Neelman on cnbc.com today....

[Flying the Line]

When you say take out the oil/jet fuel middle man are you talking about getting rid of the commodities traders?

We should tax the commoditites trades profits. That should help get rid of at least one middle man and considerably lower the cost of crude oil.

 

[STL717]

What the hell does Al Gore have to do with science? Who even brought Gore up? It wasn't me.

I get my climate science from NASA, NOAA, USGS, Environment Canada, US DOE, American Meteorology Society, US National Academy of Science and on and on.

Can you find me a single credible, publicly funded organization that argues that man is not causing the planet to warm? Good luck.

As for calling me a moron... Well, at least I know what talk radio is. Here's a clue: it's not at all analogous to "watch TV."

Can you find me a single credible, publicly funded organization that argues that man is not causing the planet to warm?

Try this web site, it's not publicly funded.
http://icecap.us/index.php

or you could read this.

From The Sunday Times February 11, 2007

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, says the orthodoxy must be challenged

When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.

The small print explains “very likely” as meaning that the experts who made the judgment felt 90% sure about it. Older readers may recall a press conference at Harwell in 1958 when Sir John Cockcroft, Britain’s top nuclear physicist, said he was 90% certain that his lads had achieved controlled nuclear fusion. It turned out that he was wrong. More positively, a 10% uncertainty in any theory is a wide open breach for any latterday Galileo or Einstein to storm through with a better idea. That is how science really works.

Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost unreported.

Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business pages. The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you that in east Antarctica the Adélie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years ago? While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by 8% in the Southern Ocean.

So one awkward question you can ask, when you’re forking out those extra taxes for climate change, is “Why is east Antarctica getting colder?” It makes no sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. While you’re at it, you might inquire whether Gordon Brown will give you a refund if it’s confirmed that global warming has stopped. The best measurements of global air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show wobbles but no overall change since 1999.

That levelling off is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis, which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity. Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.

Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which the last was the Medieval Warming.

The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass used intermittently whenever the world was warm.

What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The 2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.

Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar variations control the climate. The sun’s brightness may change too little to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more powerful mechanism.

He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars. More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the world cloudier and gloomier.

The only trouble with Svensmark’s idea — apart from its being politically incorrect — was that meteorologists denied that cosmic rays could be involved in cloud formation. After long delays in scraping together the funds for an experiment, Svensmark and his small team at the Danish National Space Center hit the jackpot in the summer of 2005.

In a box of air in the basement, they were able to show that electrons set free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report; the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late last year.

Thanks to having written The Manic Sun, a book about Svensmark’s initial discovery published in 1997, I have been privileged to be on the inside track for reporting his struggles and successes since then. The outcome is a second book, The Chilling Stars, co-authored by the two of us and published next week by Icon books. We are not exaggerating, we believe, when we subtitle it “A new theory of climate change”.

Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully worked out.

The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.

The Chilling Stars is published by Icon. It is available for £9.89 including postage from The Sunday Times Books First on 0870 165 8585


The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change

 

[STL717]

What the hell does Al Gore have to do with science? Who even brought Gore up? It wasn't me.

I get my climate science from NASA, NOAA, USGS, Environment Canada, US DOE, American Meteorology Society, US National Academy of Science and on and on.

Can you find me a single credible, publicly funded organization that argues that man is not causing the planet to warm? Good luck.

As for calling me a moron... Well, at least I know what talk radio is. Here's a clue: it's not at all analogous to "watch TV."

You include NASA in your list of climate science sources; however it appears that James Hanson NASA’s manmade carbon dioxide global warming advocate may be just a little biased due to the influence of money.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jake-g...ming-alarmist-james-hansen-shill-george-soros

Or do a google search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=james-hansen+soros

 

[jayme]

Your "icecap" website is NOT publicly funded. It tries for legitimacy by using the .us domain, but a real US government website ends with .gov. It is privately funded, and accepts donations from the public. NO taxpayer money supports that.

