ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/24/2018 08:33 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  5.309 Visits   3 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
10/22/2006 02:24 PM ID: 57792 Permalink   

Thanks to Global Warming, Antarctica Has a Snowball’s Chance

 

Scientists have discovered that global warming and thinning of the ozone layer over Antarctica has strengthened warm winds around the Antarctic peninsula, contributing to the break-up of the Larsen B ice shelf in 2002.

This is the first direct evidence linking global warming to melting ice shelves. The area of the collapsed shelf was 3,250 square kilometers, bigger than Luxembourg or Rhode Island. The collapse did not raise sea levels because the ice was floating.

However, if warming trends continue, floating ice will disappear and land-based glaciers further south will also melt. In fact, Dr Chris Rapley has revealed that two major glaciers in eastern Antarctica are already starting to discharge into the sea.

 
  Source: english.aljazeera.net  
    WebReporter: ManilaRyce Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  36 Comments
  
  European Ice Age  
 
I watched on 'inconvenient truth', that if global currents get disrupted, States gets a little colder, but Canada and western Europe goes into deep-freeze, ica-age style.

Looks like another conspiracy theory in the making.
 
  by: redstain   10/22/2006 02:37 PM     
  @red  
 
I don't know about a deep freeze, but it was SN reported that global warming could cause temperture drops in Europe.

http://www.shortnews.com/...
 
  by: reverend j roach     10/22/2006 05:40 PM     
  Ha  
 
I hate how people on this site immediately tie EVERYTHING that gets reported to how the US is evil.
 
  by: rfronk   10/22/2006 06:03 PM     
  @rfronk  
 
well in fairness the US is the bigeest sole contributor to CO2 emissions and other global warming related emissions IE, the largest sole cause of man-made global warming (out contributions to global warming).

and they utterly refuse to heed the call of eviromentalist and infact have since open more coal and oil power plants, instead of moving towards green erengy as the rest of the world is starting to do.
 
  by: HAVOC666     10/22/2006 06:32 PM     
  Looks like  
 
These scientists are just doing their jobs. As long as the funding holds out. Who are we to know anything different?
 
  by: John E Angel     10/22/2006 06:58 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
The LARGEST sole contributor to global warming?? Where do you get your information from on this subject? CO2 Emmsions i can agree upon. However China and India are right behind us and China will surpass the USA in a few years.

And when you say " .... instead of moving towards green erengy as the rest of the world is starting to do." This is clearly false, China especially mostly relys on Coal energy, and come on when one of the major heating sources in India is still Cow Patties you know that they are definetly not contributing to "Greener Energy Solutions". Here are links to backup my claim.

http://www.energystar.gov/...

And I would much rather have a temp drop then have to go through this stuff listed in this link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...

 
  by: diem928   10/22/2006 09:11 PM     
  IT's true  
 
Temperatures in Europe are already decreasing, my stepdad and my mom went there for a year [my dad has lived 14 years there before] and he said it was reported even in the papers there that last year they had some of the highest temperatures they've had.
 
  by: the_one   10/22/2006 09:12 PM     
  @diem  
 
"The LARGEST sole contributor to global warming?? Where do you get your information from on this subject? CO2 Emmsions i can agree upon. However China and India are right behind us and China will surpass the USA in a few years.

And when you say " .... instead of moving towards green erengy as the rest of the world is starting to do." This is clearly false, China especially mostly relys on Coal energy, and come on when one of the major heating sources in India is still Cow Patties you know that they are definetly not contributing to "Greener Energy Solutions". Here are links to backup my claim."

china and india are still technically a 3rd world countries, although ironically at the same time china is an emerging superpower, under the kyoto accord they have leeway as a "developing nations".

what i meant was modernized (developed) countries... like in the EU, north america, australia... not everywhere has the means to have green energy however the US has greatest ability to do so, yet makes no efforts to do so, and infact does the opposite (as i cite about them opening coal and power plants as opposed to green energy), and lie about their emissions (their not the only ones) which are already excessively above what the kyoto accord calls for.

developing nations esspecially should be helped in this (having green energy), so they don't continue building obsolete infrasture, that would only have to be replaced in order to lower emissions to meet pollution limits or even better fall under the limits.

and solar power is becomming more viable than it use to be:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...

an except:
"An innovative process that converts low-energy longwave photons (light particles) into higher-energy shortwave photons has been developed by a team of researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Polymer Research in Mainz and at the Sony Materials Science Laboratory in Stuttgart. With the skillful combination of two light-active substances, the scientists have, for the first time, manipulated normal light, such as sunlight, to combine the energy in photons with particular wavelengths (Physical Review Letters, October 4, 2006). This has previously only been achieved with a similar process using high-energy density laser light. The successful outcome of this process could lay the foundation for a new generation of more efficient solar cells."
 
  by: HAVOC666     10/22/2006 09:57 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
Technically China and India are not third world countries. If anything they are second world countries but should really be referred to as NICs(Newly industrialized Countries)(http://en.wikipedia.org/...

