Neelman on cnbc.com today....

[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.

 

[embraerjetpilot]

The Democrats are too busy worrying about how the poor folks can fly......

The Dems. don't want to see the carriers get together....However that is what needs to happen...



Some people just dont get it...you are one of them...the past 8 years have just been one disaster after another for the airlines. Why is that?

And mergers are just a big excuse to give these executives big bonuses. They will still be losing millions of dollars each year.

Besides, that old guy Mccain wants to take away any negotiating rights we have. Want to work for 2 dollars an hour... Vote for him!

 

[STL717]

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.

So, your logic is because all publically funded web sites promote the theory of manmade global warming then it must be true.

I think you need to do more reading and research of the whole issue.

Manmade carbon dioxide induced global warming is not happening.

The solar scientists are now predicting the sun’s output is diminishing and to expect decades of cooling. The current sun spot cycle is at about 12 years long, significantly longer than the past few cycles indicating a cooling of the sun.
http://www.ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

The hockey stick graph of global temperature was a lie.
http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm



On top of that the PDO has probably swapped to it’s negative phase.
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=126
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/04/29/nasa-pdo-flip-to-cool-phase-confirmed-cooler-times-ahead/


The hottest year in the last decade was 1998. This was apparent after a Canadian proved NASA had an error in the calculations they had used for each year after 2000. NASA quietly fixed the error and the main stream media didn’t bring up the issue.
http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2007/08/official-us-cli.html
http://oceanengineering.blogspot.com/2007/08/y2k-error-in-nasa-temperature-study.html



And don’t forget about instrument error. Many temperature sensors are not located correctly per NOAA specifications such as next to parking lots and air conditioners affecting accurate readings.
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm




Meanwhile the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will continue to increase while global cooling occurs, proving there is not a correlation between carbon dioxide and temperature. Thus we now have “climate change” advocates still pushing for carbon taxes or cap and trade.

Enjoy your new tax.

 

[Soverytired]

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.

This is a reasonable demand, although I would suggest that "publicly funded" does not mean "neutral". This bias on your part assumes all government sponsored organizations are pure and true, and all privately funded organizations are short-sighted and biased.

"Publicly funded" = garbage, for most things (public schools, the DMV, etc.)

I think the 100% consensus is that the climate is changing. I think 95% of those scientists believe mankind is having some impact. How much impact is very much up as a matter of debate.

 

[jayme]

Public money takes the bias out of things. NASA/NOAA/NWS/USGS etc. don't need to twist their data to continue to get funds. They are there to serve us. If anything, they would be biased towards the republicans, who as a party think global warming is a sham. Despite this bias, they still agree man is causing the planet to warm and that it's a bad thing.

There are some public systems that could benefit from competition. You mention education - I absolutely agree! However, global warming is being researched by many different serious scientific agencies. If it was a sham, don't you think one of those organizations would be shouting it out, and trying to get the research money budgeted for the others? Yet, as organizations, they all agree that man is causing the planet to warm.

 

[STL717]

Public money takes the bias out of things. NASA/NOAA/NWS/USGS etc. don't need to twist their data to continue to get funds. They are there to serve us. If anything, they would be biased towards the republicans, who as a party think global warming is a sham. Despite this bias, they still agree man is causing the planet to warm and that it's a bad thing.

There are some public systems that could benefit from competition. You mention education - I absolutely agree! However, global warming is being researched by many different serious scientific agencies. If it was a sham, don't you think one of those organizations would be shouting it out, and trying to get the research money budgeted for the others? Yet, as organizations, they all agree that man is causing the planet to warm.

I guess you didn't read this from an earlier post.

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-go...l-george-soros

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

 

[LoveGun]

I guess you didn't read this from an earlier post.

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-go...l-george-soros

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

You believe that because an ultra conservative website does a biased, poorly researched story on one NASA scientist all government funded research on climate change is a sham? I have to agree that our public eduction system is failing. Obviously you were never taught critical thinking.

 

[jayme]

Exactly. James Hanson is not NASA.

STL717 - have you gone to NOAA.gov yet to verify your silly numbers?

 

[STL717]

Exactly. James Hanson is not NASA.

STL717 - have you gone to NOAA.gov yet to verify your silly numbers?

Mr. Hansen is the most vocal NASA scientists promoting manmade global warming.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/staff/jhansen.html

You might want to call or email Mr. Hansen so he knows he is not NASA.
E-mail: [email protected]
Phone: (212) 678-5500


The silly numbers are not mine, do you have any silly numbers?

 

[jayme]

I'll take that as a no.

 

[STL717]

I'll take that as a no.

Oh I went NOAA and I didn't see and legitimate numbers but I did see many silly numbers and pretty graphs too.

So if manmade global warming is really happening as you believe and all the ramifications such as the oceans are going to rise soon. Why is no one moving from all the low lying areas? With the expected more devastating hurricanes why is no one moving away from the southeastern USA coastline? I have not seen any news reports of mass migrations.

How will “cap and trade” or carbon taxes reduce the actual amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and thus reduce global warming and “save the world”?