Your newspaper opinion piece is cute, but doesn't really hold up to NASA (as an organization, NASA has published that man is causing the planet to warm. I am talking about the hundreds of scientists as a whole, not some anomolous opinion.) Read it here. Here's a little synopsis:
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.

 

[Soverytired]

I think the best way for the layman to approach global warming is thusly:

It's an extremely complicated subject that requires a fair amount of training in numerous scientific disciplines. When dealing with such a subject, it is probably better to listen to the consensus of the actual experts in the scientific community.

(NOT Al Gore, who clearly has his own agenda. )

It would seem that there is considerable consensus that there is some global warming taking place. Of less certainty are the reasons why. Clearly man made activity is having an impact, but no one know how much.

Anything beyond that is just politics, unless you're a climatologist, meteorologist, etc. and can have a truly informed opinion. That's not me, and it's probably not anyone on this forum, either.

 

[STL717]

Your "icecap" website is NOT publicly funded. It tries for legitimacy by using the .us domain, but a real US government website ends with .gov. It is privately funded, and accepts donations from the public. NO taxpayer money supports that.

Your newspaper opinion piece is cute, but doesn't really hold up to NASA (as an organization, NASA has published that man is causing the planet to warm. I am talking about the hundreds of scientists as a whole, not some anomolous opinion.) Read it here. Here's a little synopsis:
Climatologists (scientists who study climate) have analyzed the global warming that has occurred since the late 1800's. A majority of climatologists have concluded that human activities are responsible for most of the warming.

First, I stated www.icecap.us was not a .GOV web site.
Considering that any government employee that makes statements against manmade global warming is dealt with. Such as state climatologists.
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/state-climatologists-attacked-for-global-warming-doubts
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007702010363
How many government scientists will be speaking against manmade global warming?

Your NASA article uses the words “could” and “might” many times.
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Are you aware of the following?
1. Carbon dioxide is required for all life to exist on earth.
2. Perfect combustion produces carbon dioxide and water. One gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide and a gallon of water. Burning one pound of jet fuel produces 3.15 pounds of carbon dioxide.
3. The most influential greenhouse gas is water vapor.
4. The “greenhouse effect” keeps the earth warm enough for life.
5. Global warming started around 1750 as the earth warmed after the “little iceage”.
6. During the little iceage there was an 80 year period of almost no sunspots known as the “Maunder Minimum”.
7. Since 1900 the PPM of carbon dioxide has continually increased while the temperature has not. Global cooling occurred from the late 1940’s to the late1970’s.
8. Manmade carbon dioxide is .16% of all carbon dioxide created. If you add all the manmade greenhouse gases, man contributes .28% to all the greenhouse gases created. About one quarter of one percent of all greenhouse gases.

Follow the money. The billions created by carbon taxes and/or cap and trade will create great wealth for individuals and companies that have positioned themselves to take advantage of the opportunity. They are pushing hard for you to convince congress we all need a new tax and we will be glad to pay it to help the environment and “save the earth”. The current estimate is a family of 4 will incur a carbon tax of $2,700 a year.

If you want to believe the opinion that manmade carbon dioxide (.16%) is causing global warming it’s OK with me. Considering the main stream media’s bias for manmade carbon dioxide global warming I understand your position. I just wish you would look at some of the opposing opinions out there. Such as this web site.

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming02.pdf

 

[Correcting]

The airlines could partner together and build a coal to oil refinery and produce oil at $55/bbl. Simple as that,

Right, it's so simple.

They can't even run airlines, and now you have them running oil refineries and distribution networks? LOL

 

[Dumb Pilot]

I'll be happy if they can keep track of the bags

 

[jayme]

STL717: You "facts" are wildly misinformed. Did you get all your aviation knowledge from political sources too, or did you go to the experts?

