The Paddock

http://www.dosomething.org/actnow/tipsandtools/11-facts-about-global-warming

#5 is interesting. Considering 2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record. So that assertion is just wrong. Your ponsi scheme hogwash is laughable. If we follow the money we see the people funding false science to claim global warming doesn't exist are huge carbon producers. Most scientists get their funding from government so what's your point? The "scientist" or 2 that say there is no such thing as global warming are being paid by large oil companies and the like. This isn't a 50/50 split in the science community like you'd want people to believe. It's 99.99999999999999% versus 1 or 2 guys being bought. If you look at the facts there's no question the earth is getting hotter and man has contributed to it.

Blogs on forbes don't support your case. In fact I'd say it's blogs like these that spread lies and half truths that contribute to your ignorance. Mitt Romney said human contribute to global warming. At first you guys said global warming wasn't real at all. Didn't exist. Now that it's indisputable you're guys have changed course and are trying to find other reasons for it to exist other than humans. It's pretty funny really.

Here's is a site of facts and it's not a blog.

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitgcc/

This Bible quote says it all:

Exodus 18:21
But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—

If it's settled how is it that the alarmist make such bold statements of, "Snow is going to be a thing of the past. Kids today won't know what it looks like." to after we have record snows them saying well... it's cause of MMGW?

They have made so many assertions that have been proven to be lies and then change their stances repeatedly.

The debate is NOT SETTLED. It just isn't. Could man be the cause? sure, but it's highly doubtful.

No one ever claimed there was no such thing as Global Warming. We are saying... there is ZERO PROOF that it is MAN MADE. None of your scientists can prove such a claim either... they can only place their theory on a hook and hope that you bite. Then, they can show off their big fish and make a name for themselves.

It's no different than the sources or scientific evidence you look to... mine just differs from yours. What makes "your" scientists so much smarter than mine? I think we all go with our gut and choose a side based on our own personal opinions of how we view things... and based on our own common sense. I just happen to be on the opposite side of you on this one. That's all... no big deal. I'm not mad atcha!

Scientific organizations endorsing the consensus

The following scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities":

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Australian Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK

The other side has ZERO. A big fat ZILCH.

Again it isn't a 50/50 split like you're imagining. 97% of scientists agree that not only does global warming exist, but that humans contribute. 97%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-basic.htm

Contribute is one thing.

Having a significant impact is another.

I will agree that we contribute greenhouse gases that can lead to warmer climate. I will not agree it's a significant impact over natural processes.

It's like saying I am against illegal immigration and then taking that and saying I said I was against immigration.

When you ask a pig farmer if he thought pig farming doesn't hurt the environment, I'm going to presume he is going to say it doesn't. Climatologists get big money for global warming grants.

The scientific community was 100% convinced the Earth was flat once upon a time too but looking at data in a vaccuum instead of through the big picture.

This post is more fitting for this thread, so here it is again:

I am going to tell you something alot of people just don't want to come out and say. The truth is... there may be several elements/factors that cause climate change, but speaking as a Christian, there is NO WAY I would EVER be willing to give "man" that much credit... or enough power to alter/dictate/change or manipulate the weather/climate change or global temperature. That, my friend, is WAY beyond the control of "man"... and is something so great and powerful that only GOD has the power to change, alter or manipulate. To give man such credit, is to be very disrespectful of my creator. Only one who idolizes "man" instead of God and Jesus Christ, could be so bold as to think man could have such power... and control. To me, that is equal to denying God. I may be a fool, but I will NEVER be that foolish!

And YES, I believe every word of it. There may be alot of things going on with climate change and the earths temperature, but God is in complete control.... NOT MAN.

No, but I know how much all the volcanoes together put into the atmosphere. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the world’s volcanoes, generate about 200 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually, while our automotive and industrial activities cause some 24 billion tons of CO2 emissions every year worldwide. In other words, greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes comprise less than one percent of those generated by today’s human endeavors.

