Green Power & how to get cheaper electric bills

watch?v=yLYqzIhhT6o

Climate change is real but it is not the most important problem facing us now, the biggest problem now is Peak Oil.

yeah.. it’s a tax scam, love way the yank thinks…

Global warming is caused a number of things:

1) We’re still coming out of a mini ice-age.
2) There’s a hole in the magnetosphere through which cosmic rays are leaking and impacting against the ionosphere causing (proportionately) an increase in ionized particles such as carbon-14.
3) Because of this the ice is melting. Because the ice is melting it means that less sunlight is being reflected back by the ice and is, instead, being absorbed by the sea – heating it up.

Viking Age farm settlements in Greenland = the planet used to be warmer . And guess what the vikings did nt own cars , or did they ?

Propoganda works very well on the weak minded , use soviet style mantras and slogans over and over and the weak can be trained to parrot anything .

Calling peole deniers is a old tatic , ie smear someones point with a nasty term/word

Even if we accept the fact that the best way to deal with the problems that global warming might lead to is not to cripple the economy but the opposite. Isn´t that a way of treating the symptoms rather than the disease? I mean, yeah it´s probably good for poor nations over the next 50-100 years but after that than? I guess you can hope for more efficient energy sources that won´t pollute as much, stuff like fusion, more efficient fission, solar power etc.

A barrel floating in the ocean will grow a seaweed farm. It would be easy to create rainforest sized algae farms mid ocean. The seaweed farms would photosynthesis, as well as the lifeforms themselves would be made of carbon.
Cheap. Proactive. Harmless.
Also mid ocean seaweed (algae) farms could be towed to counties in need for emergency food fuel.
No downside.
Build seaweed farms from shore and tow them out to sea and anchor them. Polluting companies could sponsor the low costs.
Win Win Win

My original point was a survey that showed a consensus of active climatology researchers support the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. You’re the one that brought up IPCC because you thought that is where I was getting my information from but you were wrong. Having serious doubts isn’t a problem as science is built on skepticism. I’m not claiming to be fully informed but I am claiming to be moderate in that I’m not denying the consensus of most experts who have done decades of research.

Maybe I didn’t express myself well enough; my only point is that when you analyze anything but the contents of the science one can already have serious doubts about the institutional arrangement of the IPCC, its intentions et cetera. You only want to seem to claim that your position is a moderate and full-informed position; well actually it is not; it is a rather extreme position which should be accepted or otherwise the other side is denialist. Btw I didn’t see you debate the contents…

The problem with denialists in general is that they never debate the contents of science. They simply deny it.

Now you’ve proven how uninformed/misinformed you are. The 97% consensus of climatologists is entirely based on active researchers. These aren’t politicians or scientific theoreticians.

There is no reason to doubt that scientific dissent comes from within climatology. All you have to do is a little research and you’d know it was a fact. W/in the AGW consensus there is disagreement.

The IPCC isn’t a scientific research institution. That is the point. It’s purpose is to review the data. But it is a scientific institution in that it’s operated by scientists. All of the research is peer-reviewed and all of the data is further reviewed before being included in IPCC reports. Many scientific institutions conibute. You offer no proof but only conjecture. Also, any scientific data will end up supporting some ideological view. Facts are facts. What they support is another matter.

And then I’m not even debating the contents of the science. Furtermore, a lot of these so-called climatologists are not even scientists in the most broad sense; or would you call astrologists scientists? The scientific dissent maybe comes not from within climatology (which I doubt; as an economist I hear day in day out that economics says deficit spending will get us out of the recession) but from the more fundamental disciplines such as astronomy, geology etc etc.

Intergovernmental Panels can use scientific research findings, yes. But these are not scientific institutions by itself, but foremostly run by politicians who have entirely other goals than finding the truth. A commission that contributed to the IPCC report from my country were watermelons/political activists; I’m almost certain that is not a unique occurrence. Furthermore, isn’t it such a coincidence that the IPCC reports coincides perfectly the marxist-environmentalist critique of capitalism?

Nope, it’s from Peter Doran at the University of Illinois. Anyways, the IPCC doesn’t have any of its own data. It merely reports on the data from other organizations. Also, the scientists who contribute data to the IPCC don’t get paid for participating.

The IPCC, like all scientific institutions, is inherently conservative in it’s conclusions. This means the IPCC may underestimate climate change. Wikipedia has a good discussion of this in the IPCC article.

Agreement does not constitute truth.

The agreement you cite is form the IPCC, and it’s all in the name isn’t it. I might point you to the P in the acronym. Without any conspiracy theories but just simple sociology and public choice, one can easily make the case that the alarmist policy proposals, somehow moderated by advancing science (which is why forecasts in IPCC reports get less extreme), have nothing to do with the actual content of the science.

@MarmaladeINFP I agree with you.

Haha “…when lots of people build stuff, it starts to get warmer…” – shooting yourself in the foot there stefbot!

It isn’t being denied. The discussion just seemed to be overly critical without adding much insight or something like that. It seems like everyone thinks their opinion is worth more than the opinions of scientists who’ve studied the subject for decades. I don’t know if the scientists are right about everything, but I do know that they know more than I do about this. I know the scientists know more than Stef and know more than this reporter.

Anthropogenic global warming isn’t being denied in this video.

I think, if you look back about 30-40 yrs, all the so called scientists then, were predicting an ice age. No one know whats happening. The climate is to chaotic, with many element affecting the out come. You’ve got , the gulf stream, volcanoes, continental drift., precession of the earth, jet stream, the sun, and many more, to tired to think any more. I let other people add to that

I have a problem when a single dissenting scientist is used as disproving a theory. Of thousands of climatologists involved in active research, 97% support the theory of anthropogenic global warming. Yes, there is 3% who don’t support it, but 3% is a very small number. 97% agreement is very strong agreement. Personally, think it’s not reasonable to assume that the 3% are right while the 97% are wrong.

The criticisms in this video are fair, but the overall argument isn’t convincing. Science isn’t dependent on individual measurements and so isolated criticisms aren’t meaningful. Meta-analysis of peer-reviewed articles show support for global warming contributed by human activity. Of thousands of climatology researchers from around the world, 97% agree that the termperature is increasing and human activity is contributing. I’m sure these thousands of scientists have considered these criticisms.

The reason being is that the word ‘lack’ implies something that should be there, but is not.

For example, “the starving children lack food” or “the homeless man lacks career opportunities” or “the ski slopes lack enough snow for skiiing”

If there is one thing i could advise, Stefan, when referring to how fewer government regulations create a better market, instead of saying “because of LACK of regulations” you could say “because of the absence of burdensome regulations…” or “because of the absence of excessive regulations…”

Sure, but that is of course true of any scare story – “Give me a million dollars or your head will explode in 10 years…”

The most frustrating problem I run into when dealing w/Goron’s true believers is that they say stuff like:

“Well, even if manmade global warming is a little overblown, its still a good idea for us to get off of fossil fuels.”

“Its better to be safe than sorry.”

And similar garbage…as well as those who refuse to even consider they’ve been misled by alarmist scientists, politicians, and media figures. Maybe it’ll take economic devastation to get people’s priorities straight.