An inconvienent Truth and Global warming [Archive]

Tannin

03-05-2007, 10:58 AM

Stereodude

03-05-2007, 11:35 AM

You guys disgust me. How much f*king proof do you need? There has been no reasonable grounds for doubting the science for quite a few years now, and you aren't even troubling to look at the damn evidence?

FFS, you don't even need to read the science anymore, you can tell what's going on just by walking around. I'm sitting here with the stench of burning eucalypt strong in my nostrils - this time it's King Island, which is hundreds of kilometres away and yet I can smell it without even having to step outside.

I've lost count of the number of huge fires this summer, and every year is worse than the one before. Our city lake hasn't been empty for 80 years, but it's empty now. The other two lakes in the district are empty as well, and that too is unheard of. We have had an endless series of record temperatures, record low rainfalls in winter, record storm activity in summer, and you are still even wondering if there is a question?

I can smell the destruction that you people have wrought. Yes, you - 25 percent of the entire world's greenhouse gases, from one damn country. We all have a part to play, and we are all at fault to some degree, but the United States is by far the worst offender.

Sorry, but I really don't know what else to say given this level of pig-headed, willful selfish ignorance. This isn't a damn political issue, this is nothing to do with left and right, this is you and your countrymen destroying my world.

The time for asking questions is over. Long over. If you can't see the facts in front of your face, then there is no point in discussing the matter. People as willfully ignorant as this don't deserve to live on this planet.Boo hoo... Do you want a tissue to wipe your tears away with?

I'm talking about facts and you're talking about emotions... We can't discuss facts when you want to approach this from an emotional level. I don't give a rat's ass if how you feel. Your anecdotal evidence means nothing. If you want me to consider it, then you must accept record cold temperatures, and record snowfall in the US as proof that it isn't happening.

The simple fact is there is 0, ie: not one bit, proof that global warming is caused by man, or the EVIL USA. If you'd like I can begin listing things that large groups of people previously claimed that have since turned out false... Consensus isn't science...

Lets see:
- Flat Earth (false)
- Sun revolving around the earth (false)
- Impossible to break the sound barrier (false)
- Atom was the smallest thing (false)
- Global cooling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article) (apparently false)
- Matter couldn't be converted to enery (false)
- There were 4 elements [Air · Fire · Water · Earth] (false)
- We would never need more than 640k of memory (false)

I can go on and on, and on and on...

If you think everyone riding horses and having manure and the smell of manure everywhere, and all the related disease, filth, and sickness was a better way to live, you can lead by example instead of trying to wag your finger at me and getting self righteous.

Stereodude

03-05-2007, 11:41 AM

Well I think what makes the USA look particularly bad is that we are responsible for the largest amount of CO2 emissions, per capita. Way more than the "developing" China and India etc.

http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/national_carbon_dioxide_co2_emissions_per_capitaWe 'd better kill all the livestock then. http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece

"Livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming, more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together."

ddrueding

03-05-2007, 11:58 AM

Or better yet, trap their gaseous emissions and use it as well....

Stereodude

03-05-2007, 12:06 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=440049&in_page_id=1965

Mercutio

03-05-2007, 12:11 PM

Factually, there is undoubtedly global warming from some source.
Factually, there are undesirable consequences for global warming.
Factually, there are human industrial activities - whether from logging, farming or generating power with petrochemical processes, that can be shown to have strongly negative environmental consequences.

There is a strong correlation between global warming and large scale human industrial activity. No, a strong correlation is not the same thing as absolute fact.

Regardless of causation, we as a civilization need to be looking at what we can do to minimize the negative consequences of global warming and of industrialization in general.

All of those things are rational statements.

... Unless you're one of the fuckheads who thinks God gave man dominion over the earth to use as he sees fit and when Jebus comes Real Soon Now that you'll ascend bodily to heaven. In which case, uh, what Tannin said.

ddrueding

03-05-2007, 12:22 PM

I like that idea Merc, god should fix global warming...he started it ;)

CougTek

03-05-2007, 01:12 PM

You guys disgust me.

[...]

People as willfully ignorant as this don't deserve to live on this planet.
Ditto. The new scape goat of the irresponsible, ignorant polluting class is the sun now. Mysteriously becoming brighter right when mankind starts booming its industrial waste. How convenient. Good thing our star syncs its schedule with our oil companies.

I just can't believe there are folks thick enough to buy this.

sechs

03-05-2007, 01:19 PM

Stereodude officially missed the point of this thread. Please open a new one if you wish to flog him.

What can you do about it? Amazingly easy stuff like drive less and use energy efficient appliances.

I do my part to encourage global dimming by spending most of my carbon on flying.

03-05-2007, 01:25 PM

Maybe someone should give these scientists a tip about the AEI's initiative? :)

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html

Mercutio

03-05-2007, 01:59 PM

As computer people, we don't have much room to talk about environmentalism, regardless. Manufacturing electronics is way high up on the list of horrible things you can do to the planet, and given the lifespan and the disposable mentality of companies that make the products, we (everyone who comes to this site) are all particularly guilty.

Stereodude

03-05-2007, 03:01 PM

Maybe someone should give these scientists a tip about the AEI's initiative? :)

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.htmlAnd so the corollary to this is that all scientists who disagree with global warming must be on the take right? I think not...

Stereodude

03-05-2007, 03:03 PM

Stereodude officially missed the point of this thread. Please open a new one if you wish to flog him.

What can you do about it? Amazingly easy stuff like drive less and use energy efficient appliances.I didn't miss the point of the thread. I can't answer the question, "How do we stop it?" when the premise assumes facts not in evidence. We can't stop what we didn't start.

Stereodude

03-05-2007, 03:05 PM

I just can't believe there are folks thick enough to buy this.I mean it's not like there's any evidence that the earth has warmed and cooled in the past without our help or anything. :rolleyes:

Howell

03-05-2007, 03:15 PM

There is a strong correlation between global warming and large scale human industrial activity. No, a strong correlation is not the same thing as absolute fact.

Regardless of causation, we as a civilization need to be looking at what we can do to minimize the negative consequences of global warming and of industrialization in general.

You are right, correlation is no where close to causation. The increase in solar activity since the 1700s also was not caused by industrialization or human activity.

We need to be good stewards of where we live. This includes knowing what we can and can not affect. Individually, we have immediate control over how much electricity and water we waste. Turn the lights off when you leave the room, Turn off the water while you are brushing your teeth. Collect rain water to water your plants.

Research into the causes of environmental damage is good in that it helps us focus our efforts where they can be most effective.

Howell

03-05-2007, 03:38 PM

Maybe someone should give these scientists a tip about the AEI's initiative? :)

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html

What a shoddy piece of reporting. No parts of the IPCC IV report have been published yet. The only thing that has been published so far is the Working Group 1 - Summary for Policy Makers (SPM). This is a political document. We'd like to think that scientists are completely rational and non-political; but no one is.

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/landsea.html

For that matter scientists aren't even as rational as we would like:
So perhaps there is more to the beauty premium than simple discrimination: beautiful people could well be genuinely more productive. But Professor Hamermesh devised a clever way to demonstrate that whatever lies behind our preference, our choices are based on skin-deep evidence. He showed that when candidates stood for election on more than one occasion, their chances of success rose simply when they used a more flattering photograph.

The electorate was surely the most rational in the world: the membership of the American Economic Association.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/8b790f12-bfe7-11db-995a-000b5df10621.html

P5-133XL

03-05-2007, 04:04 PM

I didn't miss the point of the thread. I can't answer the question, "How do we stop it?" when the premise assumes facts not in evidence. We can't stop what we didn't start.

A very false statement. I stop stuff, that I didn't start, every day. Two children start argueing; the parents stop it, even though they didn't start it or have anything to do with it.

The premis, that we should only try to change that which we do is totally bogus. There are ethical and moral considerations that may obligate reasonable actions for a person, even without personal responsibility.

If you see or predict suffering, and can stop or diminish it, then shouldn't you, even if you are not the cause? All it takes for evil to win, is for good people to take no action.

Even beyond good and evil. What about totally natural disasters. Should not people in the direct path of a natural disaster such as tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanoes, floods be warned? Is it not reasonable, that a good person should warn others about the impending natural disaster? What about preventing a potential avalanche rather than people get harmed when it lets loose? Or should you, as someone not responsible for the natural disaster just let it happen: Consequences to others be dammed?

For me, the issue of personal responsibility is irrelevant. I don't care if we caused the problem. The real questions are does the problem exist, or will exist in the future, and what can we do to minimize the harm?

Pradeep

03-05-2007, 04:20 PM

In the end, whilst we might survive the current problem, it's only going to be worse for our kids.

To me, this is indeed a case of "think of the children".

Pradeep

03-05-2007, 06:42 PM

Of course, I say that whilst my home county has declared a state of emergency due to blowing/drifting snow causing whiteout conditions. So I would be risking a ticket if I left work to go home. One of the guys on the current shift couldn't make it in, so I guess a double shift is on the cards.

Stereodude

03-05-2007, 07:31 PM

A very false statement. I stop stuff, that I didn't start, every day. Two children start argueing; the parents stop it, even though they didn't start it or have anything to do with it.

The premis, that we should only try to change that which we do is totally bogus. There are ethical and moral considerations that may obligate reasonable actions for a person, even without personal responsibility.

If you see or predict suffering, and can stop or diminish it, then shouldn't you, even if you are not the cause? All it takes for evil to win, is for good people to take no action.

Even beyond good and evil. What about totally natural disasters. Should not people in the direct path of a natural disaster such as tornadoes, hurricanes, volcanoes, floods be warned? Is it not reasonable, that a good person should warn others about the impending natural disaster? What about preventing a potential avalanche rather than people get harmed when it lets loose? Or should you, as someone not responsible for the natural disaster just let it happen: Consequences to others be dammed?