Also the reason they have leeway isn’t due to them being developing countries... they have their leeway because of the size of their population. Lets put it this way I have seen more solar power stations and wind power stations in the US then I have while traveling in Europe.

As good as it sounds Solar power will not be a viable option for large cities such as LA ,NY ,Phoenix etc because of the lack of power they would be unable to generate, the cost of creating the plant and maintaining it would quite expensive since the solar panels themselves are very delicate, if there was a hail storm it would cause a blackout(if it was a cities only source of power).

Now don’t get me wrong I am for renewable and cleaner energy sources. However at this present time they are not cost effective, and are only viable as a secondary source of power. California has rolling brownouts and blackouts during the summer because California only allows Natural Gas power stations to be constructed. Now imagine this happening to the rest of the major cities in the USA. (http://www.mises.org/...

As for the USA being far above the Kyoto treaties emissions... Well yah I can agree on that but you can’t really hold someone to something they never ratified, the same goes for Australia. I’m not sure if you are from the USA but... ratifying the Kyoto treaty is definitely not beneficial to the USA economy at this point in time as proven by the standards that California is taking towards cleaner energy(By the way California is considered the most proactive state in environmental issues).
 
  by: diem928   10/22/2006 10:48 PM     
  @rfronk  
 
Hooray for you! I'm tired of all the SN people who just can't wait to jump at another America bash.

Maybe we should've just sat around after toasting Japan and watched as Hitler took over Europe.

Oh but then Europeans would whine that we didn't do anything to help.

Everyone was griping that Clinton was doing nothing to fight back against terrorists attacking America and then we get a president who isn't afraid to fight back and BAM everyone starts griping that we ARE doing something about it.

Seems to me like people are just looking for a reason to whine.

Well STFU and sit back and enjoy because there is nothing you can do about it until the next President steps in and I highly doubt it but really hope to see another Republican that can do as well or better than Bush because I fear what kind of frilly underwear the Dems will change into if they get control of the government back.
 
  by: CaptainMooseInc   10/23/2006 01:00 AM     
  As an American  
 
I'm an American. I agree that we can do more, but our current government chooses not to because of the economy and oil industry interests.
Sadly we have lobbists giving billions of dollars annually into our politicians pockets in exchange for policies that protect the interests of major corperations. source: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Most politicians claim it has no effect on their judgment, but I find that hard to feel when the number of the lobbyists themselves and the dollar contributions are increasing each year. Obviously, what the lobbyists are doing must be working if they keep putting more money into trying to influence politicians.
Here's a report of campaige contributions since 1998.
source: (http://www.publicintegrity.org/...
(Notice many have the little -R next to their name, you guessed it right those are republicans).

I don't think we're going to sway from oil protecting policies under the current Republican regime.
Which is too bad because other countries are going more green all the time and they are doing just fine. Countries such as Brazil, which plan on being completely energy independent by the end of this year, without oil. Imagine that...
source: (http://en.wikipedia.org/...
They are producing ethanol from sugar cane byproduct, the wast thats left over. They have hybrid vehicles that can run on both gas and ethenol, they are still in the transitioning process. They pay $0.75 per gallon of Ethanol. Not to say the transition was easy, but they were backed by the government to make it happen. We still have much research that needs to be done before we can transition. But it seems less and less like our current administration is going to take us there.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   10/23/2006 07:32 AM     
  @CaptainMooseInc  
 
“Maybe we should've just sat around after toasting Japan and watched as Hitler took over Europe.
Oh but then Europeans would whine that we didn't do anything to help. “

I don't think that our involvement in WWII was intended to justify that we weren't to be held accountable for any and all future actions world wide. I don't think WWII gives us an excuse to do what we want when we want to, especially when our environmental choices today effect more then just us, but the future of our children. I think that excuses to ignore science is a going to wear thin once the effects of global warming start taking more effect on our daily lives.

“Everyone was griping that Clinton was doing nothing to fight back against terrorists attacking America and then we get a president who isn't afraid to fight back and BAM everyone starts griping that we ARE doing something about it.”
Well actually Clinton did, here's what he had to say: http://www.youtube.com/...

Richard Clarke an intelligence advisor and counter-terrorism expert that served under:
Reagen, George H. Bush, Clinton, George W. Bush.
His was the nations leading counter-terrorism expert before 9/11.
He was in charge to report on all events surrounding 9/11 and testified before a special panel investigating those events.
He wrote a book: http://www.cbsnews.com/... – “Against all enemies”

source: (http://www.cbsnews.com/...
Referring to Bush:
"I find it outrageous that the President is running for re-election on the grounds that he's done such great things about terrorism. He ignored it."
- Richard Clarke
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   10/23/2006 07:35 AM     
  Richard Clarke  
 
This is a link to Richard Clarke's interview: http://www.cbsnews.com/...