Of course there are all sorts of misinformed flight instructors, too. Sometimes going to the experts will get you in trouble. So those are the times you go to official sources like faa.gov. I recommend going to noaa.gov and see how your ideas hold up. Start out by trying to verify your rediculous numbers.

 

[Flydaplane]

Jayme needs to pull his head out of ALGORES ahole. You asked him to cite references and he did, you won't read them or believe them if you do read them. Just like those that said the ice age was returning during the 70's. To think that our SUV's can affect the climate is a joke. The volcano that just erupted in Chile spewed more CO2 than we can make in a decade, seems to me like there have been volcanos around for a few years, yet the earth is still here. I saw Al Gore flying from the Sundance film festival in a G-V with one other person on board. I guess he's real concerned about his global footprint right? Oh yeah, he buy carbon credits to offset his travels and his mansion.....from his own company. Geez jayme wake up!!!!!

 

[Bavarian Chef]

First, I stated www.icecap.us was not a .GOV web site.
Considering that any government employee that makes statements against manmade global warming is dealt with. Such as state climatologists.
http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/state-climatologists-attacked-for-global-warming-doubts
http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007702010363
How many government scientists will be speaking against manmade global warming?

Your NASA article uses the words “could” and “might” many times.
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Are you aware of the following?
1. Carbon dioxide is required for all life to exist on earth.
2. Perfect combustion produces carbon dioxide and water. One gallon of gasoline produces 20 pounds of carbon dioxide and a gallon of water. Burning one pound of jet fuel produces 3.15 pounds of carbon dioxide.
3. The most influential greenhouse gas is water vapor.
4. The “greenhouse effect” keeps the earth warm enough for life.
5. Global warming started around 1750 as the earth warmed after the “little iceage”.
6. During the little iceage there was an 80 year period of almost no sunspots known as the “Maunder Minimum”.
7. Since 1900 the PPM of carbon dioxide has continually increased while the temperature has not. Global cooling occurred from the late 1940’s to the late1970’s.
8. Manmade carbon dioxide is .16% of all carbon dioxide created. If you add all the manmade greenhouse gases, man contributes .28% to all the greenhouse gases created. About one quarter of one percent of all greenhouse gases.

Follow the money. The billions created by carbon taxes and/or cap and trade will create great wealth for individuals and companies that have positioned themselves to take advantage of the opportunity. They are pushing hard for you to convince congress we all need a new tax and we will be glad to pay it to help the environment and “save the earth”. The current estimate is a family of 4 will incur a carbon tax of $2,700 a year.

If you want to believe the opinion that manmade carbon dioxide (.16%) is causing global warming it’s OK with me. Considering the main stream media’s bias for manmade carbon dioxide global warming I understand your position. I just wish you would look at some of the opposing opinions out there. Such as this web site.

http://media.kusi.clickability.com/documents/Comments+on+Global+Warming02.pdf

So tell me once again, in a rational manner, why keeping CAFE standards low and NOT worrying about the deforestation of Brazil is a GOOD thing?

Can you seriously argue that keeping mpg standards low, in light of today's fuel prices, is responsible? In other words, do ya think that 40 mpg standards are possible? Uh huh, yes sir, they are. If only our FU$%ED up govt system would make it happen.

Global Warming or Climate Change: it really doesn't matter what you call it. How can you be against making our environment better???

I.e. : why are you willing to take the risk?

 

[qxdash8]

The airlines could partner together and build a coal to oil refinery and produce oil at $55/bbl. Simple as that, but throw in the sky-is-falling carbon crowd, enviro-wackos, and gov't, sadly, it'll probably never happen.

Of course you are talking about the Fischer-Tropsch process used to turn coal into jet fuel or other synthetic fuels and lubricants (not oil). Not sure that its the "enviro-wackos" that are keeping this from becoming more wide spread. Its a promising technology, but will take quite a bit of investment in processing plants etc., before it could be counted on as a reliable (and cheaper) jet A substitute. The Air Force has already been testing these fuels but I think its looking at them for more strategic reasons and not just cost.