For me, the issue of personal responsibility is irrelevant. I don't care if we caused the problem. The real questions are does the problem exist, or will exist in the future, and what can we do to minimize the harm?You missed my point... If we (mankind) aren't causing global warming, and lets say it is caused by the sun. What makes you think we are powerful enough to stop global warming? If the sun is causing global warming how is cutting back on electricity and fossil fuel usage going to stop it? Wouldn't we need to actually address the source of the problem?

Also, why does it go without saying that all the side effects of global warming are bad? The earth was hotter than it is now in the 1200-1300's. For example England was known for its wine then, famine and disease were nowhere to be found...

Mercutio

03-05-2007, 07:49 PM

Stereodude, Holland and the whole state of Florida would like to have a word with you.

Handruin

03-05-2007, 07:59 PM

You missed my point... If we (mankind) aren't causing global warming, and lets say it is caused by the sun. What makes you think we are powerful enough to stop global warming? If the sun is causing global warming how is cutting back on electricity and fossil fuel usage going to stop it? Wouldn't we need to actually address the source of the problem?

Also, why does it go without saying that all the side effects of global warming are bad? The earth was hotter than it is now in the 1200-1300's. For example England was known for its wine then, famine and disease were nowhere to be found...

That's like saying a person with hereditary emphysema shouldn't bother to stop smoking. There are a lot of ways you could look at it. I still think it's fairly clear that over-abundant CO2 can still cause us problems.

If it is the sun, we could work to build a solar deflector. It may seem like a long shot, but if we could deflect a good percentage of the sun, maybe it might bring us back to normal levels. But who's to say we should mess with such an issue? Addressing the energy usage should be something we consider even if there was no looming global warming.

ddrueding

03-05-2007, 08:04 PM

Addressing the energy usage should be something we consider even if there was no looming global warming.

I think this is the bigger point. Relying on things we can't make ourselves is a risk we shouldn't be taking. Global warming won't threaten the USA significantly for at least another 50-100 years, our dependence on foreign oil will make us vulnerable long before that.

Pradeep

03-06-2007, 01:29 PM

I can smell the destruction that you people have wrought. Yes, you - 25 percent of the entire world's greenhouse gases, from one damn country. We all have a part to play, and we are all at fault to some degree, but the United States is by far the worst offender.

I dunno Tony, Australia is the second largest polluter of CO2 per capita after the USA, and exports 30% of the world's coal. So if the USA is public enemy number 1, then is Aus the 2nd?

03-06-2007, 01:35 PM

What a shoddy piece of reporting. No parts of the IPCC IV report have been published yet.
I think they express themselves in this way because the general direction of the report is already known. And they do use expressions like "its latest report will provide" and "It is expected to stress", which I interpret like a reference to the future...

Anyway, it's not like we'd have to revert back to a medieval lifestyle to reduce our CO2 emissions. So I really don't understand this resistance.

sechs

03-06-2007, 02:10 PM

As computer people, we don't have much room to talk about environmentalism, regardless.

Come to California. We pay a fee upfront to recycle our electronics.

sechs

03-06-2007, 02:17 PM

You missed my point... If we (mankind) aren't causing global warming, and lets say it is caused by the sun. What makes you think we are powerful enough to stop global warming?
What makes you think that we aren't?

If the sun is causing global warming how is cutting back on electricity and fossil fuel usage going to stop it? Wouldn't we need to actually address the source of the problem?
No. If a valley has problem with flooding, do we need to stop the rain?

Let me spell it out for you:
Is there global warming? YES
Is it bad for people? YES
Is there something that we can do to mitigate or stop it? YES
Does the source matter? NO

timwhit

03-06-2007, 02:45 PM

Here (http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=172) is a good article for Stereodude. ;-)

Sol

03-06-2007, 05:10 PM

sechs

03-06-2007, 07:07 PM

Honestly, this is potentially so big and so bad, it's a hell of a lot better to do something rather than nothing.

Bozo

03-07-2007, 03:07 PM

My memory is a little foggy on this but: A few years ago the auto manufacturers (?) developed a catalitic converter of sorts that scrubed CO2 from the air. It could have been mounted in front of the radiator of cars and cleaned the air while the car was moving. The idea was presented to Calif. but they rejected the technology.
I forget all the details, but it sounds like this would be a good start.

Bozo :joker:

Sol

03-09-2007, 01:10 PM

It seems like something like that would produce a fair amount of carbon as output. Would that just get dumped on the road or would you need to clean out your cars carbon tray every few days/weeks... If you actually could catalyse a reaction to get the C out of CO2 it'd be great but I have a feeling that it would take a fair bit of energy and energy use in a car means lots of CO2 output...

timwhit

04-12-2007, 03:33 PM

Newsweek article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17997788/site/newsweek/) on global warming being overstated or a good thing.

Seems to reek of bias. Opinions?

udaman

07-06-2007, 08:47 PM

Is there global warming? YES
Is it bad for people? YES
Is there something that we can do to mitigate or stop it? YES
Does the source matter? NO

I'm not sure I agree 100% with you on number 3. We have identified things which may help mitigate/stop/reverse global warming but I don't think there is any conclusive proof that they will... We should certainly try, especially since many of the things identified will likely be helpful regardless of their affect on global warming (or lack thereof) but I think at this point we still need to avoid making the assumption that we have all of the answers.
I don't know if there really is any way to scientifically study the issue and come up with conclusive solutions without actually attempting them, there may be just too many factors to consider. I definitely agree, however, that denying responsibility and resigning ourselves to being powerless to change things is a terrible idea.

I'll agree with Sol on those points (even if Sol's a Nazi soup ranter ;)...Seinfeld joke ). All of the things that could and should be done, must of course be done on a global level, Kyoto accord is meaningless in that regard if the two largest 3rd world economies, India & China (who will shortly surpass the USA and Euro communities in the next few decades of this century...blink of an eye in global time periods, as the largest polluters/consumers of non-renewable resources) are not part of the solution. If you ask me, the pollutants are far more health detrimental than pure global warming effects, not really even 'hidden' 'silent' killers, we know that they are bad, yet we do little to curtail that.

If livestock causes 18% of methane emissions in the USA, then just stop eating so much damned meat. Poor Chinese have subsisted on small amounts if meat in their diet for thousands of years. Soyburgers, anyone :) ?

On another note, SD will find this link (biased too, but still as a counter point to the highly charged emotionalism of Gore and others in the zealot debate about 'global warming') 'interesting'

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Glaciers.htm

The Ice age is coming! The
Scientists will tell you, so you must believe them or you're an idiot...Tannin? Just like it's done before, every 10k years or so. Sheets of ice will cover the global landscape, assuming we still exist as a species in the next centuries or 10k years or so; our ancestors (what it the opposite of ancestors...?) will be able to walk from Siberia to N.America...w00t.

Wow, can Clocker just be a little more cynical about the 'land of the rising sun' (eh, Coug?). China with it's economic miracle boom (USA, per recent Time magazine article, hit all time record trade deficit with China, importing the lions share of all Chinese made goods to the tune of 200 Billion dollars worth...say Clocker, must be those damned USA citizens who need to take a good look at their own responsibility for buying all those cheap goods, and) allowing for China's 7 most polluted cities in the world, causing well known to the Chinese gov. a significant cost to the GDP in rising national health costs.

The Chinese are aware of the problems they face even if you don't read up on them and their plans, they are just like our own anemic USA politicians---communist/democratic...it's a bureaucratic nightmare, eh? (the link is gone, but I had a thread link to a PBS Nova special on the changing world, economic tiger of China & India over on SR a few years ago), they are planning/researching via General Motors Chinese division (you know them Clock?) to be the 1st country to leap frog to fuel cell powered automobiles. yeah Clock, you, me and everyone else who buys Chinese & Indian goods are in part responsible, same for Tannin (we can also blame corporate USA greed, like Wal-mart, the world's largest corporation that built it's empire via cheaply manufactured/higher profit margin goods made in China)! So go whine and slap your own 'disgusting' selves, eh Coug?, upside the head for your own hypocrisy ;).

As always, it's easy to play the blame game and start pointing fingers, difficult to get worldwide changes (hell our own gov. is stagnant on most internal issues, like our own medical healthcare crisis).

I like jtr's fantasy dream of hundreds of thousands (it would require that many to effectively reduce the percentage of personal vehicle ownership, not to mention massive screening security costs you don't have with personal vehicles, muggers-*Bernard Getz* jtr?, terrorist plots, jtr?) 'failsafe' 400mph maglev trains crossing the continents, running on minature fusion engines. Only need to rob the world's entire bank accts. to the tune of penta dollars to fund R&D, and then manufacturer such a project. Then we'll reduce 1/2 of emissions, and live in utopia...not.:alien:

Population control, simply has to be addressed on a worldwide scale before you'll even get any 'solutions'. All the other measures are just fingers in the dike, won't do much until we get a control on population growth, and irresponsible, unexpected childbirth (*cough*).

Picard

07-11-2007, 05:17 PM

This all reminds of Chicken little.

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

mubs

07-12-2007, 12:48 AM

You won't have time to laugh when it does fall on your head.

jtr1962

07-12-2007, 01:35 AM

I like jtr's fantasy dream of hundreds of thousands (it would require that many to effectively reduce the percentage of personal vehicle ownership, not to mention massive screening security costs you don't have with personal vehicles, muggers-*Bernard Getz* jtr?, terrorist plots, jtr?) 'failsafe' 400mph maglev trains crossing the continents, running on minature fusion engines. Only need to rob the world's entire bank accts. to the tune of penta dollars to fund R&D, and then manufacturer such a project. Then we'll reduce 1/2 of emissions, and live in utopia...not.:alien:

Just to correct a few misconceptions:

I'm not advocating ONE solution to all our problems. In fact, one reason we're in this mess to begin with was the reliance on the auto to fill nearly every transportation role. Autos can serve many niche roles, no doubt about it. They're good to run errands, shuttle to train stations, basically any fairly short trips along varying routes, possibly with intermediate stops. They're really not that great on long trips. They're uncomfortable, slow, noisy, basically just ill-suited for any trip lasting more than 30 minutes.