I think the people at faux news should pick up a copy of Richards book and hear it right from the man who worked directly under Bush.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   10/23/2006 07:42 AM     
  @diem  
 
"Technically China and India are not third world countries. If anything they are second world countries but should really be referred to as NICs(Newly industrialized Countries)(http://en.wikipedia.org/...

lol never heard of that classification before (second world country, and for some reason it sounds funny). but you get my point how they would have leeway under the kyoto accord?

"Also the reason they have leeway isn’t due to them being developing countries... they have their leeway because of the size of their population. Lets put it this way I have seen more solar power stations and wind power stations in the US then I have while traveling in Europe."

well yes, population is a factor but they are still developing as a nation in comparision to other countries and too thusly have leeway... wouldn't it be neat to jump straight from coal to solar and wind and other natural non-hazardous energy methods. good thing about solar energy is if it runs out earth life knows it won't last long any way...lol though solar energy and wind at this point can't power entire countries but putting less pollutants in the air is better for everyone.

"As good as it sounds Solar power will not be a viable option for large cities such as LA ,NY ,Phoenix etc because of the lack of power they would be unable to generate, the cost of creating the plant and maintaining it would quite expensive since the solar panels themselves are very delicate, if there was a hail storm it would cause a blackout(if it was a cities only source of power)."

well not as a sole source of energy, no, but in conjuction with wind, it becomes viable... if applied to entire cities... and yes the idea of hail storms with solar panel as an energy source is worrisome... they need to develope a protective layer that doesn't block the sunlight in any signifigant way, but when applied in conjuction with wind can power most people's homes soley, if it were applied to everyone's homes, would greatly reduce fossil fuel dependancy and usage.

"Now don’t get me wrong I am for renewable and cleaner energy sources. However at this present time they are not cost effective, and are only viable as a secondary source of power. California has rolling brownouts and blackouts during the summer because California only allows Natural Gas power stations to be constructed. Now imagine this happening to the rest of the major cities in the USA. (http://www.mises.org/...

cost effective they are not...lol, this everyone can agree with though they do pay for themselves over about a decade, maybe less now. personally i think government should have a good tax break insentives to people who use solar power and wind power.

"As for the USA being far above the Kyoto treaties emissions... Well yah I can agree on that but you can’t really hold someone to something they never ratified, the same goes for Australia. I’m not sure if you are from the USA but... ratifying the Kyoto treaty is definitely not beneficial to the USA economy at this point in time as proven by the standards that California is taking towards cleaner energy(By the way California is considered the most proactive state in environmental issues)."

no it wont be benifitial to their economy, nor anyone else... atleast not immediately, however the long term gains would far exceed the short term sacrafices... and its not like they're being told to go green completely, just to reduce emissions to a more acceptable level for the commonwealth of mankind

and we all know how the US accrued a good portion of that debt in their economy... money that could have most obviously been much better spent. i'm sure the 2.8 trillion in debt accrued under bush could've gone a long way in the feild of alternate energies. but alternative energies aren't the big business in the US... thats oil.
 
  by: HAVOC666     10/23/2006 08:05 AM     
  great!  
 
It'd be great if antarctica thawed out. In a couple of generations we'd have a coupl eof billion swaure miles of inhabitable, ariable land. Works for me.
 
  by: Dedolito     10/23/2006 08:46 AM     
  ice age in europe?  
 
I dont think so. temperatures are rising over here. we hardly have what we used to call winter anymore.
 
  by: Amaze   10/23/2006 02:40 PM     
  cost of green energy  
 
The cost of green energy is far, far less than the cost of conventional energy. Here's why:

The production of conventional energy creates massive amounts of greenhouse gas which warms the planet, leading to huge property damages when infrastructure sinks into melting permafrost; increased incidents of severe weather which destroys buildings and displaces people; increased cooling bills across entire continents facing the hottest summers on record; etc.

In fact, you could factor the cost of every war the U.S. has fought in oil-producing countries since 1990 into the cost of producing conventional energy, since those wars and other military activity there were to protect the United States' "interests in the region":
"A network of permanent [military] bases in the region, especially in the Mediterranean ... should be retained, and consideration given to establishing a more robust presence in the Black Sea.
Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region."

-- "Rebuilding America's Defenses," a report by the Project for the New American Century, page 29; available for download at http://www.newamericancentury.org/...

If a government were to appropriately penalize the production of conventional energy, given these costs, green energy would be seen as far cheaper. No blood for wind!
 
  by: l´anglais     10/23/2006 03:20 PM     
  off-topic, but ...  
 