From our good friends at Wikipedia: "There are investigations underway to reduce CO2 emissions by using solar power to convert waste CO2 into CO from where the FT process can then convert it to hydrocarbons." Now that would be a promising technology! And should shut up the "sky-is-falling carbon crowd."

 

[Soverytired]

So tell me once again, in a rational manner, why keeping CAFE standards low and NOT worrying about the deforestation of Brazil is a GOOD thing?

Global Warming or Climate Change: it really doesn't matter what you call it. How can you be against making our environment better???

A common argument against raising CAFE standards is that it will almost invariably mean lighter cars, which will in turn raise fatalities during car crashes. Nevertheless, plenty of people will be willing to take that risk when gas gets to $10/gallon.

"Global Warming" -or- "Climate Change"? Actually, it does matter what you call "it". "Global Warming" is being dropped because politicians look foolish when they attend a "GW" conference and no one shows up due to unseasonably frigid temperatures.

The move to "Climate change" is a political term. It literally can mean anything, and that's why the non-scientist layman is skeptical. Politicians love a cause where they can empower themselves and never have to show results because the goal posts may be shifted at a moments notice. While this does not necessarily mean they're wrong, free men should be very, VERY careful about giving away their freedoms to every politician screaming "the sky is falling!"

It also implies scientists understand the climate well enough to predict its behavior and what, if any, mankind's activities have on it . . . . . and they MOST CERTAINLY DON'T. Do they understand it better than you or I? Certainly. That's why their input should have more impact than yours or mine. But their models are very imprecise; drastic measures are premature.

As to the environment? You better believe I'm for government standards on clean air, water, etc. in the US. But Brazil is a sovereign nation that's gonna do what it damn well pleases. Personally, I think deforestation in Brazil is short-sighted, but it's their country. News flash: the Brazilians don't give two-********************s about what the US thinks.

 

[STL717]

So tell me once again, in a rational manner, why keeping CAFE standards low and NOT worrying about the deforestation of Brazil is a GOOD thing?

Can you seriously argue that keeping mpg standards low, in light of today's fuel prices, is responsible? In other words, do ya think that 40 mpg standards are possible? Uh huh, yes sir, they are. If only our FU$%ED up govt system would make it happen.

Global Warming or Climate Change: it really doesn't matter what you call it. How can you be against making our environment better???

I.e. : why are you willing to take the risk?

Carbon dioxide has absolutely nothing to do with making our environment cleaner. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Ozone and carbon monoxide are examples of pollutants.

I am for a clean environment.

I do have a question. Why are the environmentalists so quiet while farmers plow more land to plant corn in the USA and sugar cane in Brazil?

Risk in climate change? There is no risk, the climate will continue to change just as it always has.

 

[jayme]

Jayme needs to pull his head out of ALGORES ahole. You asked him to cite references and he did, you won't read them or believe them if you do read them. Just like those that said the ice age was returning during the 70's. To think that our SUV's can affect the climate is a joke. The volcano that just erupted in Chile spewed more CO2 than we can make in a decade, seems to me like there have been volcanos around for a few years, yet the earth is still here. I saw Al Gore flying from the Sundance film festival in a G-V with one other person on board. I guess he's real concerned about his global footprint right? Oh yeah, he buy carbon credits to offset his travels and his mansion.....from his own company. Geez jayme wake up!!!!!

One more time for the attention-deficit crowd: I never brought up Al Gore. You did.

Secondly, I asked stl717 to : find me a single credible, publicly funded organization that argues that man is not causing the planet to warm. Good luck.

By his own admission, he was unable to.

Third, I haven't seen any data about how much co2 was released in the recent Chilean eruption. Please teach me, wise one. Then compare that to man's annual output of about 28,000,000,000 TONS of CO2. You will find that volcanos typically emit less than 1% of man's annual output.

Finally, please move on from this unhealthy obsession with Al Gore. It makes you sound like a wierdo.