EvilCapitalist said:nycll said:EvilCapitalist said:"Richard S. Lindzen, a professor at M.I.T. and a longtime skeptic of the mainstream consensus that global warming poses a danger." followed by a semi-quote from him ignores what he actually has been saying which can be seen even on his Wikipedia entry.Lindzen's view actually fits my description of the skeptics. He doesn't deny the exisitence of the warming nor the role of CO2 plays. So what's is your point?Huh? Read what he actually wrote. Most of his papers are easily accessible. He's skeptical on CO2 emitted by human activity being the cause of a global warming.
He's skeptical that it's the ONLY cause, not A cause. Here's an excerpt written by Prof. Lindzen from a book on global warming:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/222_Exchange.pdf
"For the most part, I do not disagree with the consensus, but I am disturbed by the absence of quantitative considerations. Indeed, I know of no serious split and suspect that the claim that there is opposition to this consensus amounts to no more than setting up a straw man to scoff at. However, I believe that people are being led astray by the suggestion that this agreement constitutes support for alarm...
1. For the past century, [the global mean surface temperature] has probably increased by about 0.6°±0.15°C (centigrade). That is to say, we have had some global mean warming.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its increase contributes to warming...
3. There is good evidence that man is responsible for the recent increase in CO2, although climate itself (as well as other natural phenomena) can also cause changes in CO2. "

China's ministry of Health has stated industrial pollution has made cancer China's leading cause of death.
sunny day in Beijing (on the right)
Air pollution (indoor + outdoor) is estimated by the World Bank to kill roughly 3/4 million people annually in China.
A third of the Yellow River is too polluted for even industrial use.

beethovengirl said:geebeebee said: We have earned the title as world's worst polluters, and held the title for tens of years.
The US is neither the world's highest aggregate polluter nor the world's highest per-capita polluter.

Use of hyperbole diminishes the credibility of one's argument.We should make a clarification if green house gases are pollutions. I am still used to think of pollution as smog in the air and mercury in water, etc.

geebeebee said:beethovengirl said:geebeebee said: We have earned the title as world's worst polluters, and held the title for tens of years.
The US is neither the world's highest aggregate polluter nor the world's highest per-capita polluter.

Use of hyperbole diminishes the credibility of one's argument.Wrong. For decades American wasn't the highest aggregate polluter? You guys have just made the argument that they were just overtaken in the last year or two! Not understanding the point of my statement diminishes the credibility of one's argument.
All pollutants are not equal.

geebeebee said:geebeebee said:beethovengirl said:geebeebee said: We have earned the title as world's worst polluters, and held the title for tens of years.
The US is neither the world's highest aggregate polluter nor the world's highest per-capita polluter.

Use of hyperbole diminishes the credibility of one's argument.Wrong. For decades American wasn't the highest aggregate polluter? You guys have just made the argument that they were just overtaken in the last year or two! Not understanding the point of my statement diminishes the credibility of one's argument.Look at your own source and explain to me how we weren't the world's largest polluter for tens of years, starting in 1980?
Ugh, I was going to ignore your last post, but since you seem to want to continue to beat the dead horse, let's review what you said:
"The U.S. is the WORST polluting country in the world!"

You did not say, when averaging over the past 30 years, the US has been the world's largest polluter. You said the US is the world's WORST polluter, which uses the simple present tense, meaning the US is currently the world's largest polluter, not in 1980. You then posted outdated and/or inaccurate sources stating that the US has the highest CO2 emissions per capita and in the aggregate. Now that your stats have been proven wrong, you're trying to claim that we need to average over the past 30 years to determine the world's worst polluter??? Well then, I guess we don't need to worry about the rapid increase in pollution emissions by China. After all, it was only 30% of the US's total in 1980.

China's pollution is tied to American consumption of goods. I visited China in 2005 and the air quality is atrocious, but the Chinese on average don't over consume like Americans do. China and America are roughly the same size but China has 1.2 billion people and America has 300 million.

Most likely not scalable...

geebeebee said:This is what I'm hoping to see: Fast Track for Solar

Granted, a long ways to go, but here is the potential:

DOI said:Currently BLM has received about 470 renewable energy project applications. Those include 158 active solar applications, covering 1.8 million acres, with a projected capacity to generate 97,000 megawatts of electricity. That’s enough to power 29 million homes, the equivalent of 29 percent of the nation’s household electrical consumption. The BLM will continue to process existing renewable energy applications, both within and outside of the solar energy study areas.

And that's just solar -- not including all the wind, off-the-grid solar, etc. AND, it's just as many, if not more, jobs than old-school drilling would create, and ones with much more potential heading forward. If we can get out of the paradigm that everything begins and ends with Fossil fuels, that old-school business is gripped by, then something good might happen, beginning with the toppling of the Middle-East oil barons.

Someone needs to explain why we need to use 1.8 million acres to produce the same amount of energy that could be produced by simply doubling the number of nuclear power plants in this country.

depalma13 said:Someone needs to explain why we need to use 1.8 million acres to produce the same amount of energy that could be produced by simply doubling the number of nuclear power plants in this country.

Simple: Nuclear Power is not Politicaly Correct in the US even though the data seems to favor it.

Even in CA, solar has issues

beethovengirl said:EvilCapitalist said:nycll said:EvilCapitalist said:"Richard S. Lindzen, a professor at M.I.T. and a longtime skeptic of the mainstream consensus that global warming poses a danger." followed by a semi-quote from him ignores what he actually has been saying which can be seen even on his Wikipedia entry.Lindzen's view actually fits my description of the skeptics. He doesn't deny the exisitence of the warming nor the role of CO2 plays. So what's is your point?Huh? Read what he actually wrote. Most of his papers are easily accessible. He's skeptical on CO2 emitted by human activity being the cause of a global warming.
He's skeptical that it's the ONLY cause, not A cause. Here's an excerpt written by Prof. Lindzen from a book on global warming:
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/222_Exchange.pdf
"For the most part, I do not disagree with the consensus, but I am disturbed by the absence of quantitative considerations. Indeed, I know of no serious split and suspect that the claim that there is opposition to this consensus amounts to no more than setting up a straw man to scoff at. However, I believe that people are being led astray by the suggestion that this agreement constitutes support for alarm...
1. For the past century, [the global mean surface temperature] has probably increased by about 0.6°±0.15°C (centigrade). That is to say, we have had some global mean warming.
2. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and its increase contributes to warming...
3. There is good evidence that man is responsible for the recent increase in CO2, although climate itself (as well as other natural phenomena) can also cause changes in CO2. "

That's not what some people in the EPA thinks.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/26/politics/politicalhotshe...

Here's a key quote:
"My personal view is that there is not currently any reason to regulate (carbon dioxide)," he said. "There may be in the future. But global temperatures are roughly where they were in the mid-20th century. They're not going up, and if anything they're going down."