The above quote, released by a think-tank that counts Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, "Scooter" Libby, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and many other top Republican leaders, is from a report released in September 2000. It shows how far back both Iraq and Iran were on that group's "list."
 
  by: l´anglais     10/23/2006 03:31 PM     
  Am I the only one here  
 
to come up with a crazy lex luthor type land deal!!! We do a survey where the coast line will lay at when the ice caps melt and then we buy up all that land. Then we acellerate the melting processes somehow. Anyone have any ideas on this part?
 
  by: slavefortheman     10/23/2006 04:02 PM     
  @Havoc & l'ang  
 

@Havoc- Thanks for agreeing to everything i said? Because that’s how it came across... And while I agree second world country does sound a bit funny, the NICs classification is the correct one to use.

What I was pointing out in my last post is that the majority of Major US cities already have secondary power stations such as wind and solar plants. Also I believe on the energystar.gov website it shows tax breaks for using solar power(I think I saw that, but im not 100% sure). Also another thing to point out is where you state that if solar power is used in conjunction with wind power we have a viable power source. While this is correct... the areas where there is both an abundant source of Sun and Wind is somewhat rare... generally you either have one or the other. For example in phoenix we have some large solar stations since well..the sun shines here 99% of the time here (not to mention its hotter then hell here) and we rarely have any wind :).

Also I would suggest to avoid just using the US alone as an example of having a money issue when it comes to spending. In reality every country in the world could be doing a better job. Of course more debt will be accrued for much larger countries.... such as the US. Comparing even Europe to the US is like comparing apples to oranges when talking about national debt.


@L'ang---

The current cost for green energy is MUCH MUCH more then Nuclear,Coal,Oil,Hydro based energy. First of all, you are assuming that infrastructure will fall due to natural disasters and that global warming is actually happening. However lets jump back into reality here because the fact is this is not happening; there has always been horrible storms, earthquakes, tornados etc. The reason why it seems worse is because we have instant access to see what is going on in every part of the world, 100 years ago we most likely would not have heard about the tsunami that hit in Indonesia a few years back, the same could be said about the hurricane that hit New Orleans. A perfect example is the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, It took months before people in other states even heard of this disaster. If you look at the statistics on natural disasters you will see that we have not had a large increase in them like everyone seems to believe.

As of right now there is no concrete evidence that actually proves global warming is happening. I know plenty of scientists at the university I work for who would agree with me. As a matter of fact the last average record high in the world was in 1996, ever since then the temps have actually gone down a few degrees. Here’s the thing people...the earth changes, it is not on a straight path which everyone seems to think it is. Not to mention that we now have more trees in the world today then we did a hundred years ago due to lumber farming. That’s right the companies who cut down the tree’s actually plant more trees then what they cut down. So if you want to save the trees…. I suggest that you purchase some thick stacks of paper ;). I can give you two pieces of credible evidence that says global warming isn’t happening for every piece of evidence you supply me.

Now my reason as to why I think we need to switch to green energy is because it would make everyone healthier, not because the planet is going to go have a “Day after Tommorow” scenario.
 
  by: diem928   10/23/2006 10:25 PM     
  @diem  
 
"@Havoc & l'ang

@Havoc- Thanks for agreeing to everything i said? Because that’s how it came across... And while I agree second world country does sound a bit funny, the NICs classification is the correct one to use."

it was a half-agreement...

"What I was pointing out in my last post is that the majority of Major US cities already have secondary power stations such as wind and solar plants. Also I believe on the energystar.gov website it shows tax breaks for using solar power(I think I saw that, but im not 100% sure). Also another thing to point out is where you state that if solar power is used in conjunction with wind power we have a viable power source. While this is correct... the areas where there is both an abundant source of Sun and Wind is somewhat rare... generally you either have one or the other. For example in phoenix we have some large solar stations since well..the sun shines here 99% of the time here (not to mention its hotter then hell here) and we rarely have any wind :)."

well this is true... what i was implying was, was not solely commercial... imagine every house being solar and wind powered on their own, in addition to commercially available green energy... most homes can power themselve suffiently one solar and wind power alone, some even produce excess and contribute it to the electrical grid, for a cost of premium or tax break... and the installation of such devices (like wind turbine for homes and solar panelling entire roofs) whouls garner a tax break in an other itself over X amount of years, relative to cost ofthe installation. the best thing we can do is generate our own power, this would greatly reduce energy demands, thereby decreasing maybe even eliminating fossil fuel usage and thusly pollution.