For intermediate distances, such as commuting to work, a far better solution is rail (either commuter rail or subway). The car can serve as a shuttle to the train if walking isn't convenient, provided parking facilities are available. Intercity distances can be served by high-speed rail integrated with local transit to provide transport to the final destination. I honestly don't see much role at all for the kind of maglev you mentioned for distance travel. Maglev running in open air still bumps up against the same energy constraints which limit speed of conventional trains. 300 or so mph is about the economic limit for maglev because of energy use and noise. This makes it not much faster than conventional high-speed rail, which will eventually run at up to 250 mph. One role maglev may excel in is commuter service because of it's quick acceleration. The new Shanghai maglev is an example of this.

Where I do see use for maglev is in evacuated tubes running at up to a few thousand mph, spanning continents and oceans. However, no need for hundreds of thousands of these. Trunk lines spaced on a gird of perhaps 300 miles will suffice, along with one or two lines crossing each major ocean. No point in the US would be more than 150 miles from a maglev station. High-speed and/or conventional rail could feed the maglev stations. A hypothetical trip from a small town might start out as a 20 or 30 mile drive to the park-and-ride at the nearest high-speed rail station. The train ride to the nearest maglev trunk line might take an hour or so. From there maybe the person would board a maglev going to Europe. It might stop at New York first, taking perhaps 45 minutes to get from the midwest to NYC, and then another 90 minutes to cross the Atlantic. Probably the whole thing will get you door to door in five hours, small-town midwest USA to Europe. It would probably take two or three times as long nowadays between airport security plus traffic getting to the airport. And no, you don't need ultra-tight security on one of these things since nobody can commandeer one to fly in into a building. Planes are inherently dangerous so they need the ultra-tight security. Maglevs carry no fuel, run on a fixed guideway, get their power from the guideway (not miniature fusion engines). If there's trouble, just cut the power in the control room and the thing comes to halt.

Probably the best word to describe all this is an integrated transportion system where each mode is used in the role most suited to it, not shoehorned into every possible role as has been the case with autos. Is the purpose of such a plan to cut global warming? Absolutely not. It's merely to improve over the poorly functioning network which exists today. Besides making travel faster/more convenient, you would have clean air, no need to import fossil fuels, and reclaimed land in cities from airports/highways. If global warming turns out to be for real, then the reduction in greenhouse gases will be just icing on the cake. In not, it would have still been worth building. Cost? I'd hazard a guess that the subsidies would be the same order of magnitude that we're presently spending on auto/air travel, not much more, perhaps less. Not utopia by a long shot, but much, much better than what we have today, which in most parts of the US is basically a choice between auto and, um auto.

Stereodude

07-12-2007, 06:49 AM

You won't have time to laugh when it does fall on your head.We'll be waiting... :rolleyes:

mubs

07-12-2007, 08:40 AM

Kubler-Ross' stages of grief are applicable here (slightly edited by me). Some of you are in the first stage, looks like.

* Denial (this isn't happening!)
* Anger (why is this happening?)
* Bargaining (I promise I'll be a better person if...)
* Depression (I don't care anymore)
* Acceptance (I'm ready for whatever comes)

Howell

07-12-2007, 09:11 AM

This all reminds of Chicken little.

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!

It is the end of the Chicken Little story that is concerning.

Howell

07-12-2007, 09:14 AM

jtr, It would be more accurate to view the auto as the lowest common denominator. Autos are flexible and generally resilient. They are also wasteful and expensive. There is a place for the auto but there are more sophisticated solutions for general purpose use.

Howell

09-04-2007, 03:53 PM

Sizzling study concludes: Global warming 'hot air'
'You can spit, have same effect as doubling the carbon dioxide'

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253

Mercutio

09-04-2007, 04:04 PM

Stereodude

09-04-2007, 04:45 PM

From my regular visits to Fark.com, I can tell you that most of the crap on WorldnetDaily comes from people who think Fox News is too liberal; it's on about the same level with Newsmax.com or FreeRepublic.com in terms of its shrill and biased hard right viewpoints.

In other words, nothing on that site is worth more than that proverbial spit.So you can ignore his links, and he'll ignore all yours with the same justification, but mirrored. I'm sure you'll meet in the middle sooner or later.

Mercutio

09-04-2007, 04:59 PM

I don't ever expect to have any level of agreement with you or Howell on most topics. I felt it was important for others who might read that article to be aware of the linked source's rather heavy-handed biases.

ddrueding

09-04-2007, 05:21 PM

Perhaps we could first come to an agreement about what (if any) relatively 'neutral' sources there are out there, then use them as a source? Sticking to more major outlets might be a good start; as soon as I saw the url (worldnetdaily? never heard of them), I didn't bother to go further.

Mercutio

09-04-2007, 06:15 PM

NPR, CBC, BBC, ABC (Oz), the Christian Science Monitor and probably the Financial Times of London.

Most news organizations in the US are far too compromised with the concept of info-tainment to be reliable sources for news, unless the only things you care about are the latest thing to crawl out of Paris Hilton's crotch and the hidden dangers of Microwave Popcorn. That is even setting aside the immense corporate interests of the major media outlets (Knight-Ridder, the Tribune Company, Viacom, Westinghouse etc) and overt political interests of others (News Corp).

Howell

09-04-2007, 06:19 PM

Personally I don't filter out any information based on the perceived bias of the writer. I'm smart enough to tell the difference between fact, opinion and biased but informed conjecture.

Mercutio

09-04-2007, 06:34 PM

ddrueding

09-04-2007, 06:48 PM

Personally I don't filter out any information based on the perceived bias of the writer. I'm smart enough to tell the difference between fact, opinion and biased but informed conjecture.

I just don't have that kind of time. Each story from an untrustworthy source would need to be verified by other sources, and those would need to be verified.

Blogging and "news" websites have become such a haven for fud-incest and astroturfing that I give them practically no credibility. At least if the BBC or CBS release a bogus story, there is enough attention to call them out on it (eg. Fox news).

Stereodude

09-04-2007, 07:45 PM

I'm smart enough to tell the difference between fact, opinion and biased but informed conjecture.Don't worry you're not alone... However, some people apparently aren't able to do so.

Handruin

09-04-2007, 08:25 PM

At what point do you begin to trust any of the sources? Has anyone here personally confirmed any of the information they've provided over the years, and done so on a regular basis to deem them trustworthy?

I think ddrueding made a good point about agreeing on neutral sources but how can anyone definitively say which sources are neutral (or even correct)? What makes "NPR, CBC, BBC, ABC (Oz)" so neutral when we can't even confirm first hand the information is correct?

ddrueding

09-04-2007, 08:26 PM

Personally I don't filter out any information based on the perceived bias of the writer. I'm smart enough to tell the difference between fact, opinion and biased but informed conjecture.

Don't worry you're not alone... However, some people apparently aren't able to do so.

I have another minute or so, so I'll bite.

How?

Do you already have first-hand knowledge of the event?
Did you originally hear it from a "known good" source?
Does it pass a "smell test" based on other information?

If you don't know that the source you are reading is trustworthy, what good information can you get from it?

Handruin

09-04-2007, 08:28 PM

I guess we thought the same thing. :)

Howell

09-04-2007, 10:04 PM

It took me 5 minutes to find the original source and another 10 to read and digest the executive summary. That is the original, <u>peer reviewed</u> report soon to published in The Journal of Geophysical Research. <b>Peer reviewed.</b> You can't expect to get more reliable scientific information in a field you are not an expert in.

There is a big difference between reporting and editorializing. If you know what you are reading you know what to expect.

Howell

09-04-2007, 10:09 PM

I just don't have that kind of time. Each story from an untrustworthy source would need to be verified by other sources, and those would need to be verified.

Merc's ideal, the nanny government, will be glad to tell you you where to stand and how to think if you are too lazy to do it yourself. Taking responsibility for your life and your future is part of being an adult.

Howell

09-04-2007, 10:13 PM

I think anything which shows up on WorldNetDaily can safely be discounted in any argument where facts might need to play a part. WND is at best an opinion site which masquerades as news in service of a right wing worldview.
Same for Fox News. In either case, the media oonsumer should seriously discount it as a source.

You are certainly free to think as you want. I think really care about that particular website one way or the other but I'm not going to immediately discount it as a source of news or op-ed just because its scary.

ddrueding

09-04-2007, 10:16 PM

Merc's ideal, the nanny government, will be glad to tell you you where to stand and how to think if you are too lazy to do it yourself. Taking responsibility for your life and your future is part of being an adult.

There is a difference between being told how to think and being given reliable information. Were we to talk issues, I doubt some of our opinions would vary as much as you think; I am a small-government fiscal conservative. I just think you are sticking your chin out a bit too far, perhaps looking for a fight?

And I agree, peer-reviewed and published papers are the best there are. After it and the rebuttals come through, I will be more trusting of the story.

Stereodude

09-04-2007, 10:43 PM

I have another minute or so, so I'll bite.

How?

Do you already have first-hand knowledge of the event?
Did you originally hear it from a "known good" source?
Does it pass a "smell test" based on other information?

If you don't know that the source you are reading is trustworthy, what good information can you get from it?Please... Don't tell me you're that stupid... You do this each and every day in lots of other areas. How do you determine the trustworthiness of anything you read online? Why is this any harder than anything else you read? Or, are you just trying to be obtuse?

ddrueding

09-05-2007, 12:13 AM

Please... Don't tell me you're that stupid... You do this each and every day in lots of other areas. How do you determine the trustworthiness of anything you read online? Why is this any harder than anything else you read? Or, are you just trying to be obtuse?

