Hot Arctic

[monsoon]

Today the National Academy of Science, under direction from Congress, has verified that Global Warming is occuring. And on top of that, they have concluded the Global Warming is occuring due to human activity, most notibly, the burning of fossil fuel which is releasing billions of tons of stored carbon into the atmosphere. In addition, they have verified that the last 3 decades have been the warmest of any decade in the last 400 years where reliable weather information exists.

I think this lays to rest any arguments that Global Warming is not occuring. It's very disturbing. People need to figure out what they are going to do about it.

[damus]

Today the National Academy of Science, under direction from Congress, has verified that Global Warming is occuring. And on top of that, they have concluded the Global Warming is occuring due to human activity, most notibly, the burning of fossil fuel which is releasing billions of tons of stored carbon into the atmosphere. In addition, they have verified that the last 3 decades have been the warmest of any decade in the last 400 years where reliable weather information exists.

I think this lays to rest any arguments that Global Warming is not occuring. It's very disturbing. People need to figure out what they are going to do about it.

What are we going to do about China, India, and other developing nations who are only going to burn more and more fossil fuels in the coming years? What about the destruction of the rain forests? There is a lot of stuff going on that isn't good for global warming, such as this. The only way to get out of this mess, that I can think of, that does not require us to give up our way of life is investing in advanced technology. It needs to be made a priority to get the best minds in the world together working towards creating cleaner energy sources that are as cheap and readily available as petrolium.

[PghUSA]

There is climate change, whether or not it is fossil fuels, natural, both, neither or a combination of several things is debatable.

I find the increasing power shift to China, Russia and the mid-east, as well as Venezuela a far more compelling reason to quit the stuff, similar to how Brazil decided they were not going to take orders from La Paz. Increasingly it is the developing nations that are the biggest contributors to carbon output.

[damus]

There is climate change, whether or not it is fossil fuels, natural, both, neither or a combination of several things is debatable.

I find the increasing power shift to China, Russia and the mid-east, as well as Venezuela a far more compelling reason to quit the stuff, similar to how Brazil decided they were not going to take orders from La Paz. Increasingly it is the developing nations that are the biggest contributors to carbon output.

But, from what I've read, their ethanol is sugar based and the ethanol around here is made from corn. I think the corn based ethanol takes a lot more energy to produce, apparantly. At the same time, the corn lobby is doing what it can to make corn-based ethanol the way to go in this country. They have already got tarrifs imposed on all imported ethanol.

[monsoon]

There is climate change, whether or not it is fossil fuels, natural, both, neither or a combination of several things is debatable.

According to the USA's most notible scientists it is no longer debatable. Do you have some reason to dismiss their findings?

[runawayjim]

According to the USA's most notible scientists it is no longer debatable. Do you have some reason to dismiss their findings?

according to a 7 month study, which is hardly long enough for this type of study. it sounds like congress asked a congressional appointed group to scramble together to get evidence. read the article on yahoo and you'll see that they used paintings as evidence! not even remotely scientific. and these are all american scientists. when the rest of the world's top scientists agree, then we'll be able to stop the debate. until then, it's still up for debate as it is still a theory, not a fact.

[monsoon]

I think the ballgame is in the naysayer's court now to prove the Scientists wrong. I am constantly amazed at the abilities of some in this country to completely dismiss the findings of modern science.

[dimebag1980]

Hey, if scientists have proven it, then it must be true.

Because as we all know, scientists know all.

I just wonder how much these scientists were paid for their findings.

It doesn't take a scientist to know that money is the driving force in the Earth's rotation.

It still amazes me the sensationalism involved. As soon as these scientists released their "findings," the media jumped right on it and got the nation all worked up. It reminds me of another story released to the media yesterday in which a number of nobody American "wannabes" were arrested for their "huge" terror plans. I'm no more worried about those guys than I am the sky falling... or eroding away... or whatever "science" tells me is happening this week.

I'm no expert, but I do feel that we hold our so-called experts to some pretty high expectations. Thus is born sensationalism and hysteria.

We live in an age where science is held in much higher regard than common sense and that's disturbing.

