Comments on: Ten Industry Arguments Against Action on Global Warming … and Why They Are Wrong

By: miggs

miggs — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 23:55:19 +0000

The sad thing about these lines of attack is that manufacturers could mitigate greenhouse emissions while CUTTING energy costs if they changed their thinking a little. I’m associated with Recycled Energy Development, a company that converts manufacturers’ excess heat into electricity and steam. That means more efficiency, which in turn means lower pollution and costs. EPA and DoE estimates suggest such energy recycling measures could produce 40% of our nation’s electricity, slashing greenhouse gases by about 20%. Unfortunately, regulations give monopoly protection to utilities and make it exceedingly difficult for more efficient options to emerge. Smart manufacturers should be lobbying Congress to ease these utility protections to slash power costs.

By: William

William — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:33:16 +0000

Maybe better to keep an open and inquiring mind, and not accept ready made answers provided by politicians. The politicians don’t have a good record with the truth. They do have a record creating fear, creating programs, taking our money and accomplishing nothing.

By: Harold Pierce Jr

Harold Pierce Jr — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 11:24:54 +0000

ATTN: Paul K!

As a matter of fact, I’ m such an expert. I worked in the pheromone research group at Simon Fraser Univ for 30 years. The PI was Prof. John H. Borden, the world’s expert on mountian pine beetle.

Briefly, AGW had nothing to with the recent beetle out break. The real reason is Smokey the Bear! About 1900 much of the lodgepole pine burned down, and a new forest started to grow. Vigorous fire began in the Smokey the Bear era.

By: Paul K

Paul K — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 04:50:29 +0000

john,
Your last comment was to me not Ron. Apparently you do not agree with the eminent Emmanuel et al.

I certainly agree that assertions without fact do not equal fact. Nor do misquotes. I do not favor merely reducing fossil fuels. I favor replacing them. Big difference. It should greatly comfort you that we share a common goal if for different reasons.

I can’t think of any alternative that could possibly aggravate AGW. There are at present three five deployable alternatives: Hydro, Wind, Solar, Nuclear and Geothermal. Those are the ones I support. If you’ve read any of my climateprogress comments other than on this thread, you know that I am in full agreement with Joe that there is absolutely no reason to wait for any more.

By: Harold Pierce Jr

Harold Pierce Jr — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:47:40 +0000

Hey Joe!

I have evidence for new Pacific Oscillation with a period of 60 years. It went into a warm cycle at 1940 while the PDO was going into a cool cycle at that date. Now both of these two cylces are going into cool phases, and it is going to get darn cold. I’d start stocking up on earmuffs and wool socks.

By: john

john — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 02:33:33 +0000

Ron:

No one has broken the link between AGW and hurricanes. Indeed, it gets stronger the more data we have, particularly when you look at cyclone data as well as the Atlantic hurricanes. They are the same.

Assertions without fact do not equal fact.

And it’s small comfort that you are for cutting fossil fuel use for “other reasons.”

Suppose, for example, that we come up with domestic alternatives that aggravate AGW. You would support such an approach. I would not. More importantly, the planet would not.

By: Fran Manns

Fran Manns — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:56:40 +0000

It’s the sun; the sun is 12 years into an 11 year cycle. Look up.

By: Fran Manns

Fran Manns — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 22:54:19 +0000

“National Climate Data Center’s recent announcement of the coldest April in more than a decade and the 29th coolest since record keeping began 114 years ago. The average temperature was 1 degree cooler than the average April temperature of the entire 20th century.
A few weeks ago, as North America was emerging from one of its coldest and snowiest winters in decades, the climate center issued a statement saying that snow cover on the Eurasian land mass had been the most extensive ever recorded, and that this March had been only the 63rd warmest since 1895.
On April 24, the World Wildlife Fund published a study, based on September’s 2007 data, showing that Arctic ice had shrunk from 13 million square kilometres to just 3 million. What the WWF omitted was that by March the Arctic ice had recovered to 14 million square kilometres and that the ice cover around the Bering Strait and Alaska was at the highest level ever recorded…” —Investor’s Business Daily

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 20:15:41 +0000

Harold, if it were true, it would be great news. We needed counterbalance to anthropogenic global warming.

Alas, we are headed steadily upward and outward and temperature this century.

By: Harold Pierce Jr

Harold Pierce Jr — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:53:42 +0000

Hey Joe!

Forget all that phony balony! Here is empirical data for the coming Big Chill.

Data is from the Quatsino BC weather station for Sept 21 for the intervals 1990-2000 and 2001-07. For 1990-2000, mean Tmax, 20 deg C. For 2001-07, mean Tmax, 14.5 deg C. That is a decline of 5.5 deg. For the lightstation, the decrease is 4.9 deg. The drop was quite abrupt: 2000 Tmax, 19.5; 2001 Tmax, 14.5.

The records at this very remote station near the nothern tip of Vancouver Island start at 1895, and the monthly means for Sept 2006 and 2007 are now the same as they were for 1900-09. I have data for other times of the year that show the same.

The Pacific ocean has turned over, and the climate is now a shifting into a cool phase that could last for another 100 years.

There is a ominous chill in the air coming out the northwest that I have never felt here in Metro Vasncouver. There is something happening out there in ocean. And it not good.