Abusive and evasive...brilliant (or not ;))

One of the easiest ways to determine the trustworthiness of a source is to look at their motives. Another good way is to have a long track record with the source. The third would be to have extensive knowledge of the material.

In politics, everyone has a hidden agenda. Some (like myself) even declare a political agenda, but it isn't entirely what I believe, it is said to further my goals.

So, with all things political, there must be a significant amount of skepticism. Second tier web-only news sources don't have a long enough track record or enough oversight to be trustworthy. Particularly on a topic where I am not an expert.

Now, if you could demonstrate some willingness to debate by answering the original question, we could continue.

Stereodude

09-05-2007, 09:11 AM

Now, if you could demonstrate some willingness to debate by answering the original question, we could continue.Your argument assumes some sort of false dichotomy. Since I don't accept the premise of the questions I sure am not going to get embroiled in a discussion of your questions.

I will say however that you can ask your same 3-4 questions of everything I read online whether it's a video card review, or a story about all the hundreds of dead bodies in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. How come you can make those calls for other things?

ddrueding

09-05-2007, 11:22 AM

Your argument assumes some sort of false dichotomy. Since I don't accept the premise of the questions I sure am not going to get embroiled in a discussion of your questions.

The options I provided were simply the ones that came to mind. Please feel free to explain your own reasoning outside of that framework.

I will say however that you can ask your same 3-4 questions of everything I read online whether it's a video card review, or a story about all the hundreds of dead bodies in the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. How come you can make those calls for other things?

Very, very true. Which is why I only read articles from the most popular sites, and (importantly) I'm sure to read the comments as well. Slashdot seems to be the most successful of these; within hours of a story making the front page, many informed responses taking different positions and citing sources can be found in the comments. The amount of traffic keeps a more balanced perspective.

Further, with highly politicized subjects, I am very unlikely to really trust any single news source. Instead I follow the story through and get a feeling for the range of general consensus. 'You can spit, have same effect as doubling the carbon dioxide' clearly falls outside of that range. When it is published, and run through the news machine, we will see what kind of response it gets.

Mercutio

09-05-2007, 11:39 AM

What makes "NPR, CBC, BBC, ABC (Oz)" so neutral when we can't even confirm first hand the information is correct?

That kind of touches on something fundamental about the nature of journalism, but one of the first things I consider is what outside entities could have an influence on reporting and how pervasive that interest might be. Most news reporting in the US is done by media conglomerates with ties (through advertising) to other multinational corporations. This will, by necessity affect what news is covered and how. This unfortunately makes a lot of mainstream sources untrustworthy on at least some issues.

The second thing I'm very wary of is journalists who are in any way vocal about their own opinions in treatment of news stories while they are acting as journalists. To some extent, this can't be avoided (say, in investigative pieces or coverage of human tragedy), but if I have cause to worry about a reporter's professional objectivity, that person has ceased to be a journalist. This is something that comes up *all the freaking time* with bloggers and Fox News employees, and greatly devalues the services they supposedly provide.

Beyond that, I don't like the idea of reading "news" that exists solely to rebut or cast aspersions upon accepted mainstream coverage. There are a whole legion of right-wing/fundamentalist christian echo chamber "news" organizations which serve both to confirm a certain type of groupthink and also to create doubt as to the trustworthiness of more mainstream news sources (there are some leftist sources as well, certainly). Jeff Gannon, homosexual prostitute and member of the White House Press Corps, supposedly works for one of these organizations; WorldNetDaily is another such source. Reading news from a source like WND is like getting health news about smoking from the Tobacco Industry and anyone with the ability to reason should immediately discount it as a source of reliable information.

There's a lot of interesting information on this topic at FAIR.org (http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101).

Mercutio

09-05-2007, 11:48 AM

Merc's ideal, the nanny government, will be glad to tell you you where to stand and how to think if you are too lazy to do it yourself. Taking responsibility for your life and your future is part of being an adult.

Yes, because our current system of rugged and informed individuals vs. multinational corporations with the same rights as citizens works so fucking well.

Face it, the state is the only common source for the public good. There are no other institutions that connect everyone in society. I don't like your church or its motives. No business will ever act out of anything but self-interest. No single charity could ever gather the resources to deal with large scale issues of public well-being. What are we left with?

I absolutely understand that there are a lot of things in life that are too complicated for an average person to be responsible for, and a lot of things where there is great power in acting as a very, very large group.

Stereodude

09-05-2007, 12:48 PM

Yes, because our current system of rugged and informed individuals vs. multinational corporations with the same rights as citizens works so fucking well.

Face it, the state is the only common source for the public good. There are no other institutions that connect everyone in society. I don't like your church or its motives. No business will ever act out of anything but self-interest. No single charity could ever gather the resources to deal with large scale issues of public well-being. What are we left with?

I absolutely understand that there are a lot of things in life that are too complicated for an average person to be responsible for, and a lot of things where there is great power in acting as a very, very large group.Yes because the gov't does things so well. Look at how well the run medicare, welfare, social security, securing our borders, the whole Katrina situation, Amtrak, the postal service, etc, etc, etc. Clearly we need to put the same bunch of idiots in charge of more stuff. :rolleyes:

ddrueding

09-05-2007, 01:03 PM

Yay, I get to argue with someone else ;) (I re-arranged some of the subjects for my response, if you feel this altered your points, I apologize)

First off, where we agree:

Yes, because our current system of rugged and informed individuals vs. multinational corporations with the same rights as citizens works so fucking well.
Agreed! Corporations having the rights of individuals makes no sense.

I absolutely understand that there are a lot of things in life that are too complicated for an average person to be responsible for, and a lot of things where there is great power in acting as a very, very large group.
Also agreed! A large group of is incredibly powerful! This is not a good thing!

Face it, the state is the only common source for the public good. There are no other institutions that connect everyone in society.
Totally disagree! I know somewhere it says that the government is supposed to act in the public good, but in reality it is worse than those corporations you speak of. The amount of power entrusted to the federal government practically insures corruption, and many of those same protections that make the corporations so foul are just as bad or worse here.

I don't like your church or its motives. No business will ever act out of anything but self-interest. No single charity could ever gather the resources to deal with large scale issues of public well-being. What are we left with?
Every church and every non-profit are simply more corporations, with their own agendas that do not always (if ever) line up with the "public good"

What is the "public good", anyway? Is it the same for you and for me? Do we really want the same things? Are the same things "good" for us all? Hell no. Is it in my best interest to pay for the rebuilding of homes below sea level or in a place with the word 'tornado' in the name? Hell no. It is in my best interest for all those people to not exist. That is why I shouldn't be in power.

To believe that anyone out there is going to act outside their own best interest is setting yourself up for failure. Small groups of people (congress, supreme court, exec. branch, multinational corps, etc) need less power, not more.

Mercutio

09-05-2007, 01:08 PM

Medicade works. The Interstate Highway system works. Our Military works. Rural Electrification would never have happened if some jerkoff had said "We'll let the market handle it!"

Our borders are more than secure enough. I'm not afraid of evil Mexicans "competing" for jobs Americans don't want to do, and frankly I don't think there's any way to stop teh ebul turrurusts from getting in without restricting the liberty of millions of other people.

FEMA works just fine when it's run by disaster management professionals instead of Republican Commissars.

Stereodude

09-05-2007, 01:18 PM

Medicade works. The Interstate Highway system works. Our Military works. Rural Electrification would never have happened if some jerkoff had said "We'll let the market handle it!"A few of them may work, but they don't work well, or efficiently. The solution should be less gov't, not more gov't. The gov't gets involved and things go downhill in a hurry. Just look at how well the public education system in the US works.

Mercutio

09-05-2007, 01:48 PM

A few of them may work, but they don't work well, or efficiently. The solution should be less gov't, not more gov't.

That doesn't work. What we end up with is a situation where a non-governmental body ends up regulating some large and important part of our lives, or else that non-governmental body chooses not to because it's not profitable. I'd rather place my faith in a governmental body that I theoretically have some control over as a citizen in a democratic country than in what a corporate board of directors feels like doing on a given day.

Laissez faire capitalism doesn't work. The current mortgage lending crisis should be proof of that.

[quote]The gov't gets involved and things go downhill in a hurry. Just look at how well the public education system in the US works.

It works better than you think it does, obviously. Particularly when you realize that a lot of the material now taught at the high school level used to be reserved for college level instruction.

Stereodude

09-05-2007, 08:53 PM

Laissez faire capitalism doesn't work. The current mortgage lending crisis should be proof of that.The current mortgage crisis is the result of the gov't involvement and interference in the mortgage industry, not a result of their being hands off.

It works better than you think it does, obviously. Particularly when you realize that a lot of the material now taught at the high school level used to be reserved for college level instruction.The test score sure don't show it. The US ranks dead last in industrialized nations despite being number 1 on per student spending.

Mercutio

09-05-2007, 09:21 PM

The current mortgage crisis is the result of the gov't involvement and interference in the mortgage industry, not a result of their being hands off.

I rather suspect it wouldn't've happened with proper regulation and government oversight.

The test score sure don't show it. The US ranks dead last in industrialized nations despite being number 1 on per student spending.

This country is rather more heterogeneous than the average European or Asian nation, too.

Stereodude

09-05-2007, 10:20 PM

I rather suspect it wouldn't've happened with proper regulation and government oversight.See, the problem is that the gov't is interfering with the mortgage industry by offering gov't backed loans which artificially suppress the interest rates that people who are credit risks would otherwise pay. As a result the non gov't backed lenders have to compete with the gov't and provide lower interest rates than they otherwise would...

See the gov't already failed the industry. I think they need to get out of it, and you think they need to get further into it.

