Voting is closed

Nichole”
1) generating the power and consuming it in the same place with a solar panel. see? cuz you lose energy with every step you take. 1 step = best.
Just make sure it is sunny all the time, yes? And certainly not snowing, yes?
Unless energy policies go the nuclear way, there is no possibility of stopping coal and oil factories. All the carbon capping schemes are a new way for governments ( and private enterprises like the ones Al Gore has) to squeeze money out of the hoi polloi, and get more control over the population.

10:15AM local time [USA west coast]
WUWT = 12992
the other =11203
diff
1789
Yesterday the difference was running about 2300.
Difficult to access for vote.

nichole wrote:
regardless of the fact that said cycle is way faster than any previously measured

Are you quite sure of that?
What if you came across data that indicated that previously there have been far faster, natural changes?
What would be your first reaction?

@nichole (09:43:50) :
Wow! Been reading the New York Times a lot lately it seems.

and what is clear to me is that the icecaps are melting at an alarming rate.
let’s all sit back and argue while species populations disappear at what is also an alarming rate.

Polar Bears Perhaps? I suggest you run over to WWF and make your contribution to save the poor Polar Bears.

the one thing that’s nice is that florida is one of the first ones on the chopping block. i lived there for two years, HATED it.

Chopping block for what exactly? The demise of their citrus industry as our climate continues to cool and we begin to deplete the primary food source of plants (CO2) in a feeble attempt to control that which we cannot (temperature)?
Yikes, never mind, I could continue but this is just way too easy.
Nicole, I suggest you take a timeout and begin to educate yourself on this subject. You clearly have no real clue.

>…to prove that the theory of global climate change is false, one must…
Sorry, but It is the man-made climate change proponents who need to prove their case. They are seeking money and votes from us, not the other way around.
All here believe in climate change; most here believe that such change is a part of a natural cycle.
If someone wishes me to believe that mankind has taken over responsibility for these changes, such that I should vote to increase taxes in an attempt to deal with it, then it is they who have a case to prove, not me.
So far I’ve seen lots of taunting and attempts to intimidate with “consensus” arguments (which were probably used against Darwin in his time, and didn’t work then, either), but the actual science behind the AGW argument has so many gaping holes in it that I’m surprised it is still being taken seriously.

nichole:
why climate change denialists are stupid: same reason all denialists are stupid.
nichole, “denialists” don’t deny that the climate changes as a matter of normal course, and changes naturally. Instead, that’s what the “believers” deny.
Hence the ipcc’s inveterately held presupposition that climate change must be due to fossil fuel CO2, which the ipcc’s method simply does not allow to be disproven/questioned, and which in effect is simply repeated as a basic article of belief over and over by the ipcc “science”.
That process also qualifies the ipcc/”believers'” position as a classic Conspiracy Theory, i.e., one that its adherents will hold to despite all evidence, and it also makes the “Theory” essentially nonsensical from a scientific perspective. There is nothing scientific which will disprove the Theory, and therefore nothing scientific necessary to prove it, either.
“Denialists” don’t deny that it’s at least possible for the climate to change via Man’s machinations. In the current situation “denialists” simply want proof that what the “believers” call “climate change” = Global Warming is due to Human acts as compared with Nature’s mechanisms – and, of course, that GW is actually occurring, that GW would result in a net disaster regarless of its cause, and that any alleged cure to GW will not result in a greater disaster itself than the alleged disease will.
Again, all the “believers” seem to do is to simply repeat over and over a few mantras, despite a massive amount of evidence which objectively questions the apparent meaning of these mantras, and which so far contradicts AGW predictions flowing from the mantras.
The “believers'” specific tactic essentially amounts to a variation of “The Monkeys know it is true because they always say it is true” method, and they apparently hope that this propagandistic tactic will hold sway with Politicians and the Public, so that the “belief” can be translated into measures involving control.
In contrast, “denialists” deny that this specific tactic is a part of the Scientific Method and instead want realistic solutions to real problems, as opposed to “solutions” addressing propagandistically created perceptions, a dynamic whose goal is merely control for its own sake, +/- the obvious fringe benefits accruing to those in control.

“oil making solar panels” ?? wtf?
British Petroleum was for years the largest producer of solar panels in Europe 🙂

Well, that was an interesting read… the paranoia is a bit unbecoming, kids.

Joe Golonka:
Decades of conservative lies have seriously damaged America, and thus warrant a strong and concerted response.
Wouldn’t ANY lies, no matter where they’re from be damaging? Do “conservatives” have the market cornered on lying? I highly doubt it, and I say that as a “liberal”. Because, you see, AGW is probably the biggest lie ever told, with severe consequences to society, to science, and to freedom itself very likely, if not stopped. The bigger the lie, the greater the chance for tyranny.
nichole:
and what is clear to me is that the icecaps are melting at an alarming rate.
No, sorry, they are not. If you will bother to look at the actual science, you’ll find that is just alarmist hogwash.
No, C02, or “carbon” as you call it does not “match up nicey nice” with temps. Wrong again. If you’ll bother to look at the geologic history (and I doubt you will) you’ll see that C02 rises as a result of temperature rise, not the other way around.
cleaning up pollution sounds like an idea that’s been a long time coming, to me. No one here says otherwise. Completely different issue, though one alarmists LOVE to conflate with the issue of AGW.
much more efficient would be 1) generating the power and consuming it in the same place with a solar panel. see? cuz you lose energy with every step you take. 1 step = best.
Everyone is certainly free to use solar energy now, if they so desire. If it made sense economically, a lot more people would already be doing so. In some cases, solar energy can actually be cheaper, due to the distance from the main power grid.
Again, no one here is “against” solar.

Roger Sowell — “Would you please explain the basis for that statement?”
You can get a lot of the info here:
http://www.gravmag.com/oil3.html#barrel2
Gas is something like 40% of the use of a barrel. Vehicles as a class consume something like 60% or so.
What I had said originally was that oil could just as easily be used for plastic (polymers etc) feedstock as for burning it. This was in response to the vague “middle east policy” reference nichole made; I had wanted to illustrate that oil would be used by mankind even if we weren’t burning it in vehicles. Best guess is that we would find a way to use as much as we do now for products yet to be invented or products that can be implemented now but aren’t due to cost. An example of the latter might be a plastic that is used in roadway construction, etc.
Squidly — “Polar Bears Perhaps? I suggest you run over to WWF and make your contribution to save the poor Polar Bears.”
Actually mankind is the cause of most recent species extinctions and has been for the past 10000 years. Man wiped out everything from the mammoth to the dodo bird, one way or another. The odd unlucky meteor strike wiped out a few things as well, and interestingly, lots of species that may have survived had mankind not been hunting them out anyway. e.g. It will probably be only a few more decades until the Africans wipe out the Mountain Gorilla.
It’s a shame that species exterminations have to be tied to AGW; the former is a sad reality and the latter is an obscene claim. My guess is that more species are lost to deforestation (land clearing) and bush meat hunting than anything else (i.e. the same as it has been for a few millenia.)

I have looked at this Pharyngula site and am a bit put off by the general tone of things there. Some folks must be troubled by irritable bowel syndrome. I like the tone of discussion much better here. Not quite so many idealogues.
Just my $0.02 worth.