot be controlled by man. They are unstoppable. Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:


Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even counterproductive, in that no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, such regulation is hugely expensive.The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethanol and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. Nor do they offer much reduction in oil imports.Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies.Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons.


None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. On the contrary, conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy prices�irrespective of what one may believe about global warming


Science vs. Hysteria


You will note that this has been a rational discussion. We asked the important question of whether there is appreciable man-made warming today. We presented evidence that indicates there is not, thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. Nevertheless, we have state governors calling for CO2 emissions limits on cars; we have city mayors calling for mandatory CO2 controls; we have the Supreme Court declaring CO2 a pollutant that may have to be regulated; we have every industrialized nation (with the exception of the U.S. and Australia) signed on to the Kyoto Protocol; and we have ongoing international demands for even more stringent controls when Kyoto expires in 2012. What�s going on here?


To begin, perhaps even some of the advocates of these anti-warming policies are not so serious about them, as seen in a feature of the Kyoto Protocol called the Clean Development Mechanism, which allows a CO2 emitter�i.e., an energy user�to support a fanciful CO2 reduction scheme in developing nations in exchange for the right to keep on emitting CO2 unabated. �Emission trading� among those countries that have ratified Kyoto allows for the sale of certificates of unused emission quotas. In many cases, the initial quota was simply given away by governments to power companies and other entities, which in turn collect a windfall fee from consumers. All of this has become a huge financial racket that could someday make the UN�s �Oil for Food� scandal in Iraq seem minor by comparison. Even more fraudulent, these schemes do not reduce total CO2 emissions�not even in theory.


It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the global warming scare�at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of one-sided books, movies, and media coverage.


The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture and forestry. It�s a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees�and ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.


You wouldn�t know it from Al Gore�s An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming: Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific. Forests may expand.


Mongolia could become an economic superpower. This is all speculative, even a little facetious. But still, might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? �It�s not that there won�t be bad things happening in those countries,� economics professor Robert O. Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. �But the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.� Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of northern Europe and Mongolia, largely because of projected increases in agricultural production.


To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years and has shown huge variations over geological time. Human beings have adapted well, and will continue to do so.


* * *


The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Any of these problems are vastly more important than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. It is a great shame that so many of our resources are being diverted from real problems to this non-problem. Perhaps in ten or 20 years this will become apparent to everyone, particularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool.

We can only trust that reason will prevail in the face of an onslaught of propaganda like Al Gore�s movie and despite the incessant misinformation generated by the media. Today, the imposed costs are still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity and motor fuels. If the scaremongers have their way, these costs will become enormous. But I believe that sound science and good sense will prevail in the face of irrational and scientifically baseless climate fears.





S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, a distinguished research professor at George Mason University, and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project. He performed his undergraduate studies at Ohio State University and earned his Ph.D. in Physics from Princeton University. He was the founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami, the founding director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served for five years as vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere. Dr. Singer has written or edited over a dozen books and monographs, including, most recently, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, so far, there hasn't been one iota of intelligent feedback from them on this thread.


Can't diss the logic, can't diss the education and/or career of the author...


so, the truth ends up ignored by the leftist manmade gw followers.


But later, you watch, one of them will repost their opinion that virtually all scientists

one earth know it's manmade, and that the "debate is over".


but we'll just bring this article back out again.


But they'll be po'd and call for me to be banned for posting it.


I could be wrongie, but they are true to form so far.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you like apples?


I voted for Clinton twice, Kerry, Gore and Obama.


I think the judgements we're making on the last 30 years are ridiculous when the earth has been around for millions. Alaska's glaciers are growing for the first time in hundreds of years. It seems to me, there is a much greater chance this is all cyclical rather than man induced. However, if the result of all of this "man is evil for warming the earth" sentiment is we develop more alternative energy, then I guess in a weird way, maybe the end result will have value.


How 'bout them apples? :lol:


(Note, I also think we should drill in ANWR and the sands in the Dakotas, while placing wind turbines in Wyoming and solar panels in Arizona. Do it all. So, I guess that makes me a Democrat who is not a tree hugger?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It makes you a Dem with fine critical thinking skills !


I hope our young trees in our orchard do well next spring.