Clocker

09-05-2007, 10:24 PM

This country is rather more heterogeneous than the average European or Asian nation, too.

What's the significance?

Stereodude

09-05-2007, 11:21 PM

What's the significance?Got me... I was going to ask, but decided against it.

Stereodude

09-06-2007, 08:06 PM

What's the significance?After thinking about it I think he was trying to say there are stupid rednecks in the south bringing down the scores or something.

jtr1962

09-06-2007, 09:39 PM

What's the significance?
The significance is that when teaching a homogeneous population there are many common frames of reference, and thus less opportunity for miscommunication or misunderstanding during the teaching process. In a more diverse society, you'll have multiple languages, multiple dialects of the same language, even in the same locality, differing income levels, differing exposure to things in the world (i.e. a good many poor people may not take travel much or be exposed to things the middle class takes for granted), parents who may not take interest in their children's studies, etc.. Because of all these factors, teaching in a heterogeneous environment is much more difficult. I still think the schools could do better, but to some extent the deck is stacked against them. I also blame the teacher's unions for a lot of arcane work rules which work against the educational process.

Mercutio

09-07-2007, 01:20 PM

After thinking about it I think he was trying to say there are stupid rednecks in the south bringing down the scores or something.

I don't have a problem with stupid rednecks. They can go about their beer swilling and varmint-eating ways.
I have a problem with anti-science fundie-types, but those folks are hardly limited to the south.

Anyway, I don't know if anyone else has ever tried teaching, but it's part of what I do in life. It is very hard to teach in an environment with students from wildly different cultural and economic backgrounds. It's much easier if everyone is more or less on the same page

ddrueding

09-07-2007, 01:31 PM

Anyway, I don't know if anyone else has ever tried teaching, but it's part of what I do in life. It is very hard to teach in an environment with students from wildly different cultural and economic backgrounds. It's much easier if everyone is more or less on the same page

Couldn't agree more. That is why I love teaching (Argentine Tango) at Stanford; all the students have a solid frame of reference and come prepared.

Mercutio

09-09-2007, 11:50 PM

http://s-laker.org/img/freemarket.jpg

udaman

02-02-2008, 06:38 PM

Passing the Buck on Environmental Damage

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/122/2

As it pretends to be a pointing the blame game type of study, besides the fact it is seriously flawed with inaccuracy, not much point in doing such 'studies', IMO...raising thought/discussion based on rational, concrete data, properly analyzed might be helpful though ;).

More chilling 'inconvienent truth' Al Gore did not win the Nobel for:

Rain forests fall at 'alarming' rate

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080202/ap_on_re_af/60_acres_a_minute_i

no reference to the source of the statement (but I'll assume it's from the FAO report, could be based in science or not):

The burning or rotting of trees that comes with deforestation — at the hands of ranchers, farmers, timbermen — sends more heat-trapping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all the world's planes, trains, trucks and automobiles. Forest destruction accounts for about 20 percent of manmade emissions, second only to burning of fossil fuels for electricity and heat.Once again, the underlying factor is population growth, that which fuels more of the world's problems than anything else.

The latest data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) helped spur delegates to action.
"Deforestation continues at an alarming rate of about 13 million hectares (32 million acres) a year," the U.N. body said in its latest "State of the World's Forests" report.
Because northern forests remain essentially stable, that means 50,000 square miles of tropical forest are being cleared every 12 months — equivalent to one Mississippi or more than half a Britain. The lumber and fuelwood removed in the tropics alone would fill more than 1,000 Empire State Buildings, FAO figures show.
Although South America loses slightly more acreage than Africa, the rate of loss is higher here — almost 1 percent of African forests gone each year. In 2000-2005, the continent lost 10 million acres a year, including big chunks of forest in Sudan, Zambia and Tanzania, up from 9 million a decade earlier, the FAO reports.
Across the tropics the causes can be starkly different.
The Amazon and other South American forests are usually burned for cattle grazing or industrial-scale soybean farming. In Indonesia and elsewhere in southeast Asia, island forests are being cut or burned to make way for giant plantations of palm, whose oil is used in food processing, cosmetics and other products.
In Africa, by contrast, it's individuals hacking out plots for small-scale farming.
Here in Nigeria's southeastern Cross Rivers State, home to one of the largest remaining tropical forests in Africa, people from surrounding villages of huts and cement-block homes go to the forest each day to work their pineapple and cocoa farms. They see no other way of earning money to feed their families.
"The developed countries want us to keep the forests, since the air we breathe is for all of us, rich countries and poor countries," said Ogar Assam Effa, 54, a tree plantation director and member of the state conservation board.
"But we breathe the air, and our bellies are empty. Can air give you protein? Can air give you carbohydrates?" he asked. "It would be easy to convince people to stop clearing the forest if there was an alternative."
The state, which long ago banned industrial logging, is trying to offer alternatives.

LOL, I still get that spinning wheel when I hit the quick edit/save option...nothing happens, it's not my imagination :p, only way to edit now is to go to 'advanced edit' and then 'save changes', before the 5min time period expires.

ddrueding

02-02-2008, 07:57 PM

LOL, I still get that spinning wheel when I hit the quick edit/save option...nothing happens, it's not my imagination :p, only way to edit now is to go to 'advanced edit' and then 'save changes', before the 5min time period expires.

Yup, me too. About 90% of the time now.

udaman

03-05-2008, 05:02 PM

The whole point of discussing the issue outside of mudslinging politics and mental masturbation is how does this information change the way I live my life.

In order to examine the issue and come to a final understanding we must answer some basic questions:

What is happening? Is the earth warming, cooling or something else?
Why?
What can we do about it?

Let's see if we can keep it civil and free from hyperbole. I present this article to start.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

I present this article to end :D

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm)

(note: with both FF & Camino under Mac OSX 10.3 that I'm running, couldn't stop the page re-load fast enough to get away from DailyTech's coding flaw that only temporarily allows you to view the page, before the comments section or side bar sections cause the main body to just display blank white space, I used Safari to quickly 'stop loading page')

Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age (http://www.dailytech.com/Solar+Activity+Diminishes+Researchers+Predict+Anot her+Ice+Age/article10630.htm)

text of the whole article below:

Dr. Kenneth Tapping is worried about the sun. Solar activity comes in regular cycles, but the latest one is refusing to start. Sunspots have all but vanished, and activity is suspiciously quiet. The last time this happened was 400 years ago -- and it signaled a solar event known as a "Maunder Minimum," along with the start of what we now call the "Little Ice Age."

Tapping, a solar researcher and project director for Canada's National Research Council, says it may be happening again. Overseeing a giant radio telescope he calls a "stethoscope for the sun," Tapping says, if the pattern doesn't change quickly, the earth is in for some very chilly weather.

During the Little Ice Age, global temperatures dropped sharply. New York Harbor froze hard enough to allow people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island, and in Britain, people reported sighting eskimos paddling canoes off the coast. Glaciers in Norway grew up to 100 meters a year, destroying farms and villages.

But will it happen again?

In 2005, Russian astronomer Khabibullo Abdusamatov predicted the sun would soon peak, triggering a rapid decline in world temperatures. Only last month, the view was echoed by Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences. who advised the world to "stock up on fur coats." Sorokhtin, who calls man's contribution to climate change "a drop in the bucket," predicts the solar minimum to occur by the year 2040, with icy weather lasting till 2100 or beyond.

Observational data seems to support the claims -- or doesn't contradict it, at least. According to data from Britain's Met Office, the earth has cooled very slightly since 1998. The Met Office says global warming "will pick up again shortly." Others aren't so sure.

Researcher Dr. Timothy Patterson, director of the Geoscience Center at Carleton University, shares the concern. Patterson is finding "excellent correlations" between solar fluctuations, a relationship that historically, he says doesn't exist between CO2 and past climate changes. According to Patterson. we shouldn't be surprised by a solar link. "The sun [is] the ultimate source of energy on this planet," he says.

Such research dates back to 1991, when the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study showing that world temperatures over the past several centuries correlated very closely with solar cycles. A 2004 study by the Max Planck Institute found a similar correlation, but concluded the timing was only coincidental, as the solar variance seemed too small to explain temperature changes.

However, researchers at DMI continued to work, eventually discovering what they believe to be the link. The key factor isn't changes in solar output, but rather changes in the sun's magnetosphere A stronger field shields the earth more from cosmic rays, which act as "seeds" for cloud formation. The result is less cloud cover, and a warming planet. When the field weakens, clouds increases, reflecting more light back to space, and the earth cools off.

Recently, lead researcher Henrik Svensmark was able to experimentally verify the link between cosmic rays and cloud formation, in a cloud chamber experiment called "SKY" at the Danish National Space Center. CERN plans a similar experiment this year.

Even NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies -- long the nation's most ardent champion of anthropogenic global warming -- is getting in on the act. Drew Shindell, a researcher at GISS, says there are some "interesting relationships we don't fully understand" between solar activity and climate.

RWIndiana

03-05-2008, 10:20 PM

Watch for UFOs too hard and you'll get hit by a train.

This is why people who suggest "doing something" about "global warming" are dangerous. I'm all for reducing pollution. It's very bad for health. But perhaps we should be more concerned about an ice age, which would be far more damaging.

Do not meddle in things you can not even begin to understand.

udaman

05-06-2008, 07:13 PM

so stop eating meat & cheese & dairy products, become a vegan & a "locavore" (eat locally produced foods)...toss that BBQ ddrueding :p.

*note* LATimes typically removes stories from their website within a short time period, so they can make you pay for archived versions.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-lowcarbon22apr22,1,7221912.story

cow methane, produce 143lbs/yr which has 23x warming potential compared to CO2!!! Cows or cars!?!?

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2008-04/38125750.gif

ddrueding

05-06-2008, 07:53 PM

cow methane, produce 143lbs/yr which has 23x warming potential compared to CO2!!!