"Also I would suggest to avoid just using the US alone as an example of having a money issue when it comes to spending. In reality every country in the world could be doing a better job. Of course more debt will be accrued for much larger countries.... such as the US. Comparing even Europe to the US is like comparing apples to oranges when talking about national debt."

lol no doubt, i was simply using the US in this case because they have the largest economy, but yes every country can do this and ever country should do this..

is solar power used in iraq, iran or the middle east in general... if not... why?, quite bright and hot in the middle east... aside from economics of course, plus their power demands per person i would assume are lower, almost certianly far, far lower and thusly solar power would seem ideal... but alas they are sitting on oil and using it for energy and enriching/buying uranium

"@L'ang---
The current cost for green energy is MUCH MUCH more then Nuclear,Coal,Oil,Hydro based energy. First of all, you are assuming that infrastructure will fall due to natural disasters and that global warming is actually happening. However lets jump back into reality here because the fact is this is not happening; there has always been horrible storms, earthquakes, tornados etc. The reason why it seems worse is because we have instant access to see what is going on in every part of the world, 100 years ago we most likely would not have heard about the tsunami that hit in Indonesia a few years back, the same could be said about the hurricane that hit New Orleans. A perfect example is the 1906 earthquake in San Francisco, It took months before people in other states even heard of this disaster. If you look at the statistics on natural disasters you will see that we have not had a large increase in them like everyone seems to believe.

As of right now there is no concrete evidence that actually proves global warming is happening. I know plenty of scientists at the university I work for who would agree with me. As a matter of fact the last average record high in the world was in 1996, ever since then the temps have actually gone down a few degrees. Here’s the thing people...the earth changes, it is not on a straight path which everyone seems to think it is. Not to mention that we now have more trees in the world today then we did a hundred years ago due to lumber farming. That’s right the companies who cut down the tree’s actually plant more trees then what they cut down. So if you want to save the trees…. I suggest that you purchase some thick stacks of paper ;). I can give you two pieces of credible evidence that says global warming isn’t happening for every piece of evidence you supply me."

well denying global warming is just plain foolish.. its happening there little scientific doubt at all about it... the doubt is on OUR impact on it, however it is a fact that the emission we produce do make our envrioment hotter; such as carbon dioxide and methane, although its also a fact the the temperature of earth fluxuate and gets ice ages and thawings in cycles.

and yes they plant more trees however deforestation has occured to pave way for massive ci
 
  by: HAVOC666     10/23/2006 11:30 PM     
  @Havoc  
 
As stated in my last post. I will keep denying global warming until I have concrete evidence that actually proves its happening. As I said the average temperature of the world was at its highest back in 1996. Since then the average temperature of the world has decreased.

You say there is LITTLE scientific doubt that it is happening... How do you know this? The majority of the professors that I speak with at ASU and UCLA seem to think other wise. Oh and not to mention so does South Park. Which im sure all you know actually has relevant information hidden in the cartoon itself if you actually pay attention. http://throwawayyourtv.com/...

And yah that sounds great lets power our own houses with free electricity by using solar panels and windmills. But you know... never mind the 100,000+ of workers who loose their jobs because there are no need for power plants any more. Not to mention the amount of tax income that would be lost. There wouldn’t be a tax break if this much money would be lost.

Sorry welcome to the real world. You cannot take away 100,000+ jobs away in a short period of time(Even a decade is a short period of time for something like this). The economy would be destroyed. This is the same reason as to why cars still use combustion engines and oil. There are too many jobs to be lost which are associated with these industries.

You have to realize the people who are currently working in these factories for the most part do not have any other skills; this means they would not be able to make the jump from putting together engines to programming computers etc. This is the sad truth. If you can supply those who would loose their job with another job that pays the same amount and requires practically no additional skills then im all for shutting down the Coal, Nuclear, Oil, & Hydro power factories. But more then likely you wont be able to. Remember we are talking about peoples lives here.

An excellent movie that somewhat touches on what we are talking about is “Others Peoples Money”. It shows that a new technology will not take over until it becomes practical to do so. Here is an except from the speech that Lawrence gives “You know, at one time there must've been dozens of companies making buggy whips. And I'll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw. Now how would you have liked to have been a stockholder in that company? You invested in a business and this business is dead. Lets have the intelligence, lets have the DECENCY to sign the death certificate, collect the insurance, and invest in something with a future.”

This points out that your ideal situation will not be economically feasible until the companies are about to die out which I am going to guess will happen in about 20 years when all of these type of factory workers will be retired and the new technology will be much cheaper to mass produce. Sorry to burst your bubble. But if I was a factory worker in one of these industries I know I would much rather have Global warming(which again there is no conclusive evidence of this happening) and being able to support my family then not be able to support my family and have a better environment.
 
  by: diem928   10/24/2006 12:20 AM     
  As Long  
 
As long as these global-warming scientists get keep getting funded with their grants, they will inevitably find more and more evidence of such a theory. I am not debunking what they are promoting but at the same time I question everything. A scientist is just as human as a guy who pumps gas or works at Wal-Mart. They want a nice paycheck and a roof overhead,food on the table, etc. If I were them and there was a stream of cash coming in, I would be finding global warming in every nook and cranny. Or would I? Dunno.
 
  by: John E Angel     10/24/2006 12:32 AM     
  @diem  
 
"@Havoc
As stated in my last post. I will keep denying global warming until I have concrete evidence that actually proves its happening. As I said the average temperature of the world was at its highest back in 1996. Since then the average temperature of the world has decreased."