[intcvlcphlga]

I think the ballgame is in the naysayer's court now to prove the Scientists wrong. I am constantly amazed at the abilities of some in this country to completely dismiss the findings of modern science.

Keep in mind that we live in a country that is still debating evolution v. creationism. Perhaps, if there is such a thing as "Intelligent Design," we should hope that the "designer" tweaks the human model to provide us gills and fins so that we can survive in the future...I'm quite sure that GM will be able to outfit a sea worthy Hummer to navigate the waters of the big boxes and mcmansions of the future...

[runawayjim]

I think the ballgame is in the naysayer's court now to prove the Scientists wrong. I am constantly amazed at the abilities of some in this country to completely dismiss the findings of modern science.

when modern "science" uses paintings to form an "educated" opinion, i think they need to get their butts back in gear. i am not dismissing modern science, but they have yet to show any conclusive evidence to prove any of this, which is why it's still a theory and there are still many other WORLD WIDE scientists who don't believe this theory is quite as true as the national academy of sciences (funded by the US government) is saying.

[monsoon]

Keep in mind that we live in a country that is still debating evolution v. creationism. Perhaps, if there is such a thing as "Intelligent Design," we should hope that the "designer" tweaks the human model to provide us gills and fins so that we can survive in the future...I'm quite sure that GM will be able to outfit a sea worthy Hummer to navigate the waters of the big boxes and mcmansions of the future...

As unfortunate as it is, that was well put.

[damus]

Just thought I'd interject... Einstein, regarded by most people today as the 20th century's most brilliant mind... believed in intelligent design of the Universe, off the top of my head the quote was something to the effect that he could not understand how such a complex universe with uniform laws happened just by chance. Even he couldn't figure out any way this universe came to be and how we are here other than the possibility of intelligent design. To really think of how the hell the matter that is in the universe was ever created, or if there is such a thing as time, is mind boggling.

I said this in the other thread, but I don't think humans will truely understand the real origin of anything during my lifetime. The way we think, everything is created by something including the universe (that's where this idea of intelligent design comes in), but there can never possibly be a beginning point (this goes beyond the big bang) because something had to have created this matter in the first place and something had to have created whatever created us. It's an infinite cycle that will always confuse the heck out of me. How could something have been around forever? Does time even really exist?

BTW: I also 100% believe in evolution.

[Miesian Corners]

i suggest you all read the following article before forming an opinion on global warming. apparently the scientists who actually study global climate change do not have any sort of consensus as to whether or not global warming is occurring or what the causes are. the ones who all believe in it are those who study local climates, the impact of climate change (meaning they don't have knowledge of teh causes), or hypothetical computer simulations that don't take into account a lot of real data.

read the article, i didn't do it justice...

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

The "article" is from a dubious site. Here's what the mission statement of the Canada Free Press (CFP) says: "Canada Free Press, a daily online conservative (my empasis added) site is an unqualified success. CFP--established in August of 2002--has become a popular choice for thousands who seek a unique, unbiased view on politics, culture and investigative journalism."

Further, CFP has published discriminatory and racist comments about Turks. One of their "journalists" wrote "The admission of Turkey into the European Community will be the final blow to the Christian identity of Europe. Once the Turkish people are free to live in and work, legally, in the European nation of their choice, the problem will not be Paris burning but a deluge of Islamic immigrants into the Christian world which will be unstoppable. If one remembers with horror the acts of Black September, the Red Brigade, or the sectarian violence in Yugoslavia; then, just wait until every citizen of Turkey has a European Passport."

Earlier this year, another CFP "journalist" wrote an article accusing Jewish banking interests of being behind illegal immigrant protests in several American states. She believed the instigators instructed tens of thousands of protesters how to protest and were attempting to create news, political agitation and were trying to prevent laws from being enforced.

I have a hard time taking anything the CFP says seriously. They have an agenda, and it ain't centrist. It is FAR to the right.

Even if Mr Gore's assertions are wrong about global climate change, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the assertion that we are bound to be better stewards of the only home humans have: the Earth. Fewer emissions, using green technology for energy savings, driving less, driving cars that burn less fuel, using mass transit, recycling, etc.