All the more reason to kill and eat them ;)

timwhit

06-01-2008, 11:38 PM

I've been reading the book Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air (http://www.withouthotair.com/) for the past couple days. It's written by a professor of physics at Cambridge. An almost complete rough draft is available for download, the finished version is supposed to be out sometime this year and will also be available for free. It's quite interesting and he presents numbers in such a way that is easily digestible. I would recommend it if you want to dig a bit deeper into the sustainable technologies that the media like to proclaim are going to "save us" as carbon emissions become a bigger problem and the cost of fossil fuels rise in price.

mubs

06-12-2008, 11:30 AM

Will there be a respite? Is the sun going to cause a mini ice-age, giving humans time to correct their self-destructive ways? Let's hope so. (http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/06/the-sunspot-mys.html)

udaman

07-14-2008, 02:55 AM

With all the ranting and raving by *cough* some *cough* of the Oz SF member contingent/bretheren...about how bad the USA is with regards to polluting the planet, wasting energy, poor efficiency and all. Wonder why there is not more outrage about the per capita Oz "contribution" :p

While China is building more nuke power plants than any country presently, it will not cap their ever increasing use of coal :( Will be kind of ironic I think, China manufacturing will probably be the world's leading producer of solar panels and other altermative 'green' technologies, but still overtake the USA in total amounts of pollution generation in the next few decades.

I was ignorant of OZ's dirty little secret (being facetious)

http://www.mineweb.com/mineweb/view/mineweb/en/page38?oid=56333&sn=Detail

PROTEST MAY BOOST COAL PRICES
Australian environmental activists will block world's largest coal port and rail line

A planned protest by up to 1,000 activists may disrupt coal prices from Australia’s Newcastle port, giving another boost to near record coal prices, which have already tripled in the past year.
Posted: Tuesday , 08 Jul 2008
CANBERRA (Reuters) -

Environmentalists plan to block one of two rail lines into Australia and the world's biggest coal export port at the weekend, they said on Tuesday, amid international wrangling over efforts to combat climate shift.
Any disruption to coal shipments from the Newcastle port could give another boost to benchmark coal prices that are already near record highs at nearly $195 a tonne, having more than trebled in a year. Up to 1,000 protesters are planning on Sunday to block the rail line into Newcastle port, north of Sydney. The export terminal plans to ship 95 million tonnes of coal over the next year.
"You could say it's drastic action but it's simply because these are drastic times. We need to actually start taking serious action," Friends of the Earth spokesman Cam Walker said.
Activists from a coalition of green groups would start a "camp for climate action" from Wednesday and planned to sit on one rail line into the port to halt coal trains travelling from the nearby Hunter Valley coal mining region, Walker said.
Smaller protests would also happen on Monday and could include more rail line sit-ins, as well as actions aimed at other port installations, another Friends spokesman, Damien Lawson, told Reuters.
With consistent demand, mainly from energy-hungry China, 38,679,777 tonnes of coal were exported from Newcastle in the first five months of 2008, versus 37,154,848 tonnes a year earlier, port data showed last week.
Coal exports from Newcastle port surged to 2.059 million tonnes last week, while queues for loading slightly eased to 38 ships. The port is aiming to cut the shipping queue to around 20 vessels before the end of September.
The Newcastle protest will follow the G8 meeting of rich nations in Japan, where leaders were on Tuesday were preparing to take an "important step" forward on fighting climate change after negotiators agreed on a joint summit statement.
The European Union has pressed the United States to go beyond a commitment at last year's summit in Germany to "seriously consider" carbon emissions cuts of 50 percent by 2050 by now agreeing to that target and the need for shorter-term action.
"We want to send a message to the G8 and to Australia's government following the recent Garnaut report (into climate change and emissions trading)," Lawson said. "Coal is a major cause of global warming."
Australia is the world's biggest coal exporter and the biggest per head producer of greenhouse gases, emitting five times more per person than China, due to use of coal for for almost 80 percent of the country's electricity.
Australia's net greenhouse emissions totalled 576 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, or about 1.5 percent of world emissions. (Reporting by Rob Taylor; Editing by Valerie Lee)

udaman

01-10-2009, 06:43 PM

You would think that now with Bush gone, Tannin would be elated with the greenie Obama and Dem party controlled congress now in charge...where's the anti-USA ranting Tannin now?

With a near term record projected $42Billion state deficit, the Govenator fighting it out with both the controlling Dems, and minority Repubs in the state legislature...wonder if there's any money around after they levy the nation's highest sales tax, and add additional fees and other methods of "revenue" increases (more taxes :) ); if there's going to be any money left for all these stimulus/incentive programs? Arnold won't be in office much longer, so who will hold the torch after he's gone?

I don't have access to a high enough speed Net connection to watch the program online, so I'll watch the over-the-air broadcast Jan. 20, 2009. You'll all watch this ahead of time so you can bask in the empowerment of the inauguration of the 1st black messiah :rr: of the new millennium :p ?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/energy/images/home.jpg
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/energy/

LunarMist

01-17-2009, 12:33 AM

Global warning, my a$$! It is freeeeeeezing.

sechs

01-26-2009, 09:05 PM

That's the thing with global climate change... not everyone gets warmer, like us in California.

There's expectation, for example, that Europe may become a very cold place.

Stereodude

01-26-2009, 11:03 PM

So it's not global warming, but regional warming now?

sechs

01-26-2009, 11:57 PM

No, it's global climate change. And your local climate will change, one way or another.

ddrueding

01-27-2009, 01:22 AM

I thought they had been calling it climate change for a long time now.

Stereodude

01-27-2009, 02:42 PM

No, it's global climate change. And your local climate will change, one way or another.But everyone still needs to cut back on CO2 emissions even the people who are cooling right?

ddrueding

01-27-2009, 03:12 PM

But everyone still needs to cut back on CO2 emissions even the people who are cooling right?

I suppose you could build a bubble around your area, if you feel it is too cold. Mythbusters actually did this, BTW. The temperature in the bubble full of CO2 got much higher than the temperature in the bubble full of regular air.

Stereodude

01-27-2009, 04:06 PM

Have you guys heard about the darkness crisis? We're losing a few minutes of darkness every day. At this rate we're going to run out within a year. We have to act now!

ddrueding

01-27-2009, 04:58 PM

-1 Troll

Stereodude

01-27-2009, 05:32 PM

Aww... I guess my analogy hit too close to home. :(

ddrueding

01-27-2009, 06:27 PM

Stereodude

01-27-2009, 06:46 PM

No, I just don't believe that an intelligent person still doesn't understand the concepts behind climate change. This only leaves 2 options, and I'm assuming you are intelligent. The alternative would be that you are intentionally taking a false stand for some other reason. Trolling would be the most likely.You clearly missed my point. The climate has been changing for longer than we've been around. The earth has warmed and cooled, many times. In fact the climate has always been changing. It never is a constant. The climate changes on cycles. We haven't been around long enough to know where we are on the cycle. To assume that we humans are responsible for the climate changing is nothing but sheer arrogance are the part of some people. These people are then being used by other people who use environmentalism as a front for pushing a particular political agenda.

And, in case you can't figure it out, There is a cycle to the change of the amount of daylight and darkness too. It just happens much faster an we know where we are on the curve...

ddrueding

01-27-2009, 07:07 PM

That is true, but it is a seperate issue. Which one of the following do you disagree with.

1. That combustion of fossil fuels produces CO2, Methane and other gasses
2. That humans are using more fossil fuels and producing more of these gasses
3. That our increased production of these gases is changing the makeup of the atmosphere
4. That more heat is retained in an atmosphere that contains more of these gasses

The matter of when or how much are really not relevant. Neither are other natural cycles.

Stereodude

01-27-2009, 08:41 PM

jtr1962

01-27-2009, 09:02 PM

Let's take global warming out of the equation for a minute. Are there other good reasons to stop using fossil fuels? I can certainly think of a bunch:

1) Pollution for burning fossil fuels has greatly increased cancer and asthma rates. Both illnesses are very costly in terms of medical care plus lost productivity. Foul-smelling air is also a significant quality of life issue even if it wasn't harmful.

2) We currently consume more fossil fuels than we can produce locally. Most of the money spent for exporting oil goes to regimes hostile to the US, or on luxuries like man-made islands in countries which aren't (while those who fund these frills struggle to pay higher fuel prices). Domestic sources are not enough to satisfy us at our current rates of consumption. Even if they were, it makes little sense to destroy irreplaceable natural ecosystems just for a temporary oil fix. It's like selling the family jewels for a night on the town.

3) As oil supplies dwindle, those nations dependent upon them will eventually need to fight. In fact, to some extent the US military is already used to secure oil supplies. Do we really want to continue to do this? Johnny Rambo shouldn't have to die just because Joe or Jane Sixpack feels entitled to cheap gas for their obnoxious SUV.

4) Besides the effects on living things, burning of fossil fuels create acid rain and soot. Both contribute to infrastructure deterioration. Yet more unnecessary spending.

5) We would create loads of jobs by making energy saving products, or alternate energy technologies. This can be BIG business, even bigger than what it's replacing. Of course, those who stand to lose the most will fight for the status quo.

It's important to note also that the end users of fossil fuel don't pay for the indirect damages their use causes such as pollution, infrastructure damage, or military invention. As a result, fossil fuels compete unfairly against alternatives. This in turn has stymied development of alternatives.

I've been saying for a long time that it doesn't matter which way the consensus goes on global warming, or if you want, climate change. It doesn't change the fact that getting off fossil fuels yesterday would be of great benefit to everyone except those in the business. Why on Earth environmentalists chose global warming as their poster child is beyond me. I guess showing cancer wards full of people sick from air pollution isn't as dramatic as showing large chunks of ice shelves breaking off, even though the former affects more lives.