McIntosh apples are excellent. But the ancient orchard out in our woods?


Big banana kind of apples, and some other heirlooms that taste excellent,

cept for the sour cooking apples, which are terrific after they are cooked and sweetened.


I wish I knew why Dad's big transparent apple tree only has apples every other year.

I've tried to research it, to no avail.


Need about 3 more apple trees, preferably semi-dwarf, but hopefully more like 3-4 years old, if I can find em...





Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cal Singer is only new to maybe some on this board. I dont know if he is to you but evidently you feel you hit the homerun because of his credentials.


As a interesting note Singer also does not believe that second hand smoke can cause lung cancer........ O and he also believer that is no significant loss to the Ozone layer.... He must have missed all the Cancer statistics and the HUGE satellite images of the Ozone hole growing over Australia.


The Heartland institure released and published a document Nature, Not Human Activity Rules the Climate which Mr Singer was the general editor and is the copyright owner.

We all know the Heartland insitute is a financiially funded by oil and gas along with utility companies and the right wing.


Singer was accused of fabricating facts by Scientists from Nasa/Stanford and Princeton.


Singer also has financial links with tobacco and oil grants. He has not published any actual peer reviewed studies to bolster his positions. He just lectures and speaks. Anyone can make any claim they want it is a matter of what sort of data they can use to further there argument.


Dr Singer has been well documented on his links with Tobacco and OIl along with Right wing PR think tanks. Those lobbying groups always find some impressive credentials to use as confusing protagonists but never actually release peer reviewed studies. Its a common tactic.


He is linked to the independent insitute, American council of science and health, frontiers of freedom, the marshall institure, national center for policy analysis etc. All funded by large drug, oil, industrialists, utilities, tobacco etc.


He has a impressive resume which he has used to get paid by various organizations who parade his resume and link his name but produce no data or studies, it just looks impressive but without any meat.


It was a nice attempt Cal.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, but he has the education, apparently that's all that matters.


I'm good. :lol: Man made global warming is a crock - the global warming occured BEFORE there were people.


I wonder how much of a carbon footprint the dinasaurs made with methane.


The article was outstanding - it agreed with me !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

typical lib....attack the man, not the material.


As a interesting note Singer also does not believe that second hand smoke can cause lung cancer........ O and he also believer that is no significant loss to the Ozone layer.... He must have missed all the Cancer statistics and the HUGE satellite images of the Ozone hole growing over Australia.


This looks like material to me.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

so osusev posts some shit and thats material?


i can make claims too....


small words like "significant" and "correlation" must not be in you vocabs, because i smell and see bullshit.


accused? proven? global warming activists have been making up facts this entire time.....just see the IPCC. they knowingly falsify their reports as well, so then who's right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<H2 class=storyheadline>Perhaps some explanation is in order:


Guest opinion: Jeffrey Singer -- It's a secondhand smoke screen </H2>Tucson, Arizona | Published: 11.03.2006Some public policy activists engage in "advocacy science," manipulating data to create the appearance of a scientific basis for the policies they advocate. Their allies in the scientific community attempt to make the findings of their research fit a predetermined conclusion.


Many public-policy debates have become immersed in advocacy science. Whether it's global warming, endangered species or silicone breast implants, either side of the debate has its own cadre of advocacy scientists to bolster its arguments. This makes it difficult for the discerning citizen to separate truth from half-truth. And when a particular viewpoint is politically correct, journalists tend to be less skeptical of the scientific claims supporting it.


A case in point is the argument against secondhand smoke.


In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency deemed secondhand smoke a cancer risk. But in 1998, a U.S. District Court ruling nullified the EPA report. It turns out the EPA cherry-picked its data and manipulated scientific procedure and scientific norms to rationalize the agency's predetermined position.

When asked by reporters for a response, an EPA spokesperson said the EPA had acted for a worthy cause. But lying is never acceptable, even for a worthy cause. To this day we have heard scant mention of this incident in the press. Nor has there been much mention of the May 2003 British Medical Journal report by UCLA School of Public Health researchers Enstrom and Kabat, whose research "did not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality." It concluded, "The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary artery disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."


