RKMBs Forums .::Important::. Politics and Current Events Russian Scientists Debunk Kyoto

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
And you know who pushes windmill technology over here, among others? George W. Bush.

As such, it would be difficult to say that the US government hasn't embraced that particular method.

Unfortunately, the solution to replacing coal and other fossil fuels is going to boil down to one thing: nuclear power.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Oh, please.

The idea that automakers can be profitable with planned obsolescence died in the 1970s, when they were forced to compete with Japanese vehicles.

For example, Toyota makes highly reliable, low maintenance, cars and is so profitable that it is widely expected to become the world's largest auto maker this year.

And the automakers don't generally maintain their own vehicles. Private garages do that. So the idea that auto companies would lose money on repairs if cars don't break doesn't wash.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
And you know who pushes windmill technology over here, among others? George W. Bush.

As such, it would be difficult to say that the US government hasn't embraced that particular method.

Unfortunately, the solution to replacing coal and other fossil fuels is going to boil down to one thing: nuclear power.

---

Quote:

---

Chant said:
Well, it sounds like you think I'm trying to derail Bush by saying that there are alternatives to fossil fuel he hasn't considered.

---

Quote:

---

britneyspearsatemyshorts said:
it was widely reported GM quit producing the Chevette because it was designed so well people had little need to trade in for a newer one as the one they had still performed as well as when they bought it...

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

Karl Hungus said:
the electric car worked. they even developed a battery to extend the mileage on it to that of a normal car with a full tank of gas.
we don't need carbon fuel cells or hybrid cars that still use oil unless our goal is to keep the billions rolling into texaco. had bush not pulled out of the federal mandate on zero emission vehicles we would be easily able to lower carbon emissions.

---

Okay, assuming that the above is true, even if you suddenly mandated that every car made be "zero" emission vehicles, it would still take decades to replace every car currently on the road with a "zero emission" car.

And where do we get electricity? Power plants. What do power plants typically run on? Fossil fuels.

---

That's why we must have more nuclear power.

Quote:

---

Captain Sweden said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:

Quote:

---

Karl Hungus said:
the electric car worked. they even developed a battery to extend the mileage on it to that of a normal car with a full tank of gas.
we don't need carbon fuel cells or hybrid cars that still use oil unless our goal is to keep the billions rolling into texaco. had bush not pulled out of the federal mandate on zero emission vehicles we would be easily able to lower carbon emissions.

---

Okay, assuming that the above is true, even if you suddenly mandated that every car made be "zero" emission vehicles, it would still take decades to replace every car currently on the road with a "zero emission" car.

And where do we get electricity? Power plants. What do power plants typically run on? Fossil fuels.

---

That's why we must have more nuclear power.

---

Remember that wonderful picture of stranded polar bears on an ice floe that were used by folks to demonstrate how dire the man-made global warming issue is?

It turns out the picture was taken in August, “when every year the fringes of the Arctic ice cap melt regardless of the wider effects of global warming.”

The photographer, Australian marine biology student Amanda Byrd, didn’t think the bears were in any jeopardy

Denis Simard of Environment Canada agreed: You have to keep in mind that the bears are not in danger at all. This is a perfect picture for climate change…you have the impression they are in the middle of the ocean and they are going to die...But they were not that far from the coast, and it was possible for them to swim...They are still alive and having fun.

Associated Press released the photo two and a half years after it was taken, on the day the United Nations released its major global warming report.

Al Gore saw it. He used it in a presentation on man made global warming.

Quote:

---

Chant said (emphasis added with some degree of bewilderment):
I'll say that despite whatever lies both sides in this debate might spout, there's no denying it.

We DO have a problem...

---

Dude... do you read what you're saying before you post it? You admitted both sides (including, by the way, the side that says there's a problem) are probably lying, then proceeded to charge teeth-first into "we DO have a problem...", paying absolutely no heed to your previous sentence. You're starting to remind me of MEM.

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:

Quote:

---

Chant said (emphasis added with some degree of bewilderment):
I'll say that despite whatever lies both sides in this debate might spout, there's no denying it.

