Play with fire - save the planet.

[JustWood]

I also have a question about this global warming.

The emissions of how many vehicles on the road does it take to equal the emissions of a 20 ton dinosaur farting all day :question: :snake:

 

[offroadaudio]

1 volcanic eruption is 100's of times more CO in an hour, than every car on the planet for a year.
Stop volcanic eruptions now!

 

[gw2kpro]

TP,
Take a deep breath and count to ten. I did read your response. Thank you for taking the time to make those points. Unfortunately, this is a great topic for discussion and debate with no clear right answer or "winner". Let me try to explain what I mean by that and what I believe. I'm no expert (by coincidence I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) so these are just my beliefs and observations.

To start, the "science" behind each side of the global warming debate seems incomplete. There is not even agreement among the scientific community as to whether the earth is warming and if so to what degree (maybe to what extent is a better way to word it). There is also much disagreement as to the effects of the global climate change that may or may not be occurring. Each side picks their best talking points and most compelling argument and runs with it.

We've seen it in numerous areas, not just the global warming debate. Remember when real butter was no good for you and margarine was the answer. All of a sudden a natural product was better on your toast than a product that is a molecule away from being plastic. I also seem to remember that years ago there was a hole in the ozone layer that was going to wipe us all out in no time. Let's not forget that second hand smoke can escape your neighbor's basement and give you cancer overnight while you sleep. It's the scare tactic or alarmist crisis of the day.

I see your reference to the albido effect and the fact that this cycle is pushing us toward a tipping point. That does make some sense. What it fails to address is the root cause of the polar ice melting; the what started the ball rolling factor if you will. As wxman pointed out, there are multiple factors at work here. Some are undoubtedly under our control and some are well beyond it. I'm sure there are other factors we still have not identified. That leads us to what percentage each factor plays in the overall effect and to what extent we can control those factors.

Maybe I'm just a simple man, but what I tend to believe is what makes sense to me. Earth's climate has been cycling since the beginning of time (let's not go there). I am sure that at a localized level (how localized I'm not sure) our actions have a controllable effect on things. However, as the scale gets bigger and bigger our effect lessens. I'm just not convinced that we are the major contributor to global climate change or that we have the power to reverse it.

I also believe that we should be responsible with our use of this planet while we are here. After all, we did not inherit this land from our fathers, we are borrowing it from our children (I stole that quote, but I agree). We should look for ways to better conserve and manage our natural resources. There's nothing wrong with recycling, re-using and being responsible. Hell, we would all benefit from just being nicer to one another. We just need to keep things in perspective while we try to accomplish these things.

Bravo, Griz.

I think extremitism of any cause should be GREATLY FEARED, far more than the "cause" itself -- whether we are talking religion , gun control, or carbon emission.

I think most clear-minded people definitely believe that we need to conserve what we have and need to take steps to ensure that we are leaving a clean planet for others. Some people take great care in order to do this, some people are not very far along yet. I'm somewhere in between these two groups at this point.

The danger with carbon-emission extremitism is that it has the potential to literally control nearly every facet of your and my behavior, if given free reign. It has the potential to cap large, then small, business activity, and, in the near future, individual consumer activity, all in the name of saving the Earth. Given the chance, it will tell you what kind of car you drive. What kind of packaging you consume. How the beef that you ate for dinner was raised. What kind of flooring you may put in your house.

In some european countries, it's already illegal to cook on an outdoor grill. Why? In a nutshell, It pollutes the air and creates CO2.

I'm not against conservation. I realize every day that my family is wasteful and we are always getting better at conserving, I don't know that we'll ever be "there" though.

There are many, many well-intentioned individuals in regards to helping the Earth. My next door neighbor is one of them. She has been composting for 30 years, we moved in this winter and she taught me how to build one this summer. Now my wife is learning how to garden using organic techniques from her.

On the other side of the spectrum, we have people like Al Gore. Al will use up more of this Earth's resources in a a few months than I will in my entire lifetime. Sorry, Al, I'm not much into "do as I say, not as I do". If you want to impress me, quit blowing hot air and lead by example. I would take my one neighbor, and the impact she is making, over 100 people like you.

 

[colsmith]

I am not sure why all these "Bravo, Griz" remarks are so common, when he said

There is not even agreement among the scientific community as to whether the earth is warming

That shows that he doesn't know what he is talking about. There is definite "agreement among the scientific community" that the earth is warming. Some say it isn't the fault of human activity, but there is agreement about the warming for sure. There might be 137 scientists on the planet who disagree, and they are mostly funded by obscure "research groups" that are are actually funded by Exxon-Mobil. Google that, easy to find out. Even George W. has come around to saying the earth is warming, although he claims it isn't the fault of anything to do with oil companies or burning fuel. Nothing is the fault of oil companies, if you listen to him, but that's another story. Something like 96-99% of the scientific community agree the earth is warming, how much do you need to be convinced?!? .

 

[jebatty]

The earth has in the past been both much, much hotter and much, much cooler than it is now.

... and where were the humans then? ... and where will they be when this happens again? ... and if there are any humans, what will be their quality of life? ... and is that the kind of life to which you want to condemn your grandchildren and their children? ... while you fritter away the world's cheap oil energy resources in heaps of waste and destruction to life as we know it. Greed, gluttony and pride weren't named deadly sins as a joke.