Nor has the press mentioned that the latest U.S. Surgeon General's report, based on a review of existing literature, stated, "Although the data are sparse on specific elements linking secondhand-smoke exposure and tumor induction in humans via exposure to tobacco smoke carcinogens, substantial data from active smokers support this framework of biological steps towards cancer."


The fact is, either side in this debate can bring out its team of scientists to shoot holes in the other's data and bolster its own case. I'd like to get away from this and resort to common sense.


It is undisputed that risk of lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases is directly related to the amount of cigarettes smoked per year and the amount of years one smokes. The more smoke inhaled into the lungs, and the longer the sustained period of time this continues, the greater the risk. When it comes to lung cancer, there is a roughly 20-year lag time between the onset of smoking and the development of lung cancer.


Therefore, I reason, if high doses of smoke must be inhaled over a sustained period of several years to increase the risk of lung cancer, then occasional, partially inhaled smoke, say from a distant table in a restaurant, cannot possibly be considered a major health risk.


Thankfully, our political system is not a "scientocracy." Otherwise, we would have no freedom to make any choices other than those scientists deem good for us. When it comes to public policy, our constitutionally guaranteed rights should have final say in any debate.


Restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and offices are all privately owned entities whose owners seek to do business with the public. As such, the owners have the right to decide whether they want to allow or prohibit smoking on their premises. Naturally, the profit motive will make them strongly take their customers' desires into consideration. And no potential customer is forced to patronize any particular business.


Any law that prohibits smoking in privately owned places is a violation of the property rights of the owner. Regardless of any potential risk associated with secondhand smoke, the only place the public has a right to ban smoking is in a place the public owns.


It is a sad irony that many of the same people who rightly see the abuses of eminent domain laws by state and local governments as an assault on our property rights are happy to see their consistency go up in smoke when the subject turns to secondhand smoke.


As a doctor, I am very concerned about the harmful effects of tobacco. I counsel my patients to stay away from cigarettes. But as much as I care about their health, I respect their rights as adults to make their own personal choices. A statewide ban on smoking in privately owned places would continue the erosion of liberty that threatens the foundations on which our nation is based.

Jeffrey A. Singer is a Phoenix-area surgeon who writes and lectures on regional and national public policy. He is a Goldwater Institute board member and contributor to Arizona Medicine, the journal of the Arizona Medical Association.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have I recently mentioned my theory that most liberals cherry pick their info, because they do not think

critically, they react and assert EMOTIONALLY?


They are inherently biased toward proving their emotionally tied into stances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CAl Dr Singer gets paid by Oil, drug, utlity and other thru right wing pr organizations. He gets paid because of his resume. Post a peer reviewed study Singer has published in the last 20 years that prove his claims.


You cant because he has not. I dont mind having people who are accomplished like he is having a different opinion. He used his resume to get paid which again is not a problem. That does not translate into evidence.


Second hand smoke, and ozone depletion were examples of who he was paid by to lecture and speak for a counter to studies and data. NOTICE NO published peer reviewed studies or data just opinions backed by his resume.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Masters
Cal Singer is only new to maybe some on this board. I dont know if he is to you but evidently you feel you hit the homerun because of his credentials.


As a interesting note Singer also does not believe that second hand smoke can cause lung cancer........ O and he also believer that is no significant loss to the Ozone layer.... He must have missed all the Cancer statistics and the HUGE satellite images of the Ozone hole growing over Australia.


Technically, smoking and second hand smoke has never been proven to cause cancer. It has been proven to increase the risk of cancer. Everyone has the gene for cancer. Smoking and second hand smoke has only been shown at times to activate that gene.


As to the ozone, I gues you missed this being debunked years ago. It was found that they were wrong and the hole in the ozone grows and shrinks regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Post a peer reviewed study Singer has published in the last 20 years that prove his claims.


I'm not sure a guy like cal sees the HUGE difference between a peer-reviewed study and something published in People.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency deemed secondhand smoke a cancer risk.


But in 1998, a U.S. District Court ruling nullified the EPA report. It turns out the EPA cherry-picked its data and manipulated scientific procedure and scientific norms to rationalize the agency's predetermined position.



It's the U.S. District Court that ruled that the EPA report was invalid, - they cherry picked their information to say what they wanted it to say.


I don't like second hand smoke. But peer review seems too much a political control of differering opinions to me.


