Global Warming: Inevitable Fossil fuels abundant

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!Now there are some directly connecting increased hurricanes with global warming. According to responsible meteoroligists, although the record only go back 150 years, it is common for cycles of increased activity to run for 25-40 years. One started in the 90s. Global warming, manmade or otherwise, is not directly linked by responsible science to these hurricane cycles.These cycles are real though, and the world is in for more tragedies in the medium range future. Let's keep that in mind while rebuilding and planning new construction.Best Regards, Donny:-wave P.S. Divergent, if the money from increased fuel taxes went directly to fund alternative energy resources and infrastructure changes that will be needed should the Gulf Stream lose potency, I'd be all for it. The author of "The Lean years- Politics in the age of scarcity" directly warned against oil companies having anything to do with alternative energy sources, and I think he hit the nail on the head. Houses that are capable of manufacturing their own energy and treating their own waste water with little maintenence of the systems making it possible would not result in the kinds of salaries Big Oil CEOs are acustomed to. But we will need them very much should the Gulf Stream fail, massive ice storms bring down power lines and water mains freeze en masse every winter. Think we are prepared for that, or any country's policies are moving at a reasonable speed toward that goal???

[BobK 0]

Exactly. A couple of years ago, the National Hurricane Center, NOAA and others stated that we were entering a cycle of more hurricanes, and a lot of them would be headed for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. They stated that this was a normal cycle, and would be around for up to 20 years or more. Now, the global warming bunch have twisted this to being a direct result of global warming, and some, like Cindy Sheehan, putting the blame for Katrina squarely on President Bush. However, Cindy should consult with Robert Kennedy, Jr. He blames Katrina on the Governor of Mississippi, and the rest of the Republicans. These people are simply brilliant. x( Bob Klemm

[Bob Scott 7,716]

I think Cindy should consult with Robert Kennedy *SR*.I probably know a couple people that'd be happy to arrange the meeting...CheersBob Scott

[RFields5421 1]

the natural world in a stable state?Sorry - but this assumption is the whole problem in my opinon.The natural world is not and never has been in a stable state.Last night I watched part of a special on the coastline erosion in Louisiana and how it would help a major hurricane decimate the oil industry and the area around New Orleans. The special was five years old.No where in the program did any one suggest a "natural" solution - tear down the levees, remove the pipeline canals, let the Mississippi River flood the delta and coast as nature did for many, many years.To paraphrase a US govt scientist at one of the early global warming meetings."There is no doubt the planet will survive and nature will find a balance.There is serious doubt if mankind will survive - the is no evidence to indicate we are any more permanent than the dinosaurs - maybe substantially less permanent."Humans can make changes in this world. We may possibly have the ability to make it unsurvivable for our species.But that's not a real worry - because we keep doing stupid things like building cities on the ocean in hurricane or cyclone zones - what was the death toll the last time a major cyclone hit the Ganges River delta.We keep building cities in earthquake areas, we think we can move back the sea and have a major country survive below sea level.We have no idea what is normal and what is not normal for weather, CO2 or anything else.Scientist, prophets like those at Kyoto, the head in the sand crowd like those who worry about wrecking the economy - all are working on biases assumptions with no real proof of the impact.We don't have enough data, and we don't understand the world weather and natural systems.I hope my grandchildren will survive - but both sides of the argument are just as much a threat to them because both are guessing wildly from dreamed up base positions.

[Guest Shalomar]

Donny AKA ShalomarFly 2 ROCKS!!!I think I watched all of the same special. There is one hole punched in a levee that has been responsible for 500 acres of new wetland, but in view of recent events too little too late. Studies are underway to see where to punch more holes to have the best effect.The only real point about global warming is whether or not man is speeding it up and if he can or should do anything to slow it down. The loss of the polar ice will lead to an ice age, as has happened before. And will happen again with or without us. Wrecking the economy, well, *if* that's what it takes *and* the resulting income from increased taxes on fuel went to infrastructure changes that will be needed I wouldn't quibble just on that point. It seemed good for business to have less boats on the Titanic- for a while...No one knows for sure at what decreased salinity level the Gulf Stream will weaken dramatically or vanish. Even if man is responsible for acceleration of global warming, there is no guarantee we are not past the Rubicon.It would cost billions to relocate what we have put in harms way. But more responsibility on FEMA's part would get the job done at a slower pace with less real expenditure. Your structure gets destroyed, well since there is X chance of it happening again you get X much, Build it in a safer spot, you get X much more.A TV weatherman once gave a monologue as a hurricane headed for the New Jersey shore. "I own a house down there, I paid a lot of money for it and it's not insured. Am I worried about it? NO!!! It will be rebuilt. I'm not gonna pay for it, the area will be declared a state of disaster and YOU will pay for it, just like you have paid for a house to be rebuilt on this spot THREE times before..."The weatherman was not on that station as of two weeks later, but all he did was tell the truth.Best Regards, Donny:-wave