The United States consumes far more energy than any other country -- more than China and Russia put together. We are five percent of the world's population, yet we consume 23% of its energy. In other words, the 5% of the world's population that lives in the U.S. has more environmental impact than the 51% that live in the other five largest countries combined. Isn't gluttony one of the Seven Deadly Sins? Why does the religious right not take this one on?

[dimebag1980]

The United States consumes far more energy than any other country -- more than China and Russia put together. We are five percent of the world's population, yet we consume 23% of its energy. In other words, the 5% of the world's population that lives in the U.S. has more environmental impact than the 51% that live in the other five largest countries combined. Isn't gluttony one of the Seven Deadly Sins? Why does the religious right not take this one on?

Energy in general, maybe, but China consumes far more oil than we do, and are just as bad as many claim we (the United States) are to the Earth.

The United States can clean up its act completely and do everything the way the environmentalists want us to do it, but as China continues to develop at a rapid pace, it will eventually replace us as the "poor stewards" of the Earth. Then what? Only one nation will have cleaned up its act totally, and you've got the rest of the world still "damaging" the Earth, with China among the biggest offenders.

[damus]

The United States can clean up its act completely and do everything the way the environmentalists want us to do it, but as China continues to develop at a rapid pace, it will eventually replace us as the "poor stewards" of the Earth. Then what? Only one nation will have cleaned up its act totally, and you've got the rest of the world still "damaging" the Earth, with China among the biggest offenders.

...all while putting further restrictions on our economy while China's and India's, among other developing nations, economies continue to flourish. That's all we need, more pollution and a solitary global totalitarian superpower... The problem is global and until it is dealt with globally (and not Kyoto, which puts unfair restrictions on developed nations over developing) or with technology the USA is probably not going to budge.

[Miesian Corners]

Energy in general, maybe, but China consumes far more oil than we do, and are just as bad as many claim we (the United States) are to the Earth.

The United States can clean up its act completely and do everything the way the environmentalists want us to do it, but as China continues to develop at a rapid pace, it will eventually replace us as the "poor stewards" of the Earth. Then what? Only one nation will have cleaned up its act totally, and you've got the rest of the world still "damaging" the Earth, with China among the biggest offenders.

While I don't disagree that China is a huge polluter, they are a nation of 1.3 billion people while we don't eve clock in at 300 million mark. Yet we still use more energy than they. Yes, the developing world is a concern, but using it as an excuse (as we have done in order to not sign the Kyoto Protocall) is like complaining about your neighbor's messy yard when your's looks just as bad.

[dimebag1980]

While I don't disagree that China is a huge polluter, they are a nation of 1.3 billion people while we don't eve clock in at 300 million mark. Yet we still use more energy than they. Yes, the developing world is a concern, but using it as an excuse (as we have done in order to not sign the Kyoto Protocall) is like complaining about your neighbor's messy yard when your's looks just as bad.

I think you missed the point of my post. I wasn't using China as an excuse, but was pointing out that it's a still-developing nation which will be the biggest offender one of these days. To those who believe that what we're doing in the United States is damaging the Earth, what is being done to stop China from single-handedly killing the Earth? Because if we're killing our planet over here, what are they doing? I'm not making an excuse, nor am I trying to divert attention away from the United States, but I'm pointing out what truly could be a larger problem.

For the record, while I'm not 100% sure about global warming, I do believe that humans play somewhat of a role in the destruction of our planet. But how much of a role do we truly play, and overall how much of a difference will it have made for us to clean up our act once China and other developing nations have gone far beyond us in damaging the planet?

[intcvlcphlga]

Energy in general, maybe, but China consumes far more oil than we do, and are just as bad as many claim we (the United States) are to the Earth.

The United States can clean up its act completely and do everything the way the environmentalists want us to do it, but as China continues to develop at a rapid pace, it will eventually replace us as the "poor stewards" of the Earth. Then what? Only one nation will have cleaned up its act totally, and you've got the rest of the world still "damaging" the Earth, with China among the biggest offenders.

What are the figures on our oil consumption v. China's oil consumption (how many barrels/day)? Two things to keep in mind is that they have 3x as many people as we do and they demand higher fuel efficiency from cars than Washington does.