1996 was the hottest year?, not so

veiw these links and tell me you don't see a trend

http://www.gsreport.com/...

http://www.thewe.cc/...

http://www.livescience.com/...

"You say there is LITTLE scientific doubt that it is happening... How do you know this? The majority of the professors that I speak with at ASU and UCLA seem to think other wise. Oh and not to mention so does South Park. Which im sure all you know actually has relevant information hidden in the cartoon itself if you actually pay attention. http://throwawayyourtv.com/... "

and first off yes i like south park but first and foremost they are a comedy show.

some links about other indications:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...

"And yah that sounds great lets power our own houses with free electricity by using solar panels and windmills. But you know... never mind the 100,000+ of workers who loose their jobs because there are no need for power plants any more. Not to mention the amount of tax income that would be lost. There wouldn’t be a tax break if this much money would be lost.

Sorry welcome to the real world. You cannot take away 100,000+ jobs away in a short period of time(Even a decade is a short period of time for something like this). The economy would be destroyed. This is the same reason as to why cars still use combustion engines and oil. There are too many jobs to be lost which are associated with these industries.

You have to realize the people who are currently working in these factories for the most part do not have any other skills; this means they would not be able to make the jump from putting together engines to programming computers etc. This is the sad truth. If you can supply those who would loose their job with another job that pays the same amount and requires practically no additional skills then im all for shutting down the Coal, Nuclear, Oil, & Hydro power factories. But more then likely you wont be able to. Remember we are talking about peoples lives here."

indeed, however, new markets for jobs will be openned after all whose going to maintain/replace solar panels and wind turbines, similarly for internal combustion vehicles, converting to hydrogen or electric will open new markets, and would actually temporarily diversify the industrial economy further during the transition which would likely take about a generation (about 2 decades, i think 1 decade is far too optimistic) to do on a national scale. in this time the government could offer incentives for taking training courses for this emerging new sectors, thereby avoiding a future catastrophy of having an ill trained workforce for an inevitable job sector. in the short term it will actually probably employ more people as it would be gradually phasing one energy source out for another, jobs lost in one hand are gained in the other, overall in the longterm the benifits far outweight the costs.

"An excellent movie that somewhat touches on what we are talking about is “Others Peoples Money”. It shows that a new technology will not take over until it becomes practical to do so. Here is an except from the speech that Lawrence gives “You know, at one time there must've been dozens of companies making buggy whips. And I'll bet the last company around was the one that made the best goddamn buggy whip you ever saw. Now how would you have liked to have been a stockholder in that company? You invested in a business and this business is dead. Lets have the intelligence, lets have the DECENCY to sign the death certificate, collect the insurance, and invest in something with a future.”

This points out that your ideal situation will not be economically feasible until the companies are about to die out which I am going to guess will happen in about 20 years when all of these type of factory workers will be retired and the new technology will be much cheaper to mass produce. Sorry to burst your bubble. But if I was a factory worker in one of these industries I know I would much rather have Global warming(which again there is no conclusive evidence of this happening) and being able to support my family then not be able to support my family and have a better environment."

the real reason isn't practicality, you can't get any more practical than generating free electricity, quite litterially taking it out of the air. the real it is grees... the oil companies have a strangle hold with no int
 
  by: HAVOC666     10/24/2006 01:17 AM     
  last bit got cut off (continued)  
 
the real reason isn't practicality, you can't get any more practical than generating free electricity, quite litterially taking it out of the air. the real it is greed... the oil companies have a strangle hold with no intention of ever letting go. oil is only better for 1% of world green energy is good forr 100% of the world all 6.3 billion of them... the oil companies are lining their pockets with billions upon billions in one hand while trashing the planet with the other.
 
  by: HAVOC666     10/24/2006 01:20 AM     
  @John E Angel  
 
Yeah, that's a good point John, most scientists go into their field with the intent to make money, and corperations trying to disprove the theory are the truthful ones that have the best interests of our future in mind, and not looking to make their corperate balance sheet look good to investors. Yeah we should be listening to the corperations and not the scientists... /*Sarcasm*/

Take a break from Listen to yourself....

I suppose we should have listened to the tobacco industry over scientists on whether smoking increases your chance of lung cancer. They testified in front of a grand jury, put there hand upon the good book, and swore to us that tobacco doesn't cause cancer. Why? Because of course they have our best interests in mind... it's the crazy scientists that are trying to convince you otherwise.

