[Rhodes22-list] Global Warming Scam

[Brad Haslett]

Ron,

We agree on more than we disagree.  The shrinking number of scientists who
don't buy into global warming is the simplest to explain.  The funding goes
to the believers. We'll probably be dead when the next cooling period starts
and the truth is really known.  I will remain a skeptic that the current
warming trend is anything unusual and especially that it is accelerated by
mankind. That said, I still read the scientific research on both sides and
remain neutral.

The possible mitigating steps that we can take, assuming that we can do
anything, are steps we need to take anyway for other geopolitical reasons.
Nuclear energy is extremely attractive.  Cheap electricity makes the
conversion of tar sands economically feasible.  Yes, coal has a bright the
future and we have the technology to scrub it fairly clean. Yes, we are
running out of crude oil (I'm a firm believer in Hubbert's peak) and what is
left is either in difficult places (at sea) or in hostile places (third
world or Middle Eastern countries).

I still keep a close eye on the Illinois Basin oil field looking for
bargains.  They are not there anymore (unless you want to take on soil
remediation projects).  One lease I almost bought was picked up by the
seller for free when oil got to $11 per barrel.  Those days are gone
forever.  One possible new life for the Illinois Basin and other mature and
marginal fields in the US is for carbon sequestration. If carbon
sequestration becomes a reality it will be a game for big companies, that
still leaves room for small leaseholders but the payoff is too far down the
road to be modeled into any current value analysis.  My backyard neighbor
until a few months ago was an energy banker.  We entertained ourselves by
guessing where oil and coal prices were going while sharing some really good
wine.  We were eerily prescient. Unfortunately, he actually invested in our
bets, I sat on the sidelines.

Now, back to solutions, the single biggest weapon we have in our arsenal is
the C-bomb - Conservation.  I'm dead-set against government intervention in
markets but here's an area where I can live with an exception.  China,
India, and the Europeans all pay substantially more for transportation fuel
than we do in the US.  It has been proposed (and I could support) that we
establish a minimum price for gasoline of $4 per gallon, rising over a long
enough period of time that the markets can adjust and the economy doesn't
tank.  Peoples personal habits and the marketplace will take care of the
rest. There is no "magic bullet" out there, the solutions will be
incremental and piecemeal.  All these steps will lessen our dependence on
oil but won't do much for GW as long as China and India doesn't play.  China
just said again this week they won't.

I don't have a beef with the global warming believers.  I'm just as agnostic
about that as I am religion.  The problem comes when the belief turns into
political action.  Many of the GW believers' solutions are IMHO the right
things to do for the wrong reasons.  I'd like to see something about the
declining supply of crude oil sooner rather than later.  However, let's be
sane and rational about it.  Rabid belief in any religion or cause seldom
leads to sane and rational discussion and especially thoughtful and useful
action.

Brad

.



On Nov 8, 2007 11:32 PM, Ronald Lipton <rlipton at earthlink.net> wrote:

> Brad,  attacking a complex argument is something that is difficult to do
> in a e-mail list.
> Over the last two years we have had a seminar series with several
> speakers from
> Argonne, BP, NCAR (Nat. Center for Atmospheric Research), and Princeton on
> various aspects of the the issue.  They are all available online if you
> are interested.
> Talks by Warren Washington of NCAR and Steve Koonin (chief scientist at
> BP) are especially
> interesting.  The science is reasonably solid, but we are talking about
> modeling a complex system
> and there is some (diminishing) room for error.  I would say that the
> number of scientists
> on the negative side is becoming quite small.
>
> http://www-ppd.fnal.gov/EPPOffice-w/colloq/colloq_04_05.html
>
> But establishing the science is the easy part.  The Koonin lecture gives
> a nice overview of
> the technical options.  I am pretty pessimistic that much can be done to
> change the momentum
> of economic development and oil consumption.  More conservation and less
> dependence
> on petroleum may help, but it is almost certain that all of the
> hydrocarbon fuel that is
> out there will be burned sooner or later, probably sooner.  Nuclear
> power will need to
> increase independent of the carbon problem.  It is still small likely to
> be small compared
> to hydrocarbons.  One important step is to recognize that coal will
> become an increasing
> component of the fuel mix and plan to build cleaner plants in the future
> with possible carbon
> sequestration.
>
> Just be glad you own a boat.
>
> Ron
>
> Brad Haslett wrote:
> > Ron,
> >
> > Oldest trick in the debating handbook: if you can't attack the argument,
> > attack the opponent.
> >
> > There are plenty of scientists on both sides of the argument.  Only one
> side
> > gets constant press.  But, let me play devils advocate here.  So Global
> > Warming is real, what now?  Give us some concrete solutions.  More
> nuclear
> > reactors?  I've said that for years.  Scrub carbon emissions from coal?
>  The
> > market is way ahead of both of us.  High sulfur coal is now profitable
> > because it is cheaper to pay for scrubbers than paying for
> transportation of
> > low sulfur coal from the far west.  Smaller cars with outstanding fuel
> > mileage?  I'd buy another diesel VW in a heartbeat.  What the hell do
> the
> > Global Warming zealots want?  Just tell me!  Hell, I might support Al
> Gore
> > despite being a fake just because he's doing more good than harm.
> >
> > Just tell me.  What am I (and you) supposed to do?
> >
> > Brad
> >
> > On Nov 8, 2007 8:12 PM, Ronald Lipton <rlipton at earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Is this the same John Coleman who was the pompous weatherman in chicago
> >> in the
> >> 80's? You trust a television weatherman over the opinions of the VAST
> >> majority of
> >> real scientists?   It is a scientific question but a statement like  "I
> >> have studied. I have
> >> thought about it. I know I am correct. " What bullshit.  No scientist
> >> would make
> >> a statement like that.   We know what the evidence tells us with some
> >> probability.
> >> There is strong evidence that the globe is warming.  Models say that it
> >> is probably
> >> due to co2 - but the models may be incomplete or inaccurate.
> >>
> >> I never liked Coleman.
> >>
> >> Ron
> >>
> >> Brad Haslett wrote:
> >>
> >>> Coleman is the founder of the Weather Channel.  Brad
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------
> >>>
> >>> *By John Coleman*
> >>>
> >>> It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly
> >>> offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly
> scientists
> >>>
> >> with
> >>
> >>> environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific
> >>>
> >> data to
> >>
> >>> create in allusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the
> same
> >>> environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and
> broaden
> >>>
> >> the
> >>
> >>> "research" to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global
> warming
> >>> claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their
> >>>
> >> way
> >>
> >>> to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.
> >>>
> >>> Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed
> up
> >>> with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to
> >>>
> >> create
> >>
> >>> this wild "scientific" scenario of the civilization threatening
> >>> environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to
> their
> >>> radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been
> >>>
> >> accepted
> >>
> >>> as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the
> Democratic
> >>> Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in
> >>>
> >> many
> >>
> >>> cases, well informed but very gullible environmental conscientious
> >>>
> >> citizens.
> >>
> >>> Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global
> Warming
> >>> frenzy with one 15 minutes documentary segment.
> >>>
> >>> I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political
> >>>
> >> positions of
> >>
> >>> either party. However, Global Warming, ie Climate Change, is not about
> >>> environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not
> something
> >>>
> >> you
> >>
> >>> "believe in." It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my
> >>>
> >> field of
> >>
> >>> life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a
> non-event,
> >>>
> >> a
> >>
> >>> manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably
> >>>
> >> won't
> >>
> >>> believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy
> >>>
> >> Award
> >>
> >>> and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be
> it.
> >>>
> >>> I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous
> >>> scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am
> >>>
> >> correct.
> >>
> >>> There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate
> is
> >>>
> >> not
> >>
> >>> catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the
> >>>
> >> incredible
> >>
> >>> media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of
> >>> counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.
> >>>
> >>> In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the
> >>> temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super
> >>>
> >> storm
> >>
> >>> pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize
> we
> >>>
> >> have
> >>
> >>> been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in
> >>> climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes
> >>> underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as
> >>> likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.
> >>> __________________________________________________
> >>> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >>
> >>
> > __________________________________________________
> > Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
> >
> >
>
> __________________________________________________
> Use Rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org, Help? www.rhodes22.org/list
>