[damus]

While I don't disagree that China is a huge polluter, they are a nation of 1.3 billion people while we don't eve clock in at 300 million mark. Yet we still use more energy than they. Yes, the developing world is a concern, but using it as an excuse (as we have done in order to not sign the Kyoto Protocall) is like complaining about your neighbor's messy yard when your's looks just as bad.

Well the Kyoto protocol is unfair to developed nations and hold us to a higher standard. In this world of free trade and outsourcing, every restriction put on our economy is beneficial to the developing world and bad for the low-skilled American worker. This is more about being forced to clean up your own messy lawn while your neighbor continues to throw more and more garbage all over his own. While you're paying for removal services of this garbage you decide to ask your employer for more money to pay for all this. The neighbor is able to land your job by agreeing to do it for less than what you did it for in the first place, which accelerates the sheer amount of stuff that he is able to afford, which creates more garbage that he throws onto his lawn.

[intcvlcphlga]

To answer my own question, the top 10 oil consuming states on earth are:

#1 United States 20,030,000 barrels per day

#2 China 6,391,000 barrels per day

#3 Japan 5,578,000 barrels per day

#4 Russia 2,800,000 barrels per day

#5 Germany 2,677,000 barrels per day

#6 India 2,320,000 barrels per day

#7 Canada 2,193,000 barrels per day

#8 Korea, South 2,168,000 barrels per day

#9 Brazil 2,100,000 barrels per day

#10 France 2,060,000 barrels per day

The US uses 0.677 barrels per day per 10 people.

China uses .049 barrels/day per 10 people.

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/

[damus]

The US uses 0.677 barrels per day per 10 people.

China uses .049 barrels/day per 10 people.

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/

GO USA!!!!

I can't help but wonder, though, how much of that oil goes towards the east coast boomtowns and how much goes to the heavily populated dismally poor countryside.... China has some of the most polluted cities in the world. They're not exactly as trustworthy regulating pollutants as we are, regardless of their auto emissions standards. Remember not too long ago they had a chemical spill that wound up cutting off a major city from its water supply, and by what reports came out did not handle it all too well. They didn't even admit it on CCTV until well after the international media picked up the story.

On edit: look at Canada's figures. They extrapolate to just about equal ours, yet we don't hear people across the world whining about them...

[monsoon]

Thanks intcvlcphiga! It's amazing how much FUD gets generated in order to deny basic science.

[dimebag1980]

To answer my own question, the top 10 oil consuming states on earth are:

#1 United States 20,030,000 barrels per day

#2 China 6,391,000 barrels per day

#3 Japan 5,578,000 barrels per day

#4 Russia 2,800,000 barrels per day

#5 Germany 2,677,000 barrels per day

#6 India 2,320,000 barrels per day

#7 Canada 2,193,000 barrels per day

#8 Korea, South 2,168,000 barrels per day

#9 Brazil 2,100,000 barrels per day

#10 France 2,060,000 barrels per day

The US uses 0.677 barrels per day per 10 people.

China uses .049 barrels/day per 10 people.

Source: http://www.nationmaster.com/

That's a far cry from the numbers I saw the other day. I'll have to find them and post the information. The list I saw had China ahead of the United States.

Edited: Well, I guess I can eat my words because I can't find the particular website I found a few days ago, since obviously I can't recall the exact search query I used. But tonight using the query "United States daily oil consumption" in Google, I did find lists that reflect what you posted above. That certainly doesn't take away from the fact that I did see that whether or not it was correct. When I found the list the other day, I remember discussing it with a coworker because I was surprised to see China at the top.

[dimebag1980]

Thanks intcvlcphiga! It's amazing how much FUD gets generated in order to deny basic science.

I'd much rather take the FUD approach to things I'm unsure of than to allow science to think for me. Some people tend to allow science to trump common sense... I'd much rather not be one of those people. I prefer to think for myself.

[runawayjim]

I'd much rather take the FUD approach to things I'm unsure of than to allow science to think for me. Some people tend to allow science to trump common sense... I'd much rather not be one of those people. I prefer to think for myself.

not to mention the "science" he's talking about is using paintings to fill in the blanks that "science" can't answer.

science is not the end all be all for everything in this world. it has yet to answer many basic questions... such as how the world began.