Entire Antarctic Shelf splitting away from Continent.

[RiversideGator]

Wrong again.  I think we all know there is a common heat source for both Earth and Jupiter and we all know it is the sun.  The similarities largely end there.

[RiversideGator]

But in a previous posting of yours there was proof that insolation does not significantly influence.

Not quite. 

Here is an excellent piece by Charles Krauthammer though on the benefits of the global warming scare to the left:

WASHINGTON -- I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2 into the atmosphere, but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.

Predictions of catastrophe depend on models. Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems -- from ocean currents to cloud formation -- that no one fully understands. Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing. The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability. The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming -- infinitely more untested, complex and speculative -- is a closed issue.

But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.

For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies -- arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).

Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.

Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself.

Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment -- carbon chastity -- they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.

Just Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.

There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.

So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research -- untainted and reliable -- to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.

Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.

But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo.

Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing?

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/05/31/environmentalists_pick_up_where_communists_left_off?page=full&comments=true

[gatorback]

If you really want to see how fuel prices are affecting food costs then go to a Japanese grocery store.  I paid $7.95 for about 25 servings of rice.  This rice wasn't top of the line, but certainly wasn't the bottom line.  It tastes good.  I've learned why so many Japanese eat Roman noodles.  They have to lower the cost of their meals because the good stuff is so expensive.

[gatorback]

ramon? lol

[RiversideGator]

This guy sounds like a moderate next to you.

He's not an expert in the science, but he doesn't pretend to be either.

And sure, he raises valid points.

But then again, he's not exactly you:

from your beloved wiki:

Ideology

Krauthammer is generally considered a conservative or neoconservative. However, he is a supporter of legalized abortion[11][12][13], an opponent of the death penalty[14][15][16][17], an intelligent design critic and an advocate for the scientific consensus on evolution, calling the religion-science controversy a "false conflict" [18][19], a supporter of embryonic stem cell research (involving embryos discarded by fertility clinics),[20][21][22] and a longtime advocate of radically higher energy taxes to induce conservation.[23][24][25][26] Meg Greenfield, editorial page editor for The Washington Post who edited Krauthammer's columns for 15 years, called his weekly column "independent and hard to peg politically. It's a very tough column. There's no 'trendy' in it. You never know what is going to happen next."[27]

But, he's a guy who comes up with his own talking points instead of aping them from the fox news talking heads. I think it's called "independent thinking" Ugh!

No more than you "ape" your talking points from the Huffington Post, The Nation et al.  Your petty insults are not exactly convincing anyone that your political positions have merit.

BTW, I rarely watch Fox News, the bugaboo of the left.   

[RiversideGator]

I have always stated that it was possible that the GW hype is true.  The obvious solution is a massive shift to nuclear power, which I support.  Are you with me?

[Lunican]

I have always stated that it was possible that the GW hype is true.  The obvious solution is a massive shift to nuclear power, which I support.  Are you with me?

Actually, it sounds like you've drastically changed your tune.

From this very thread:

Sorry.  Perhaps I should be more explicit:  the earth is not flat and global warming is not real.  There is no wise guy analogy here.  You are simply wrong with your cherished GW theory.  Got it?

[RiversideGator]

Well, other times I stated that it was possible that it was real, although I do not think it likely.  I dont claim to have a crystal ball on this subject.  Only time will tell.  But one thing is certain: now that it is nearly summer and natural warming will ensue, the hysteria from the GW crowd will increase exponentially.

[gatorback]

I guess I'm PNP(Pro Nuclear Power lol) in America.  I'm just not sure about anywhere else on the planet including Iran.  Sorry guys, I guess I'm not really for nuclear power then.

[Charleston native]

Well, other times I stated that it was possible that it was real, although I do not think it likely.  I dont claim to have a crystal ball on this subject.  Only time will tell.  But one thing is certain: now that it is nearly summer and natural warming will ensue, the hysteria from the GW crowd will increase exponentially.

This will be a completely accurate forecast for this summer...I forecast more man-made global climate change hysteria with the onslaught of any hurricanes that are spawned this season.

[RiversideGator]

So why are the power companies asking to build them if they are so inefficient?  Why are the power companies not going into solar (except for the one example you cited)?