That was handy because I just researched this a couple of weeks ago in order to debunk this same bogus notion that was in a letter to the local paper.

http://t.co/q7Udoog

Ars Technica link on models

I don't know of a single alternative energy form that isn't the subject of litigation by some environmental interest. Wind, solar, hydro, biomass, gas, coal, nuclear, etc. All of them are being opposed by some environmental interest ... and we wonder why the nation hasn't developed these alternatives?

Nationally, approximately 50% of our electricity is generated by coal. With the current administration in Washington, they are doing all that they can to deter the use of coal. The result of this rulemaking frenzy will result in significant increases in energy prices. The environmental NGO's are determined to get rid of coal, yet don't ever seem to have an answer to what the baseload generation replacement willl be. Those same individuals are also complaining about the cost of electricity. Hypocritical you say?

It is concerning that there are so many government and NGO interests who are convinced that they are right in their "cause" yet don't have a complete sense of the implications. For example, not every state (ie., KY) has sufficent renewable energy to meet energy demands. Wind, solar, hydro in KY won't generate anywhere near our baseload demands. Yet, coal must go is the mantra. Further, this little thing called capacity factor seems to get lost to those who don't understand energy generation and delivery. Wind and solar for example are only as good as when the wind blows and the sun shines and when it isn't there isn't sufficient capacity factor in storing those energy sources when you need to deliver during normal and peak energy demands. Yet, coal must go is their mantra.

If global warming is really the issue, then nuclear is clearly the answer. Yet, that is opposed to vigorously by most enviro groups. Fortunately, we are starting to develop modular units for nuclear, TVA just let a contract for that in the last week. I might add, the potential to couple coal and nuclear has some intriguing possibilities for those concerned with CO2 sequestration. The parasitic load required to CSS is pretty significant and nuclear might provide a potential answer there.

With respect to gas, EPA is investigating hydrofracking now and is likely to make that much more difficult to do making some of our more high yielding reserves more difficult to do. Fortunately in KY, when we do hydrofracking our shale reserves don't require the same form of chemical hydrofracking as you see with the Marcellus formation. Might further note that EPA's regulatory chaos that is forcing the conversion from coal to gas will likelyh eventually have a negative implication on home energy prices for gas, much less the fact that some older CFB's don't lend themselves to being retrofited from coal to gas. It's a nightmare logistically that EPA is creating to try and implement.

I haven't even mentioned the concerns with the grid. Huge concerns about reliability. God forbid we have brownouts or rolling blackouts because of the retirment of several GW's of CFB power.

I also haven't mentioned the issue of clean coal. EPA's recent CATR rule effectively prevents a lot of older CFB's from being replaced by far more efficient and cleaner CFB's which reflects some of the (1) non-sensical nature of some of the EPA rules, and (2) the current administrations objective to move "beyond coal" as the Sierra Club, et al are demanding.

The point of all of this is, while the climate change/global warming debate rages on, the mass public largely has no idea what the current EPA is doing with respect to forcing a change in the energy portfolio of this nation. They are selecting winners and losers via regulation and in some cases abuse of authority which is getting a lot of attention in Congress. Cap and Trade has no chance of being enacted anytime soon if ever. In the meantime EPA is circumventing Congress and other to achieve their end and the American public is largely ignorant to all of this. When they get their utility bill and it is double, they will notice and say something but it will be too late.

As for KY, the Southeast in general and the Midwest, we are the manufacturing backbone of the nation. In KY alone, you are looking at 40% of the nation's stainless steel, 30% of the aluminum, the third largest auto producer, etc ... Why? Because our electricity rates are low. When those rates go up, what do you think happens to that manufacturing base? Some of it leaves. Where do they go? Overseas someplace. I am still trying to figure out why and how Washington finds this a good thing, but they do - I hear them say it verbally. Darn risky experiment.

So, what's all of this got to do with global warming or climate change? It doesn't matter what you think. The policies being enacted by Washington have already make that decision - that ship has sailed to a large degree. There is much that most don't know and that is unfortunate and scary at the same time. I see testimony, legal filings, and press releases that routinely don't tell all of the facts and in some cases just lie and they know they can get away with it because they have a friendly media that shares they objective. Fascinating to watch. Frustrating to be involved with.