[dmaher 0]

Bob, You say, "...and some, like Cindy Sheehan, putting the blame for Katrina squarely on President Bush." You're twisting ideas here. No one blames Bush for this act of nature. However, the goverments ability to anticipate, mitigate, and respond to such really needs to be scrutinized. ...And it will no doubt. I imagine it will become a reall priority in the months and years ahead. :)DannyCYVR

[Guest]

And if you look at longterm data from those cycles you'll notice that we're at the moment actually in a LOW end of the cycle with less than average hurricanes.A big one like Katrina or Andrew comes along every 10-15 years so it was about time.At the moment there's nothing being done to prepare for a massive ice age. All "alternative" sources being exploited or developed depend on higher temperatures and higher solar input (wind, wave, and solar power all depend on high solar input to generate more potent wind and wave action or heat).Small scale nuclear fusion reactors which can be burried underground on a city by city scale (so no need for longrange transmission lines) is the true way forward but that would provide large amounts of cheap and clean energy to the general population which is the last thing the ecocommunists want because their entire agenda depends on limiting the freedom of people to what they (the ecocommunists) tell the people can have and do.The politicos in all or most countries either have no policy at all except running blindly after ethereal and utterly false figures to comply with the illfated Kyoto protocols.

[Guest]

They're not the biggest nutters though.There's one who blames Katrina on Ronald Reagan!Another says it's the work of Allah, punishing the unbelievers for disposing of Saddam Husein (who was himself a heretic and is now being replaced by believers so what the logic is there I don't know).

[Guest]

I think he means a stable state of chaos.The natural world is in a stable state of interlocking cycles of change.Those cycles are pretty stable but there are so many of them and all on different timetables that it's hard to pick out a general pattern.

[BobK 0]

What's being twisted, Danny? People are blaming everything on global warming, including the earthquakes and tsunamis. Individuals and governments are blaming Pres. Bush for hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, etc. These are actual accusations, mind you. People with microphones, cameras and reporters in front of them ARE saying these things. Even the German government. When you blame EVERY disaster on global warming, you kind of lose credibility, don't you? A new opinion (that makes sense) on contributing factor as to why the oceans are getting warmer, is underwater eruptions and lava flowing into oceans. That's Bush's fault too, I guess. ;)Even thought the response was too slow, a contributing factor is people who didn't evacuate, and the need to use helicopters that would normally be used for relief efforts, for rescue ops instead. Obviously not everyone COULD evacuate, but most who didn't, could have.Bob

[Guest]

Danny, I've heard people claiming the president is directly responsible because he didn't sign on to Kyoto.Others claim it's an act of god to punish the USA brought on by the president sending the US army to Iraq and Afghanistan.I've seen at least one blog (I think it was at DU or Kos) that claimed the president was directly responsible and actively caused Katrina in order to murder people who voted against him (New Orleans is a mainly leftist city, never mind that the areas in Mississipi which were hit harder were more conservative).Of course the population at DU and Kos are extreme left nutters (hmm, should there be a need to use the term nutters here as that is implied by them being extreme left) and blame everything bad on the president on general principle but they've really gone over the top now.

[dmaher 0]

Bob, I guess what I mean by twisted ideas... is the statement that Cindy Sheehan blamed the storm on Bush...and not the response to the storm. But I have to confess I can't find any credible information adout her statements regarding Katrina. Maybe you could direct me to the story so I could take a look. I don't mean to say that there aren't "people" blaming the governments for things they shouldn't...I agree with you there.Danny

[BobK 0]

Well, I've heard it elsewhere, but for now, check here:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168105,00.htmlMost other news agencies won't give you any info on Mrs. Sheehan that might make you question her motives. While most people know that she's associated with Michael Moore, none of the network news organizations have even mentioned it. Don't you think that stuff would be part of the public's "right to know", so that you can come to a more informed opinion of what she's trying to accomplish?

[dmaher 0]

Fair enough... With some reservations, Fox "political gapevine"... isn't exactly a bastion of balanced investigative reporting to my mind. we'll see I guess.. I think I'll get back to some simming..CheersDanny

[Guest Erick_Cantu]

Extreme any side implies 'nutter.'