Comments on: The Facts http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com Facts, not fiction on climate change Mon, 06 Sep 2010 06:26:26 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Angie http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com/the-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-1621 Angie Tue, 27 Apr 2010 12:03:47 +0000 http://www.mnvalues.org/?page_id=28#comment-1621 I am now 44 years old. When I was in elementary school in the mid 1970's the big thing was the ozone layer. I remembered being all but promised that by the 1980's the tropics would have moved as far north as Illinois, which is where I grew up. My dream as a child was to live in Florida because I love the tropical climate. I distinctly remember actually telling myself that I wouldn't have to move away from my family because I would have palm trees in my back yard. Guess where I live. Bingo! Florida. It's amazing what the teachers were telling me with such conviction. Seems like they are still banging the same drum, but now it's called something else. " A rose by any other name is still as sweet." Don't know if the " sweet" stands though. And I do wonder how much of this research was done with government grants. I find it hard to believe that results from gov. grants can be objective. These scientists want to keep their jobs too. It kind of leads to the unemployment line if they proved that global warming was just a bunch of hogwash. Therefore, the drum comment still stands. I am now 44 years old. When I was in elementary school in the mid 1970’s the big thing was the ozone layer. I remembered being all but promised that by the 1980’s the tropics would have moved as far north as Illinois, which is where I grew up. My dream as a child was to live in Florida because I love the tropical climate. I distinctly remember actually telling myself that I wouldn’t have to move away from my family because I would have palm trees in my back yard. Guess where I live. Bingo! Florida. It’s amazing what the teachers were telling me with such conviction. Seems like they are still banging the same drum, but now it’s called something else. ” A rose by any other name is still as sweet.” Don’t know if the ” sweet” stands though. And I do wonder how much of this research was done with government grants. I find it hard to believe that results from gov. grants can be objective. These scientists want to keep their jobs too. It kind of leads to the unemployment line if they proved that global warming was just a bunch of hogwash. Therefore, the drum comment still stands.

]]> By: Mark http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com/the-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-1599 Mark Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:32:17 +0000 http://www.mnvalues.org/?page_id=28#comment-1599 Try being a science instructor in this period of "intellectual cooling". I'm a full time bioloigst but also teach night classes for a community college on natural resources and YES, environmental science. I submit to my students both sides of the issue, they never cease to be amazed that the blather they hammered with day after day may not actually be true. They thank me for submitting to them that maybe the truth of Michael Mann and others is only their version of the truth. Try being a science instructor in this period of “intellectual cooling”. I’m a full time bioloigst but also teach night classes for a community college on natural resources and YES, environmental science. I submit to my students both sides of the issue, they never cease to be amazed that the blather they hammered with day after day may not actually be true. They thank me for submitting to them that maybe the truth of Michael Mann and others is only their version of the truth.

]]> By: Another John http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com/the-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-1136 Another John Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:57:20 +0000 http://www.mnvalues.org/?page_id=28#comment-1136 Unfortunately Oscar, over 90% of China and a similar number of people in India exist in extreme poverty, technologically in an iron-age, still pulling thier plows with animals for their food, still dumping sewage into their streams and rivers (China is experincing a terrible water pollution problem http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-02/24/content_7508856.htm as is India because they cannot afford to clean it up as fast as they pollute). Do you want us to have that same condition here? If you cannot afford a $25,000 Prius then you should ride a bicycle. If you cannot afford the increase of $1700 that the Cap and Trade says you will need to pay above what you already pay, then you are an unproductive drain on the world. That is ludicrous. If you don't like it when someone says "here are the real facts on climate change;" how do you answer to reason? Colleen said it well months ago, "the polar icecaps on mars have been melting for a long time now…..and that is not caused by polution." We live in the same Solar System and are subject to the same effects therein. Unfortunately Oscar, over 90% of China and a similar number of people in India exist in extreme poverty, technologically in an iron-age, still pulling thier plows with animals for their food, still dumping sewage into their streams and rivers (China is experincing a terrible water pollution problem http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-02/24/content_7508856.htm as is India because they cannot afford to clean it up as fast as they pollute). Do you want us to have that same condition here? If you cannot afford a $25,000 Prius then you should ride a bicycle. If you cannot afford the increase of $1700 that the Cap and Trade says you will need to pay above what you already pay, then you are an unproductive drain on the world. That is ludicrous.

If you don’t like it when someone says “here are the real facts on climate change;” how do you answer to reason? Colleen said it well months ago, “the polar icecaps on mars have been melting for a long time now…..and that is not caused by polution.” We live in the same Solar System and are subject to the same effects therein.