[Charleston native]

You have serious reading comprehension problems. I did not say that they were inefficient. I said that they are too expensive to build. So who is asking to build nuclear power plants? Please tell me.

And I don't recall citing any examples of solar power.

By stating that because plants are too expensive, we should not invest to build more, you are basically saying that these plants are cost inefficient. I would suggest reading a business magazine or accounting book to understand this concept.

[downtownparks]

I guess I'm PNP(Pro Nuclear Power lol) in America.  I'm just not sure about anywhere else on the planet including Iran.  Sorry guys, I guess I'm not really for nuclear power then.

So that makes you NPN.

Well, other times I stated that it was possible that it was real, although I do not think it likely.  I dont claim to have a crystal ball on this subject.  Only time will tell.  But one thing is certain: now that it is nearly summer and natural warming will ensue, the hysteria from the GW crowd will increase exponentially.

This will be a completely accurate forecast for this summer...I forecast more man-made global climate change hysteria with the onslaught of any hurricanes that are spawned this season.

Dont discount the fact we are now in the middle of  presidential election. That will have more play into the subject than anything else.

[RiversideGator]

You have serious reading comprehension problems. I did not say that they were inefficient. I said that they are too expensive to build. So who is asking to build nuclear power plants? Please tell me.

My point was not that nuclear power is inefficient.  My point was that solar and wind power are inefficient.  So, it is you have apparently have a reading comprehension problem.

As for who is asking to build nuclear power plants, read the following (from an acceptable leftist source):

Protests Greet Nuclear Power Resurgence in US South
by Matthew Cardinale

WAYNESBORO, Georgia - Residents and environmental activists are in a bitter dispute with large U.S. energy corporations and the federal government over the safety of nuclear power, as more than a dozen corporations plan to, or have filed, paperwork to open new nuclear power plants, primarily in the U.S. South.0115 06

Energy giants like Southern Company, Entergy, and Florida Power and Light are attracted by billions in governmental incentives offered under the George W. Bush Administration.

“There’s a whole suite of incentives being pumped out by the federal government to try and cajole the utilities back into the game,” Glenn Carroll of Nuclear Watch South told IPS.

The U.S. Congress last month passed 38.5 billion dollars in loan guarantees to the nuclear industry. “If they can’t pay back the loan, or don’t want to pay back the loan, the government will guarantee the banks up to 80 percent,” Carroll said.

Five sites have already applied for the first combined licensing applications in 32 years, Roger Hannah, a spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, told IPS. They are located in south Texas, Bellefonte in Alabama, Calvert Cliffs in Maryland, North Anna in Virginia, and Lee Site in South Carolina.

Four companies have applied for Early Site Permits for sites in Grand Gulf, Mississippi; Clinton, Illinois; North Hanna, Virginia; and Plant Vogtle in Burke County, Georgia.

“We’ve had indications of interest from 12 to 15 other companies,” Hannah said.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/15/6386/

If the article is to be believed, it looks like Congress and the White House finally got off their cans and did something to encourage clean, nuclear power.

And I don't recall citing any examples of solar power.

Perhaps you should reacquaint yourself with this thread:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,2100.150.html

[RiversideGator]

Oops.  Global temps continue to drop (as recorded by satellite):

Confirming what many of us have already noted from the anecdotal evidence coming in of a much cooler than normal May, such as late spring snows as far south as Arizona, extended skiing in Colorado, and delays in snow cover melting in many parts of the northern hemisphere, the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) published their satellite derived Advanced Microwave Sounder Unit data set of the Lower Troposphere for May 2008.

It is significantly colder globally, colder even than the significant drop to -0.046°C seen in January 2008.

The global ∆T from April to May 2008 was -.195°C

UAH
2008 1 -0.046
2008 2 0.020
2008 3 0.094
2008 4 0.015
2008 5 -0.180

Compared to the May 2007 value of 0.199°C we find a 12 month ∆T is -.379°C.

But even more impressive is the change since the last big peak in global temperature in January 2007 at 0.594°C, giving a 16 month ∆T of -0.774°C which is equal in magnitude to the generally agreed upon “global warming signal” of the last 100 years.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/03/uah-global-temperature-dives-in-may/