We DO have a problem...

---

Dude... do you read what you're saying before you post it? You admitted both sides (including, by the way, the side that says there's a problem) are probably lying, then proceeded to charge teeth-first into "we DO have a problem...", paying absolutely no heed to your previous sentence. You're starting to remind me of MEM.

---

Quote:

---

thedoctor said:

Quote:

---

Captain Sammitch said:

Quote:

---

Chant said (emphasis added with some degree of bewilderment):
I'll say that despite whatever lies both sides in this debate might spout, there's no denying it.

We DO have a problem...

---

Dude... do you read what you're saying before you post it? You admitted both sides (including, by the way, the side that says there's a problem) are probably lying, then proceeded to charge teeth-first into "we DO have a problem...", paying absolutely no heed to your previous sentence. You're starting to remind me of MEM.

---

Actually, Sammitch, he was probably mentioning the lies about the severity of the problem and not whether or not there is a problem. The one "chargin in teeth-first" seems to be you.

---

The National Weather Service warns that a Nor'easter may hit New York this weekend into early next week.

A winter storm watch is in effect from Sunday morning through Monday afternoon for the southern Adirondacks, Mohawk Valley, Schoharie valley and the eastern Catskills.

A significant winter storm is expected to impact the warning area from Sunday morning through Monday with 9 inches or more of snowfall accumulation possible. The heaviest snow accumulations are expected to occur at elevations above 1500 feet, especially across the southern Adirondacks.

In addition to the potential for heavy snow, strong and gusty winds may down tree limbs and power lines. The strongest winds are expected across the higher terrain with the wind direction shifting from southeast Sunday morning to east Sunday afternoon and then northeast Sunday night and Monday. Sustained wind speeds of 20 to 35 mph with gusts over 50 mph are possible. East and northeast facing slopes of mountains will be especially vulnerable.

The snow and wind are expected to result from a low pressure system over the southeast United States Saturday evening which will move to the Delmarva Peninsula Sunday afternoon and then intensify rapidly as it moves toward Long Island Sunday evening and then it may rotate back toward the northwest into central New England Monday afternoon. A slight change in this storm track will likely result in a significant difference in precipitation type and snowfall accumulations.

A Winter Storm Watch means there is a potential for significant snow, sleet or ice accumulations that may impact travel.

AS we mark the 38th Earth Day, it's worth noting that this secular "religion" has led many Americans to fervently believe some things that just aren't true.


What are the myths propagated by the Church of Environmentalism? Consider the pronouncements from the greens' "Vatican": Last Earth Day, Greenpeace USA exhorted its followers to action because "our forests are being destroyed at an unprecedented rate." More, we must switch to "clean alternative" energies like wind power, because "we all know that fossil fuels contribute to global warming."

But it's not so. Yes, the United States lost forestland throughout much of the 19th century, as the new nation grew - but the amount of forestland stabilized throughout much of the 20th century.

According to the Forest Service, we have actually seen a net reforestation since 1985. We aren't losing forestland, we're gaining it.

Greenpeace's call for replacing fossil fuels with cleaner alternatives might make sense, but only if there were any realistic alternatives available. Presently renewable energies like wind power, solar power and ethanol aren't close to being able to substitute for the coal, natural gas and oil that make up the lion's share of our energy sources. Coal provides half our electricity today. Wind and solar provide less than 1 percent.

More, alternative fuels can be as land-hungry as agriculture. The typical 1,000 megawatt coal or nuclear plant might sit on a few acres. To generate the same amount of electricity with renewables would require 60,000 acres for a utility-scale wind farm, or about 11,000 acres of photovoltaic cells capturing the sun's light.

Ethanol, too, can't be produced in the massive quantities required to make a significant dent in our gasoline consumption - and its production depends on vast tracts of farmland, too.

Other myths?

* More than four of every five poll respondents said that our cities are getting dirtier. In fact, pollution has been slashed since 1970, and our cities are far cleaner today.