]]> By: Another John http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com/the-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-1135 Another John Sat, 27 Mar 2010 14:31:03 +0000 http://www.mnvalues.org/?page_id=28#comment-1135 There is nothing wrong with trying to be greener, nor about doing things that are respectful of others. But to dictate policies and laws that hurt those who cannot afford it is morally incomprehensible. Cap and Trade fits the definition of the rich and powerful imposing dictums upon the poor that restricts them from being free to rise out of their lowly states. I for one could afford to pay the $1700 per year increase (I wouldn't like it of course) that is estimated in the article above, but how many could not, and would be once again giving up something that they were hoping or dreaming of? That kind of increase would only come out of taking items in their budget that was discretionary (nest eggs, vacations, cable television, college educations and other luxuries), and move it over into the required for living expenses column (food, rent, clothes, taxes, etc). Isn't kind of like saying if you cannot aford to pay this extra "green tax" that you cannot afford to live? There is nothing wrong with trying to be greener, nor about doing things that are respectful of others. But to dictate policies and laws that hurt those who cannot afford it is morally incomprehensible. Cap and Trade fits the definition of the rich and powerful imposing dictums upon the poor that restricts them from being free to rise out of their lowly states. I for one could afford to pay the $1700 per year increase (I wouldn’t like it of course) that is estimated in the article above, but how many could not, and would be once again giving up something that they were hoping or dreaming of? That kind of increase would only come out of taking items in their budget that was discretionary (nest eggs, vacations, cable television, college educations and other luxuries), and move it over into the required for living expenses column (food, rent, clothes, taxes, etc). Isn’t kind of like saying if you cannot aford to pay this extra “green tax” that you cannot afford to live?

]]> By: Dan McGrath http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com/the-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-1116 Dan McGrath Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:23:08 +0000 http://www.mnvalues.org/?page_id=28#comment-1116 You answered your own query. Ice core samples. The deeper the ice, the older (in theory). Past temperatures are inferred by the composition of the ice and it's trace atmospheric chemicals. You answered your own query. Ice core samples. The deeper the ice, the older (in theory). Past temperatures are inferred by the composition of the ice and it’s trace atmospheric chemicals.

]]> By: Oscar http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com/the-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-1034 Oscar Wed, 10 Mar 2010 05:10:37 +0000 http://www.mnvalues.org/?page_id=28#comment-1034 Wow, nice try at scaremongering and conspiracy theories 101. I love it how people can throw around words like "here are the real facts on climate change", with little or no evidence from select sources who have dubious backgrounds. How blind can you be to ignore all of the research and modelling done by climate scientists over the past 30 plus years? Go talk to just about any environmental or science based university professor/lecturer/teacher and try and prove to them that man made climate change isn't happening. Your simplistic theories of "oh climate change is natural" are amusing, welcome to 1st year science! What you of course don't mention is that the rate of warming occuring currently is over a factor of 100 times quicker than as has naturally occured during the previous glacials/interglacials of the previous 5 million years or so. GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ARSE AND DEAL WITH THE REALITY THAT EVERYONE ISN'T AGAINST YOU, THERE ISN'T A CONSPIRACY THEORY FOR CHRIST SAKE! Oh and good post John, someone who at least knows something about the topic. Have a nice time living with your heads in the clouds everyone else! Wow, nice try at scaremongering and conspiracy theories 101. I love it how people can throw around words like “here are the real facts on climate change”, with little or no evidence from select sources who have dubious backgrounds. How blind can you be to ignore all of the research and modelling done by climate scientists over the past 30 plus years? Go talk to just about any environmental or science based university professor/lecturer/teacher and try and prove to them that man made climate change isn’t happening. Your simplistic theories of “oh climate change is natural” are amusing, welcome to 1st year science! What you of course don’t mention is that the rate of warming occuring currently is over a factor of 100 times quicker than as has naturally occured during the previous glacials/interglacials of the previous 5 million years or so.

GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ARSE AND DEAL WITH THE REALITY THAT EVERYONE ISN’T AGAINST YOU, THERE ISN’T A CONSPIRACY THEORY FOR CHRIST SAKE!

Oh and good post John, someone who at least knows something about the topic.

Have a nice time living with your heads in the clouds everyone else!

