on global warming...... (green house, gas, hemp, natural)

[58robbo]

Q: Do you deny global warming? Is Obama right to invest money in green technology? If you don’t deny it, and don’t think Obama is right, what is your solution?
A: I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.
Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.
It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.
The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.
We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.
Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.
Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.

[GregW]

Unfortunately for most of us our government is not being used for our benefit but for the benefit of a very small fraction of our population. Indeed corn ethanol is a dead end economically and as a transportation fuel but because of the power of the farm lobby including the farmers, machinery suppliers, grain traders and farm state bankers, corn based ethanol is a true gift from Mammon. It is not the government pre se but the abuse of government by the industrial, financial and industrial sectors that has created this boondoggle. Conservatives scream bloody murder of some poor urban woman gets food stamps or some rural trailer trash gets some help but never raise an eyebrow if their industry bags a succulent government contract.

The topic is global climate change or, for now, warming. I have studied and observed this phenomena and I think (not believe out of faith – I do not have faith in anything) that the preponderance of the evidence points out that the global climate is getting warmer. As we are at a sunspot minimum the solar influence should have resulted in a slightly cooler globe but has not. The major change is going to come in about 10 years when the sunspot maximum occurs. This increase in solar energy along with continuously increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere will have a substantial effect on global food production among other things. We really do have to get with the picture on decreasing world wide CO2 production. We can start in our own back yard.

We know how to reduce the green house gasses but, as mentioned in the first paragraph, the entities that actually control our politics have not figured out how they can profit from the changes we really need to do. Unfortunately for most the wealthy have the resources to survive any global, or local, crisis without significant diminution of their lifestyle. They will still be the extravagant class without any real responsibility for the damage created by their decisions.

I hope to be alive through the next sunspot cycle and will have the pleasure of observing the effects of global climate change. We are going to be living in interesting times.
[SIZE=3] [/SIZE]

[PNW-type-gal]

If you are going to quote someone, it's bad internet manners not to source the quote, both the person being quoted and where you got the quote from.

[58robbo]

Originally Posted by PNW-type-gal

If you are going to quote someone, it's bad internet manners not to source the quote, both the person being quoted and where you got the quote from.

definitely crankier than usual pnwtypegal. anyway, i didn't want this attract the normal criticism associated with the person who quoted this. prefer to just discuss the comments/ideas on their own merit

[sacredgrooves]

While I stand behind conservation and using resources in a responsible manner, I believe GW to be intentionally misrepresented to create industry. The Earth environment fluctuates; always has and probably always will. To think we have much of a measurable impact in the grand scope of our climate is arrogant at best. Solar cycle is most plausible to me.

[58robbo]

Originally Posted by sacredgrooves

While I stand behind conservation and using resources in a responsible manner, I believe GW to be intentionally misrepresented to create industry. The Earth environment fluctuates; always has and probably always will. To think we have much of a measurable impact in the grand scope of our climate is arrogant at best. Solar cycle is most plausible to me.

any commentary on the op?

[Oildog]

I think that man does contribute somewhat, and that effective environmental laws should be in place. I do not think that zero emission laws and government mandates for unproven technologies are a good way to progress. Too many lobbyists compelling the government to make decisions based on economics (getting re-elected) rather than good science. Remember how MTBE was rammed down the publics throat? Same thing with CORN based ethanol.

With that said (full disclosure I work in Big Oil) the natural forces on earth are a much bigger contributor to GHG. Every time a volcano erupts the amount of GHG that are released, are more than man produced in the last 100 years.

I'd like govt to clean up some of the silliness of the 1990 Clean Air act (mandating certain fuels, questionable modeling, inconsistent application of technologies) as a start.

[TexasHorseLady]

Man contributes to what happens on the planet just as every other inhabitant (animal or vegetable) does. That being said, I do think we sometimes have an inflated idea of our own importance, though we should certainly each do our best to step as lightly as possible.

As for quoting someone without attribution, it's not just good internet manners to attribute properly, it's called plagiarism if you use someone's words while not giving them attribution. It's called copyright violation if you do so while attributing it but without permission.

[arctichomesteader]

I think "climate change" is more correct a term. Yes it's clearly happening but whether or not we are to blame is debatable. Even if we're not responsible I do believe we should aim for cleaner air, even if only for health reasons. The government generally screws up everything it touches, for various reasons. So exactly what the answer is, I don't know...

[bellalunatic]

I think the term "global weirding" is more accurate overall.