* A majority believes our chief supplier of foreign oil is Saudi Arabia. In fact, it is our friendly neighbor to the north, Canada. All told the Persian Gulf supplies just 17 percent of the oil we import, and just 11 percent of all the oil we use.

This Earth Day, Greenpeace and its fellow environmental ecclesiasts will once again call on their flocks to take action. By all means, let us safeguard the environment - but with steps rooted in fact, not myth.

Quote:

---

Beardguy57 said:
The frontpage for this thread looks like Al Gore is going to eat the Earth.

---

Quote:

---

It also reminds me of that old cover where The Spectre is getting hit in the head with the Earth by another giant guy who looks like the Devil.

---

Quote:

---

Karl Hungus said:
So the earth day banner depicts al gore negatively, and his "mythology" title basically is a jab at global warming.
and the icing on the cake?
the thread links to an article that is not about earth day, but is about the highly-politicized kyoto (and of course the thread title was also written by g-man to support his view).

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Max Schulz is a Manhattan Institute senior fellow and author of "Energy and the Environment: Myths and Facts." He writes:

AS we mark the 38th Earth Day, it's worth noting that this secular "religion" has led many Americans to fervently believe some things that just aren't true.


What are the myths propagated by the Church of Environmentalism? Consider the pronouncements from the greens' "Vatican": Last Earth Day, Greenpeace USA exhorted its followers to action because "our forests are being destroyed at an unprecedented rate." More, we must switch to "clean alternative" energies like wind power, because "we all know that fossil fuels contribute to global warming."

But it's not so. Yes, the United States lost forestland throughout much of the 19th century, as the new nation grew - but the amount of forestland stabilized throughout much of the 20th century.

According to the Forest Service, we have actually seen a net reforestation since 1985. We aren't losing forestland, we're gaining it.

Greenpeace's call for replacing fossil fuels with cleaner alternatives might make sense, but only if there were any realistic alternatives available. Presently renewable energies like wind power, solar power and ethanol aren't close to being able to substitute for the coal, natural gas and oil that make up the lion's share of our energy sources. Coal provides half our electricity today. Wind and solar provide less than 1 percent.

More, alternative fuels can be as land-hungry as agriculture. The typical 1,000 megawatt coal or nuclear plant might sit on a few acres. To generate the same amount of electricity with renewables would require 60,000 acres for a utility-scale wind farm, or about 11,000 acres of photovoltaic cells capturing the sun's light.

Ethanol, too, can't be produced in the massive quantities required to make a significant dent in our gasoline consumption - and its production depends on vast tracts of farmland, too.

Other myths?

* More than four of every five poll respondents said that our cities are getting dirtier. In fact, pollution has been slashed since 1970, and our cities are far cleaner today.

* A majority believes our chief supplier of foreign oil is Saudi Arabia. In fact, it is our friendly neighbor to the north, Canada. All told the Persian Gulf supplies just 17 percent of the oil we import, and just 11 percent of all the oil we use.

This Earth Day, Greenpeace and its fellow environmental ecclesiasts will once again call on their flocks to take action. By all means, let us safeguard the environment - but with steps rooted in fact, not myth.

---

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Actually, Raymond, the particular post linked to is. in fact, about Earth Day:

---

Please direct your eyes to the top of this window.

Quote:

---

Beardguy57 said:
It makes it look like Al Gore is gonna eat the Earth.

It also reminds me of that old cover where The Spectre is getting hit in the head with the Earth by another giant guy who looks like the Devil.

---

Quote:

---

Karl Hungus said:Give G-man 5 minutes and that Devil will be Affirmative Action.

---

Quote:

---

Karl Hungus said:

Quote:

---

the G-man said:
Actually, Raymond, the particular post linked to is. in fact, about Earth Day:

---

Please direct your eyes to the top of this window.

---

Quote:

---

Uschi said:
Fer chrissakes, G-man. If you want to start a new topic, MAKE a new topic. If people get sick of your whining in a big thread like this, they no longer look at it. I haven't looked at this thread since it had one page. If the topic changes enough to need a new title, make a damned new thread. Then people can actually join discussion without having to read every cunty thing you write.