Stereodude

01-27-2009, 09:09 PM

I'm all for using non fossil fuels. Call me when we find one that's actually viable. Ethanol from corn sure isn't.

jtr1962

01-27-2009, 09:19 PM

I'm all for using non fossil fuels. Call me when we find one that's actually viable. Ethanol from corn sure isn't.
Nuclear fission is the best bet for now, nuclear fusion perhaps 50 years from now. Solar and wind can certainly find a lot of niches where they would work also but they'll never supply more than 25% of our power combined (and that's an optimistic estimate). Geothermal and tidal are a few more, again good mostly for niche uses.

No arguments on ethanol. Stupid idea period.

ddrueding

01-27-2009, 09:45 PM

I'm certainly not going to argue that fossil fuels aren't necessary today, but not working toward reducing our dependency on a limited resource is stupid anyway.

Handruin

01-27-2009, 10:31 PM

I don't disagree with any of them. I just haven't seen any proof that the sum of them ads up to a statistically significant component in climate change. Correlation does not equal causation.

CO2 is only ~385PPM (by volume) in our atmosphere. On Mars the atmosphere is nearly 95% CO2, yet Mars is very cold. Clearly CO2 concentration is not the only factor in the climate.

You also have to consider that Mars is 37 million miles further from the sun compared to earth. That could affect how CO2 plays with the temperature even if it's 95% of the atmosphere.

Stereodude

01-27-2009, 11:33 PM

You also have to consider that Mars is 37 million miles further from the sun compared to earth. That could affect how CO2 plays with the temperature even if it's 95% of the atmosphere.Yes, I realize that. I was attempting to illustrated the absurdity of focusing only on one characteristic and making it the sole focus.

CougTek

01-27-2009, 11:43 PM

The surface of Venus is hotter than the surface of Mercury, even though it's much farther from the Sun. Maybe the composition of its atmosphere has something to do with it.

Our atmosphere is so thin, arguing that we can't affect it is nonsense.

ddrueding

01-27-2009, 11:55 PM

Yes, I realize that. I was attempting to illustrated the absurdity of focusing only on one characteristic and making it the sole focus.

Focusing on elements that we can't control (like our distance from the sun) is a waste of time.

Howell

01-29-2009, 10:12 AM

Focusing on elements that we can't control (like our distance from the sun) is a waste of time.

That's the same argument against trying to regulate CO2 emissions.

ddrueding

01-29-2009, 12:15 PM

Howell

01-29-2009, 01:55 PM

But we can regulate CO2 emissions. Just not as easily. I was looking at the 10-year schedule for our truck fleet. Based on the newly regulated schedule, 50% of our fleet gets scrapped within the next 3 years and 75% in the next 10. That is a massive, massive cost to reduce CO2. Nevertheless, it is much easier than changing the Earths orbit.

You have confirmed the downside of the equation of regulating CO2. You can not confirm the upside, that even on a global scale doing this will actually be effective in reducing the warming of the planet.

Howell

01-29-2009, 01:57 PM

Nevertheless, it is much easier than changing the Earths orbit.

Changing the Earth's orbit may be expensive and may be impossible but we have to try ... for the children. : )

ddrueding

01-29-2009, 02:45 PM

You have confirmed the downside of the equation of regulating CO2. You can not confirm the upside, that even on a global scale doing this will actually be effective in reducing the warming of the planet.

The very fact that we don't know what the result will be, and are changing the entire planet in a way that we can't easily reverse should be enough. It's not like we have a backup.

You are arguing that the uncertainty means we can continue. I'm arguing that the uncertainty means we have to stop.

P5-133XL

01-29-2009, 05:33 PM

Changing the Earth's orbit may be expensive and may be impossible but we have to try ... for the children. : )

But we are changing the earth's orbit every time we send something outside its gravitational control and everytime something comes back. Newtons Laws still apply! That energy is subracted and added to the earth. We just haven't done it to a noticable level (yet).

Hopefully, our children and their children will learn from global warming and not continue manipulating world-changing forces without thought as to consequences.

Stereodude

01-30-2009, 07:14 AM

Looks like we don't need to cut back on our CO2 emissions after all. http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090127/ts_alt_afp/uswarmingenvironmentclimate_20090127132619

P5-133XL

01-30-2009, 07:29 AM

That's not my interpretation. It says that warming will occur regardless of if we totally stop pumping out CO2. What it does not say is that if we don't stop, it won't get far worse.

Howell

01-30-2009, 10:46 AM

But we are changing the earth's orbit every time we send something outside its gravitational control and everytime something comes back. Newtons Laws still apply! That energy is subracted and added to the earth. We just haven't done it to a noticable level (yet).

We should think more seriously about ejecting our nuclear waste into space. We could get the benefit of nuclear energy generation and if we plan and implement launches during the right time of the year we could optimize our solar orbit. Brilliant! Take that global warming!

udaman

01-30-2009, 08:55 PM

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/energy/images/home.jpg
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/energy/

I take it not one of you watched? Not a single comment, so I'll assume so, lol.

Shall I post the entire transcript? (always works better when you have visual to go with text...but hey, wouldn't want to force feed any of you :p )

udaman

01-30-2009, 09:21 PM

Pastor Obama, err I meant motivational speaker Obama (also now US president :p ), said "change is coming"....

well I must have misunderstood him then, taken his words out of context.

:drinka:

Carbon foot print :D :rr:

Guess change will have to wait until we get some president with a radical political, personal mindset. Cause you all know Obama is black (kind of) and naturally we, the USA, in the midst of one of the worst recessions on record, needed to spend lots of money on the typical USA presidential inauguration proceedings.

If Obama really wanted to chastise Wall Street executive compensation, paid by US taxpayers in the bailout superfund, chastise Citibank for trying to buy a $50M Daussault Falcon FX7 Busjet...carbon foot print.

Wouldn't he, couldn't he have lead by example, told the nation he was going to start from day one with his vision of necessary cutting back on excesses, and short term austerity needed from the very top? Couldn't he have shown us the way of change, in a time of need? Could he not have mandated, no balls, no elaborate inauguration proceedings. Instead, in a ground breaking, leadership role, mandated that the inaguration is to be limited, and take place before congress, in the chambers of the House & Senate, with SupCt Justice Roberts giving the oath there, and televised via Obama's weakly YouTube style announcements :D ?

Can you imagine the hundreds of millions that would have saved that could have been spent in other ways to help the needy? Can you imagine how much less C02, electrical, fuel/energy savings could have been realized....

Nah, business as usual...welcome the tax payer spending Obama Admn, same old tune.

Ah no way, Dems have to spend just like Repubs. Can't cancel inaugural balls/dances, all of them, these are important to set the tone of the Obama Admn....lol.

Carbon foot print, estimates

And don't forget typical Dem pork barrel spending. Will spending several hundred million to renovate the presidential inaugural grounds around the White House/Wash DC...provide recession busting jobs in the near term? Will $300 Mil for family planning...stimulate

jobs?

If you believe House speaker, resident bulldog, Nancy Pelosi, the stimulus package is so urgent, it should have been passed intact on day one?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/26/house-leaders-axe-family-planning-funds-stimulus/

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi initially defended the policy initiative on Sunday on ABC's "This Week."
"Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those -- one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."
A 2007 study by the Congressional Budget Office found sizable federal savings if states were free to give contraceptives to poor women. The report found that post-pregnancy family planning did nothing to reduce the cost of Medicaid-funded births. But preventing pregnancies by providing contraceptives, the study found, would save the federal government an estimated $200 million over five years.

udaman

01-30-2009, 09:38 PM

http://www.scribd.com/doc/10471051/Carbon-Big-Foot

Stereodude

01-31-2009, 12:26 PM

Wait...

You're actually surprised that liberal Democrats say one thing and do another? :confused:

You're surprised that liberal Democrats want other people to live by rules that they themselves don't? :confused:

What are you smoking and can I have some of it?

ddrueding

01-31-2009, 04:08 PM

You're actually surprised that politicians say one thing and do another? :confused:

You're surprised that politicians want other people to live by rules that they themselves don't? :confused:

Fixed that for ya.

Striker

01-31-2009, 05:10 PM

Right, it's certainly not something limited to the Democrats.

RWIndiana

01-31-2009, 10:31 PM

Right, it's certainly not something limited to the Democrats.

True. It's just limited to liberals. :) Obama is one of the worst. Telling us that we can't go on keeping our thermostats up to 72 degrees then making sure his own is at 78? Blatant hypocrisy. I have a bad feeling about this one.

Handruin

01-31-2009, 10:38 PM

Where did you read that he keeps his thermostat at 78 degrees?

Howell

02-01-2009, 07:45 AM

True. It's just limited to liberals. :) Obama is one of the worst. Telling us that we can't go on keeping our thermostats up to 72 degrees then making sure his own is at 78? Blatant hypocrisy. I have a bad feeling about this one.

Would it be hypocrisy if he was referring to the warm months? That's what I thought.

Striker

02-01-2009, 11:18 AM

True. It's just limited to liberals. :) Obama is one of the worst. Telling us that we can't go on keeping our thermostats up to 72 degrees then making sure his own is at 78? Blatant hypocrisy. I have a bad feeling about this one.
Yup, and I'm sure republican's never get abortions.

RWIndiana

02-04-2009, 10:15 AM

Where did you read that he keeps his thermostat at 78 degrees?

Heard it on the news although it wasn't much published. Apparently he set some thermostat in the White House to 78 because he doesn't like the cold. Which is fine with me. As long as he isn't trying to regulate the temperature (and every little thing else) in MY house - precisely what liberals want to do.

ddrueding

02-04-2009, 10:44 AM

I heard that he liked to eat puppies, too.

Handruin

02-04-2009, 05:29 PM

If it was Faux news, I'm certainly not believing it.