I thought it was the education that decreed legitmacy of a stance.


Apparently, it's only a valid stance,.... if it agrees with popular opinion. His education is beyond dissing.


It's always something.


Man made global warming is a crock.


Except for the destruction of bijillions of acres of virgin rainforest. And no man made goober warning enthusiasts want to talk about that.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

cal lets go ahead for the sake of argument say that man does not contributre enough to alter the earths weather in any meaningful way.


Whats the harm in moving away from oil (smog is not good for humans), whats the harm in learning to live within a sustainable pattern? Living within reasonable sustainable means is something we need to do and dont. Easter island is not something I would like to see happen to the entire earth. Overuse/improper non sustainable use of our envirement is not a good idea regardless of where you fall on the science.


I did not miss anything on cfc's and the ozone along with all major chemical companies in the world have acknowledged that cfc's are directly related to ozone damage.


You really are not going to try to defend second hand smoke and health hazards are you to try to defend your posts obvious money connections?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely nothing wrong with working to eliminate pollution in our environment.


Coal gives us ... was it 1/3 or 1/2 of our U.S. electricity?


The work to have a better source of energy is well worth it.


But to diss coal prematurely, as in, decades prematurely, in the least, doesn't make sense to me.


I'm all for bettering our environment.


but with commen sense, and at least, cost-effectively. But it's two different issues,


man made global warming is a crock, ... of course we should work to develop better sources

of energy that are healthier for us in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Interesting article.


It most certainly is a combination of the two or man made and natural climate change... not one or the other.


To say that pumping megatons of C02 intot the environment without thinking it has a detrimental effect is extremely short sighted, just because we don't have a formula saying X amount of C02 produces and X amount increase in earth's temperature


Sustainability is key when discussing energy alternatives, and current practices are unsustainable.


We DO need to develop alternatives now, because the R&D behind it will take long periods of time, as will implementation of any accessible alternative energy source.


The other issue is subsidies, and alternative energy will be required to be subsidized....until full scale implementation, why? because it goes beyond cost effectiveness, it's about sustainability. There is many macro economic issues into why alternative energy sources can not be economically attractive, including the fact it costs around 2-10 dollars to produce a barrel of oil.


Until fusion is harnassed nothing will be cost effective vs. oil



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Lam !


It's true about coal furnishing a HUGE amount of our electricity in our U.s.


To rail against coal, lean on that industry because of alleged man-made global warming,

will turn people to wood burner stoves.


Even old ones are selling like hotcakes at auctions.


Which, doesn't help us pollution wise, because that's less and less trees, which is exactly

what we DON'T need.


But developing new sources of energy is extremely important. I just don't want to see

war declared on our current sources just because of what I see, that being man made global warming

as a rally cry whose ulterior motive is political and economic power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The other issue is subsidies, and alternative energy will be required to be subsidized....until full scale implementation, why? because it goes beyond cost effectiveness, it's about sustainability. There is many macro economic issues into why alternative energy sources can not be economically attractive, including the fact it costs around 2-10 dollars to produce a barrel of oil. Lam


This is a very excellent point ! Never thought of it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya, personally I don't agree with how the politicians are attacking the global warming issue. How the true scientists attack the warming issue and how the politicians do are two seperate things. Carbon credits is nothing but a money grab and does not solve anything...It's pretty simple to see that if a carbon tax comes into effect, companies are going to increase the cost of goods by the amount of the carbon tax, and it comes back to the end user.. in the ultimate end you me and the neighbor next door.


The cost of the tax can't be so extreme that it runs people out of business..and if it is it will be a detriment to our economy which is already in recession, but cost of implementation of a "green system" goes way beyond capital budgets of anyone but the largest firms.


Most of the public seems to think coal is bad, oil sands are bad, windpower/solar is good. I'll agree from an environmental propective but reality is everyone doesn't want to pay more and you can't run the country off windpower and solar. The economy is the base of which the first world is operated by..If we don't increase our bottom line we are not doing enough to survive in our society.


I personally have yet to see a solar / wind power alternative that is economically feasible for a company to implement..(3 year payback,10+% ROR) and have done a couple feasibility estimates both for our home residence and on site.





Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...