By you logic, science should have been disbanded long ago and we should all be kick'n back having a big stoggy.

At what point did we American's decide that corperate interests and politics should discredit science.

These scientist's aren't backed by billion dollar corperations. If you look at where the information is coming from to discredit science, you find a trail of money all the way back to where.....? You don't have to look very hard, but people seem to choose not to look.


 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   10/24/2006 01:31 AM     
  @diem  
 
"Sorry welcome to the real world. You cannot take away 100,000+ jobs away in a short period of time(Even a decade is a short period of time for something like this). The economy would be destroyed. This is the same reason as to why cars still use combustion engines and oil. There are too many jobs to be lost which are associated with these industries."

When the automobile came along, every industry associated with horse-drawn carts collapsed. Just ask the buggy-whip manufacturors.

A gradual phase-in of green energy wouldn't mean 100,000-plus jobs lost instantly. And if you pay attention to corporate downsizing news, you'll see that 100,000-plus jobs have easily been slashed in the past five years, and guess what -- we're still around, the economy hasn't collapsed, and the big corporations don't give a damn. Their primary function is to make money -- not preserve jobs in some sort of altruistic generosity. (Besides the fact that there will be no jobs without a relatively healthy planet to have them on.)

I don't care how many professors you've talked to who disagree that mankind is having a large impact on global warming (and I'm aware that the planet heats and cools in natural cycles, thank you), the truth is that the vast majority of scientists agree that the planet is warming at an unprecedented rate in its history, and that human activities are contributing to this. While the mainstream media may report that there is significant disagreement on this, no scientific journal does.

One last thing -- who stands to make money from denying the human impact on global warming? The energy companies. No large organization stands to reap substantial gains by saying that human beings must change the way they consume energy. So who are you going to believe -- scientists or salesmen?
 
  by: l´anglais     10/24/2006 03:02 PM     
  Kyoto is a fraud  
 
One of the major problems is that there is a disparity between the required reduction for the US and the required reduction for less developed countries. For instance, under Kyoto India and China are classified as developing countries and are given substantial allowances that would not be afforded to "developed" countries. With this disparity in mind, I would like to float an idea. You are a multinational corporation with polluting factories in Britain. Under Kyoto you must reduce emissions by x% by 2012. However, if you move your facility to India or China you can increase emissions thus reducing manufacturing costs (reducing emissions costs more money). You will also save money due to the fact that labor is cheaper in India and China than in Britain. Less regulation means that your evil empire will make more cash. Your stockholders will make more cash and everyone will be happy - all while completely satisfying the requirements of the Kyoto Accords and successfully nullifying Kyoto at the same time. Now I could argue with you on the (IMO) junk science behind Kyoto, but you guys are just as dedicated to your arguement as I am to mine so I will not try to change your mind. The real problem is that loophole. If large corporations in the US decide that it would be cheaper in the long run to move their manufacturing operations to "developing" countries where emissions controls are virtually nonexistant and labor is relatively dirt cheap, the Kyoto Accords will have accomplished nothing. There are no provisions for preventing industrial migration. If there were industrial migration provisions, Kyoto would simply be "the man" keeping "developing" nations down. Kyoto, while filled with good intentions, is just not well thought out. As we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Currently, potentially migratory corporations in the US are under the US EPA regulations. If the US ratified Kyoto and began tightening regulation of those companies, they could move to "developing" countries. Since the polluting manufacturing facilities would have ceased operations in the US, greenhouse gas emissions in the US would meet or exceed Kyoto requirements. However, these companies would not face the level of regulation that they face in the US in their new locations and could theoretically increase global greenhouse emissions. Say goodbye to continental ice shelves and ice bergs. Hello rising tides and reduced global land mass. Thanks Kyoto.
 
  by: tomblik     10/24/2006 04:58 PM     
  @ukcn001XYZ  
 
I did not make my point very clearly about what I believe to be suspicions regarding scientists who are being funded to study global warming. I should have said that there are also other scientists (not big corps) who say that this warming is a scam. http://www.denverpost.com/... Who are we supposed to believe?
 
  by: John E Angel     10/24/2006 05:58 PM     
  @havok  
 
I love to disagree with you, but you made it practically impossible for me to do so on this subject. The only thing I can think of is the coal accusations. Last I heard, within the past month I think it was, that coal is not as detrimental to the earth as it used to be. I am pretty sure that I heard it was about 70% cleaner then it used to be. I will try and do some research but I will most likely forget after work. It seems you have some time so let me know if you dig anything up that supports or refutes my claim. Good article and good arguments.
 