]]> By: BD http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com/the-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-958 BD Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:36:57 +0000 http://www.mnvalues.org/?page_id=28#comment-958 I’m totally with the global warming scam….but I have a question on one of your main pieces of literature : “The 5 facts on Global Warming”. I would love to print and distribute to people, BUT, I have a problem with Fig. 1. Maybe someone can help me with this. You show temperature readings from Antarctica ice samples dating back some 500,000 years….I don’t know…but I’m just guessing that we weren’t taking and documenting ice sample temperatures in Antarctica 500,000 years ago ??? It kind of hurts the credibility….Thanks I’m totally with the global warming scam….but I have a question on one of your main pieces of literature : “The 5 facts on Global Warming”. I would love to print and distribute to people, BUT, I have a problem with Fig. 1. Maybe someone can help me with this. You show temperature readings from Antarctica ice samples dating back some 500,000 years….I don’t know…but I’m just guessing that we weren’t taking and documenting ice sample temperatures in Antarctica 500,000 years ago ??? It kind of hurts the credibility….Thanks

]]> By: John http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com/the-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-870 John Thu, 11 Feb 2010 03:00:38 +0000 http://www.mnvalues.org/?page_id=28#comment-870 Even if you don't believe in global warming / climate change, what's so horrible about using greener energy sources? Coal ash causes cancer and you have to rip up the country to get it. Why not invest in something that can't run out? Why not run our cars on something that isn't imported or cause smog and lung cancer? Not to mention, investment in technology leads to long term growth, and there would certainly be many jobs created in new fields. It will just take time to transition and the pain involved in that transition is more than anyone would like to endure. It will take a time, money, and support - but even China and India have more ambitious climate policy than we do. "the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy" -Obama Even if you don’t believe in global warming / climate change, what’s so horrible about using greener energy sources? Coal ash causes cancer and you have to rip up the country to get it. Why not invest in something that can’t run out? Why not run our cars on something that isn’t imported or cause smog and lung cancer? Not to mention, investment in technology leads to long term growth, and there would certainly be many jobs created in new fields. It will just take time to transition and the pain involved in that transition is more than anyone would like to endure. It will take a time, money, and support – but even China and India have more ambitious climate policy than we do.
“the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy” -Obama

]]> By: Reason McLucus http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com/the-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-436 Reason McLucus Fri, 18 Dec 2009 08:20:06 +0000 http://www.mnvalues.org/?page_id=28#comment-436 There is no such thing as "greenhouse" gases. The term heat refers to the kinetic energy (motion) of atoms/molecules. Greenhouses function by having solar radiation heat interior objects in the interior of the greenhouse. These objects then heat the air through conduction. Gas molecules don't readily convert heat energy into radiation or conduct it to the walls and ceiling of the greenhouse. Conduction requires actual contact with the material the heat would be transferred to and only a small portion of air is in contact with the walls at any one time. The walls and ceiling of the greenhouse trap the heated air, rather than heat energy, in the greenhouse. The idea that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping radiation was popular during the 19th Century, but physicist R. W.Wood disproved the theory in 1909 in an experiment involving identical greenhouses. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html Water vapor holds more heat energy than other atmospheric gases because of its peculiar thermal characteristics such as its high specific heat, but its reaction to radiation is not a factor. Conduction is the most effective form of heat transfer because two substances in thermal contact attempt to become the same temperature. Heat transfer through radiation generally requires that the source of the radiation be significantly hotter than the substance to be heated. For example, a heat lamp will only heat things up when it is turned on. It produces radiation when it is off, but doesn't do any heating. There is no such thing as “greenhouse” gases. The term heat refers to the kinetic energy (motion) of atoms/molecules. Greenhouses function by having solar radiation heat interior objects in the interior of the greenhouse. These objects then heat the air through conduction. Gas molecules don’t readily convert heat energy into radiation or conduct it to the walls and ceiling of the greenhouse. Conduction requires actual contact with the material the heat would be transferred to and only a small portion of air is in contact with the walls at any one time. The walls and ceiling of the greenhouse trap the heated air, rather than heat energy, in the greenhouse.

The idea that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping radiation was popular during the 19th Century, but physicist R. W.Wood disproved the theory in 1909 in an experiment involving identical greenhouses. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/wood_rw.1909.html

Water vapor holds more heat energy than other atmospheric gases because of its peculiar thermal characteristics such as its high specific heat, but its reaction to radiation is not a factor.

Conduction is the most effective form of heat transfer because two substances in thermal contact attempt to become the same temperature. Heat transfer through radiation generally requires that the source of the radiation be significantly hotter than the substance to be heated. For example, a heat lamp will only heat things up when it is turned on. It produces radiation when it is off, but doesn’t do any heating.

]]> By: Doris http://www.NoCapAndTrade.com/the-facts/comment-page-1/#comment-420 Doris Wed, 16 Dec 2009 18:56:15 +0000 http://www.mnvalues.org/?page_id=28#comment-420 I agree with you totally Colleen. I agree with you totally Colleen.

]]>