Stereodude

02-04-2009, 06:20 PM

Heard it on the news although it wasn't much published. Apparently he set some thermostat in the White House to 78 because he doesn't like the cold. Which is fine with me. As long as he isn't trying to regulate the temperature (and every little thing else) in MY house - precisely what liberals want to do.http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/03/obama-getting-heat-for-turning-up-thermostat/

Handruin

02-04-2009, 06:24 PM

Yep...what I thought.

Stereodude

02-04-2009, 06:50 PM

Yep...what I thought.Of course!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/29/us/politics/29whitehouse.html

Handruin

02-04-2009, 07:11 PM

OK, so the most either of those offered was a subjective description that "he likes it warm". That means come the blazing hot summer time, they'll be saving lots of money on cooling...good to know.

Striker

02-05-2009, 08:39 AM

I heard he's keeping it 80 degrees in there. He's looking into getting a kiddie pool in the Oval Office and he wants everyone to bring their bathing suits to meetings!

Handruin

02-05-2009, 09:48 AM

As long as they get work done, who am I to judge.

RWIndiana

02-07-2009, 01:48 AM

As long as they get work done, who am I to judge.

Not disagreeing, but frankly I think you're only saying that because he's a lib. And I'm sorry but in my eyes that would make you as bad as the wacky Bush fanatics. Oh wait, he was a liberal too. :P I had plenty of criticisms of President Bush's policies, and I probably will have more for President Obama's . . . oops I'm sorry, perhaps I should be calling him "Messiah".

Excuse the cynicism, but the man is not a god. And so far he has done very little good. Oh wait, he wants to place a $10,000 tax burden on every average American family in order to stimulate the economy. Yeah that must be good, huh?

RWIndiana

02-07-2009, 01:55 AM

And why are they calling him "Mr. Obama" in that article? I find that rather disrespectful and it irritates me. Can someone explain to me how it is not disrespectful to say "Mr. Obama" instead of "President Obama" or "Mr. President"? I don't know why this bugs me but it annoyed me when they did it to President Bush as well.

Handruin

02-07-2009, 02:26 AM

I was only saying that because I was being sarcastic. I don't care if he is a lib, I don't even know what I consider myself. I also don't regard him as a god either. He's been in office for 17 days, what good/bad have you seen?

Where did you read about the $10K tax increase?

How will it relate to this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/28/AR2008122801851.html):

...He [Obama] is considering immediate tax cuts of $1,000 for couples and $500 for individuals, which would be delivered through reduced tax withholding from paychecks, a transition aide said. That plan could cost about $140 billion over the next two years, the aide said.

...They are likely to be based on Obama's campaign proposal, which said that families earning less than $250,000 would see their taxes remain the same or decrease.

RWIndiana

02-07-2009, 09:15 AM

Actually I made that up. :) But we are spending a number of trillions of dollars on bailing out companies that should die. I'm not even sure what the number is up to, but the most recent one I checked would add up to about 10,000 dollars in debt to each of us.

I hope you're right about the tax cuts.

Handruin

02-07-2009, 10:13 AM

I don't know about the tax cuts, I'm only linking to what I read in one location. I'm sure things can/will change. The bail outs started before Obama, so he's not entirely to blame.

Stereodude

02-07-2009, 11:54 AM

...He [Obama] is considering immediate tax cuts of $1,000 for couples and $500 for individuals, which would be delivered through reduced tax withholding from paychecks, a transition aide said. That plan could cost about $140 billion over the next two years, the aide said.That's not a tax cut. That's a one time tax rebate. And a large portion of it goes to people who effectively don't pay taxes. It won't stimulate the economy, nor will the rest of the Porkulus bill.

Stereodude

02-07-2009, 12:00 PM

I don't know about the tax cuts, I'm only linking to what I read in one location. I'm sure things can/will change. The bail outs started before Obama, so he's not entirely to blame.If you double down / go all in on a bad idea IMHO you're even more to blame than the guy who started it. The first guy didn't know it wouldn't work (although there were voices of dissent warning it wouldn't). The second guy has the benefit of hindsight and knows the first one didn't work but dishonestly argues that the first one failed simply because it wasn't big enough.

So, now they're going to pass a bill that is nothing but pork and call it "Stimulus".

udaman

02-11-2010, 03:35 AM

Worst winter on record...balances drought in Oz???

So, how do the global warming, gloom and doom, pundits explain this?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100211/ap_on_re_us/us_winter_weather

y PATRICK WALTERS, Associated Press Writer Patrick Walters, Associated Press Writer – 5 mins ago PHILADELPHIA – The second of back-to-back blizzards that smothered the East Coast and easily eclipsed record seasonal snow totals with more than a month remaining in winter had tapered off by Thursday, although federal offices, city agencies and schools remained closed to contend with the storm's aftermath.
In Washington, D.C., the federal government planned to be closed for a fourth straight day, while city agencies and schools in the hardest-hit regions also scored snow days. The nation's capital joined Philadelphia and Baltimore in logging their snowiest winters in history.
"It seemed extreme, what they were predicting," said custodial worker Robert Valasquez, of South Philadelphia, as he walked to a downtown subway station on Wednesday afternoon for a ride home from his job. "How am I going to get to work tomorrow? I don't even know if it will be possible."
Road crews worked to clear Interstate 76 and I-676 in Philadelphia, which closed Wednesday to leave the city of 1.5 million residents with only one usable major artery. Elsewhere, emergency officials in eastern Pennsylvania reported more than 200 vehicles, mostly trucks, stranded for half of Wednesday along I-78 as snow was falling at about 2 inches an hour. Berks County Emergency Services Director Theodore Cole said gasoline, food and water were delivered to the stranded drivers before plows could clear paths for them by midnight, but the roadway remained closed.
In northeast Maryland, staffers at the Harford County Emergency Operations Center fielded several calls per minute from residents struggling to meet the financial demands of a second snowstorm just days after the first. One woman called to say she couldn't afford to stay at her motel another night and was about to be evicted. Homeless shelters were full, forcing the county to pay for motel rooms for some people.
"We really can't have people pushed out into the snow," said Scott Gibson, the county's director of human resources. "The motels are our second line of defense."
There was plenty of work to be done before New Jersey could return to normal after the latest blizzard. Electric crews were working to restore power to 80,000 homes and businesses that lost electricity, but the NJ Transit agency said it planned to resume bus routes Thursday morning and open nearly all train stations so residents could try to get to work.
In neighboring New York, however, Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave the city's 1.1 million public school students only their third snow day in six years. Bloomberg said the city was working overtime to clear streets and plow major thoroughfares in time for Thursday's morning rush hour.
Some New Yorkers and tourists took advantage of theater tickets discounted to fill empty seats. "Wicked" had a $61.25 "snow-day" special. There were $31.50 tickets at "Mamma Mia!" "Hair" trumpeted $40 tickets for students with valid ID. Good seats at those shows usually sell for $100 or more.
George and Natividad Sanchez trudged over slushy sidewalks in boots, parkas and scarves to take their 2-year-old daughter to see "Sesame Street Live: When Elmo Grows Up."
"I didn't want to disappoint her," George Sanchez said as the family arrived for the show at a theater in Madison Square Garden.
For many families, the first storm was a fun weekend diversion. People even went skiing past Washington's monuments. But Wednesday's blizzard quickly became a serious safety concern. The Pennsylvania governor shut down some highways, including eventually I-78, and warned that people who drove were risking their lives.
"Increasing winds are causing whiteout conditions in many areas of the state," Gov. Ed Rendell said early Thursday, after reopening three highways.
As of Wednesday, Baltimore had 72.3 inches so far this winter, the Washington area had 54.9 inches and Philadelphia had 70.3 inches. The previous records for snowiest winters were 62.5 inches in Baltimore in 1995-96; 54.4 inches in Washington in 1898-99; and 65.5 inches in Philadelphia in 1995-96.
The streets of downtown Philadelphia were nearly vacant as people heeded the mayor's advice to stay home.
Entrance ramps to closed highways were blockaded, and the Pennsylvania National Guard had Humvees stocked with food and blankets ready to help anyone who got stuck. Earlier in the day, about 25 vehicles were involved in two pileups on snowy Interstate 80 in central Pennsylvania. One man was killed, and 18 people were injured.
"For your safety, do not drive," Rendell said. "You will risk your life and, potentially, the lives of others if you get stuck on highways or any road."
Two other people were killed when their snowmobile struck a moving vehicle at an intersection in Lancaster, Pa. Michigan authorities said the storm contributed to at least four traffic deaths there.
In Virginia, where some areas had snow totals exceeding 30 inches from the two storms, winds were howling at 50 mph and temperatures were plunging. Gov. Bob McDonnell urged people to stay indoors.
Syeed Zada, a plow driver for the Virginia Department of Transportation, said the snow "reminds me of when I was driving tractor-trailers in Saudi Arabia, and the sandstorm starts and you can't see the roads."
More than 100,000 utility customers in Pennsylvania were without power. Some never got it back after the last storm.
But the news wasn't all bad. Washington has not had a homicide in a week. Ski areas were doing brisk business, when people could get to them. And private contractors were making money plowing driveways and parking lots.
But many people were just ready for the ordeal to end.
In a yard in Westmont, N.J., someone used bright orange paint to scrawl nature a message on a white backdrop: "Dear Mr Frost," it read. "We're good w/ snow."
___
Associated Press writers Kiley Armstrong and Jennifer Peltz in New York; Brett Zongker, Brian Bakst, Sarah Brumfield and Ann Sanner in Washington; Sarah Karush in Alexandria, Va.; Alex Dominguez in Baltimore; Kathleen Miller in Arlington, Va.; Ben Nuckols in Bel Air, Md.; and Dan Nephin in Bentleyville, Pa., contributed to this report.