---

Quote:

---

Uschi said:
I like my cunts to not be bald.

---

Quote:

---

Brad Lee said:
Global warming is a natural occurrence. We are not causing it, just like we did not and do not effect the hole in the ozone layer. People need to deal with that and shut up already.

---

It wasn't long ago that Canada's politicians were cursing the U.S. for its failure to go along with Kyoto's mandate of steep reductions in the emission of greenhouses gases. Now, they're having second thoughts.

Just last week, Environment Minister John Baird said Kyoto compliance would cost Canada 275,000 jobs and push its economy into recession.

Instead of Kyoto, Canada will join the U.S.-led Asian-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate — whose members also include Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea. The so-called AP6 was launched in mid-2005 to make voluntary cuts in greenhouse gases.

the U.S., which is under no treaty obligation to cut greenhouse gases, has actually done a better job of it than Europe's holier-than-thou green bureaucrats.

From 2000 to 2004, average carbon emissions rose by 1.3% in the U.S., but by 2.2% in the 25 nations of the European Union. That, despite the fact the U.S. economy grew 2 1/2 times faster.

Estimates put the amount of warming avoided by Kyoto at around 0.04 to 0.07 degree centigrade. That means trillions of dollars would have been spent for a cut in warming so small it's not even clear it could be measured.

An MIT meteorologist Wednesday dismissed alarmist fears about human induced global warming as nothing more than 'religious beliefs.' "Do you believe in global warming? That is a religious question. So is the second part: Are you a skeptic or a believer?" said Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen, in a speech to about 100 people at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

• A report released yesterday by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should be opening some eyes to the true costs and ultimate ineffectiveness of proposed domestic legislation to fight global warming.
  
  The study is an analysis of the economic impact of New Mexico Democratic senator Jeff Bingaman’s version of climate legislation. It is important to note that Bingaman's bill is widely considered to be the least stringent climate bill, with less aggressive carbon-emission-reduction targets than any other proposal.
  
  Even so, the EPA estimates that Bingaman’s bill would cause gas prices to rise 22 cents per gallon by 2030 and 57 cents per gallon by 2050. In addition, it would spark a 19-percent rise in electricity prices by 2030 ticking up to 21 percent by 2050. All told, Bingaman’s legislation would cut between 0.5 percent and 1.4 percent ($124 billion to $370 billion) from the nation’s Gross Domestic Product.
  
  Reaching the emission targets set in the Bingaman bill would require a 150-percent increase in nuclear power and the replacement of coal-fired power plants with newer plants that can capture and store CO2. Most people believe that even with new nuclear power plants coming on line, the industry will struggle to maintain its current 20-percent share of power generated, much less increase by 150 percent. And as for carbon sequestration, the technology doesn't exist now, and the EPA is unsure whether it will exist in time to meet the targets (if ever).
  
  Even if Bingaman’s bill becomes law and successfully meets its carbon targets, the EPA estimates that it will only reduce CO2 concentrations by an insignificant 11 parts per million. So thanks to Bingaman’s landmark legislation will keep CO2 concentrations to an estimated 707 ppm, rather than the estimated 718 ppm without it: a 1.5-percent reduction for the low, low annual price of $124 billion — $370 billion, tops.

• Having climate campaigner Al Gore round to your house is to open yourself to a self-flagellating guilt trip, Irish rock star Bono confessed Thursday.
  
  Acknowledging that a career in rock music was not always conducive to a green lifestyle, Bono compared a conversation with Gore to an act of religious contrition.
  
  "It's like being with an Irish priest. You start to confess your sins," he said. "Father Al, I am not just a noise polluter, I am a noise-polluting, diesel-soaking, gulfstream-flying rock star.
  
  "I'm going to kick the habit. I'm trying father Al, but oil has been very good for me -- those convoys of articulated lorries, petrochemical products, hair gel."