  by: confed   10/24/2006 08:02 PM     
  @l'anglais  
 
Ok.... are you bloody daft?? The buggy whip was an EXAMPLE. Of course the rest of the Buggy industry fell as well. And I NEVER said that the 100,000+ jobs would be lost instantly. Please read the post before you point out things. And when you speak of 100,000+ jobs being downsized in 5 years you are NOT referring to just one industry. Do you realize what the effect would be if Ford,GM, etc all shut their doors? To be quite honest it sounds like you need to take a few economics classes. Oh and yes Main stream media is making it seem as if global warming isnt happening? All I ever see on TV is either the war in Iraq or stating that Global Warming is happening. Please tell me you dont believe everything that you hear? The next thing you'll say is that 2nd smoke kills people, which of course is another subject without any CONCLUSIVE evidence. I really suggest that you actually read the studies on Global Warming as well as things like second hand smoke. If you actually did you will see things get taken greatly out of context. Heres another thing.. A corporation does not want to sack all of their workers or the themselves would be out of a job and would NOT be making any more money. The only time you downsize is when you arnt making any money, not if your company is going to croke in the next year.

And again I am going to believe the scientists that i personally speak with who actually study this subject unlike yourself who probably only reads a few newspapers and thinks that their an expert.


And for Havoc... Dont quote everything dude hehe. It makes it hard to see what your actual post is. Ill read it when i get the chance since I have to filter out a majority of the last post you posted.
 
  by: diem928   10/25/2006 05:49 AM     
  @John E Angel  
 
There are, count it: 928 scientifically peer reviewed articles published from 1993 to 2003 that either explicitly or implicitly agree that:
"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise."

Johnny, can you guess how many articles peer reviewed and published by the scientific community that disagree with the above statement.....??? There are exactly no more then: 0 articles peer reviewed and published as scientific literature which disagree with the above statement.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Is this a conspiracy by the scientists or the energy corporations?

Do you think that the energy companies are going to risk letting go on the energy market? Think about it..... it's a competitive market, they fight for every inch they can get over the competitor. They're doing exactly what any company would do in a multi-billion dollar industry, they're preserving their market share any way that can. They are all over the energy market like a fat kid on a cup cake.

Guess what, that means these energy corps are left with a moral judgment. Do you think they will better themselves in a competitive market by going soft with moral right?What company is going to let any market share slip away that will be gobbled up instantly by another company? For better or worse that's capitalism, you take the good with the bad.

If you think energy corps got the best interests in mind over scientists then we've got an American public that is in real rough shape.

Think about the CEO's making the decisions. How many CEO's do you think are hired by multi-billion dollar company's to make good solid moral decisions? Is it a little more likely they hire CEO's that will make profitable decisions over moral right one? Not too many companies make it to the forbes 100 by thinking twice about morals.

I'm stating the obvious here, why people can't see this for themselves is getting mind boggling.

You never answered my last question John E Angel. Who has the most $'s to lose by global warming the scientists or the energy companies?

Who do you think is the conspirator of this issue, science or energy companies?
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   10/25/2006 06:03 AM     
  Well  
 
It sounds like you are an expert so I must respectively relent.

(global warming is a scan) :p
 
  by: John E Angel     10/25/2006 04:18 PM     
  @John E Angel  
 
You're missing my point. I'm not an expert, I never claimed to be. Being so, I go to those that are considered the field experts, those people are commonly refered to as "scientists".

The same folks that brought us the microwave, thinsulate, seedless watermellon, and the internet. "Scientists", you can usually count on them.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   10/25/2006 11:28 PM     
  @John E Angel  
 
I think what I said previously:
"If you think energy corps got the best interests in mind over scientists then we've got an American public that is in real rough shape."

And John E Angles reply of:
"(global warming is a scan) :p"

Is a sad example of how easily the corperate funded media can influence the public and get people to dig their heads into the sand so deep that they won't even give any rhyme or reason to their logic.

That's what's on TV so it must be true mentality.

We are worse off then I hoped...
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   10/25/2006 11:42 PM     
  @diem  
 
First, please don't resort to personal insults. It makes it hard to read the rest of what you have to say with an open mind.

Second, General Motors, one auto company of numerous, employs more than 300,000 people, and in one famous incident laid off about 40,000 of them at the same time -- all from the same small town. A movie was made about it.

Side note -- you have no idea that I took several college courses in environmental science, have read numerous books on the subject, subscribe to a magazine that frequently reports on the topic and that I read about the phenomenon of global warming on several different web sites on a regular basis. So let's not start a pissing match over who's better informed.

Thirdly, I think your argument falls into the "either/or" trap -- Either we keep things status quo, or hundreds of thousands of people lose their jobs and an entire industry collapses. The auto industry should take an aggressive lead in green technology and fuels, and of course, they'll still need employees to carry that off -- same scenario with the energy companies. Why can't Exxon invest in alternative energies like biodiesel and ethanol? There's no reason they can't.

Your turn!
 
  by: l´anglais     10/30/2006 02:17 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com