 

[offroadaudio]

The earth has in the past been both much, much hotter and much, much cooler than it is now.

... and where were the humans then? ... and where will they be when this happens again? ... and if there are any humans, what will be their quality of life? ... and is that the kind of life to which you want to condemn your grandchildren and their children?

I don't make that choice, nor do you - massive forces of nature beyond our understanding and control do

... while you fritter away the world's cheap oil energy resources in heaps of waste and destruction to life as we know it.

I don't fritter away anything - I take huge pride each and everyday in the steps that I take to conserve resources:
1. I work at home - sometimes my truck doesn't move for a week
2. tankless hot water
3. wood heat
4. window A/C in the bedroom - central stays off
5. Hell, I pee outside so I don't use fresh water
6. 64 acres locked into a conservation program - can't be sub-divided or developed

Greed, gluttony and pride weren't named deadly sins as a joke.

and if we keep teaching our children that our mere presence here on earth, or worse being an American Patriot equates to those sins - they'll all grow up to be self loathing, suicidal space cadets.

I'm going to go eat some veggies from my garden............

 

[glacialhills]

I Just have a really hard time with all of these scientists predictions of global warming and what the earth is going to be like in 20 or 30 years when they cant even predict with 70% accuracy what the weather is going to be like in 2 or 3 days! When they can predict the weather for a week or two 80% of the time in advance then maybe I will start belivin' the "hype" they are trying to push on me. Greenland wasn't called that for the color of the snow that completely covers it now. The earth is constantly evolving and changing. And it will continue to do so with or without us doing or not doing anything. This man made global warming issue has been so overblown that is almost funny.As was stated in another post one volcano can pump a years worth of co2 that we produce into the atmosphere in a day. I always get a chuckle when they keep moving the date forward another 10 years for the time when our great plains will be desert and the oceans will be dead from our pollution or the sea levels will flood all the coastlines from the ice melting in the Arctic. They said in the 80's it would be dead in the 90"s...then it was 2000 now its 2010. They just said that this summer all the ice will melt at the north pole for the first time ever..EVER??? And they state this as fact...how? Guess New york, LA and Philly is going to be flooded and destroyed. Better start packing. Sheesh! does nobody but me think thats just more than a little "chicken Little syndrome?"The thing that amazes me is that the earth stays as predictable and steady as it does.

 

[Telco]

I remember in the 70s that the next ice age was coming and we'd be seeing polar ice pack as far south as Denver. Nobody cared, nobody was scared, no funding was available. So, they switched to global warming so they could get research money to waste time with.

So far as Greenland goes, that was original marketing hype. When the Vikings discovered Greenland and Iceland, they didn't want Greenland to be overrun so they switched the names. Nobody wanted to go to Iceland, because if it's called Iceland it must be a land of ice, right? Let's go to Greenland, where it's green, right? So, the people went to Greenland, found it to be icy, and said "Man, if Greenland is a frozen wasteland, what must Iceland be like? That place has REALLY gotta be cold if this frozen dump was named Greenland by comparison!"

I also don't think that those scientists, with research dollars at stake, are being completely honest about global warming's source. The weather patterns in my area today are no different than they've ever been. And, the temperature records being broken in my area are being broken in both summer AND winter, on hottest or coldest day on record. The records being broken are only being broken by 1 degree, AND these records were set in the 1920s and 1930s when almost nobody had cars or even electricity.

The real problem is, if you give someone a degree you give them credibility whether they deserve it or not. And when they start shouting the same thing over and over, well he's a scientist, he must know what he's talking about and has NO ulterior motives at all unless he's employed by the oil companies. Then, he's a shill that can only have one interest, and that's in destroying the planet for a buck.

 

[jebatty]

The real problem is, if you give someone a degree you give them credibility whether they deserve it or not.

I hope you're not implying that those without degrees deserve to be listened to. Even assuming some with degrees may be a few watts short of 100, most without degrees are blithering idiots when it comes to real knowledge, as opposed to rank opinion.

 

[offroadaudio]

The real problem is, if you give someone a degree you give them credibility whether they deserve it or not.

I hope you're not implying that those without degrees deserve to be listened to. Even assuming some with degrees may be a few watts short of 100, most without degrees are blithering idiots when it comes to real knowledge, as opposed to rank opinion.

There you have it folks - if you don't have a degree from one of our mostly liberal, biased and money-chasing Universities - you're an idiot.
My father helped to design and build batteries that flew on 3 Apollo missions - no college education.
I'll be sure to tell him at dinner tonight that Jim said he's an idiot. : )

 

[Adios Pantalones]

At my last job we called everyone "doctor". My boss and I were the only "Piled Higher and Deeper"'s for a long time, but we recognized that the paper didn't mean squat because so many great ideas came from individuals throughout the company. I still do it.

 

[jebatty]

I think we're talking apples and oranges, or more pertinent, statements and opinions based on scientific research, study, peer review, and critique, as opposed to statements and opinions made without research, study, peer review, and critique. A great many discoveries, inventions, and ideas may originate from many sources, with or without formal education, but that is a lot different than studying ice cores, measuring radio isotopes, analyzing sediments, and on and on.

I have no credible first hand knowledge of climate change (other than what I might surmise from what is happening around me). So for me to make a statement about whether or not climate change is occurring, caused or not caused by humans, and how rapidly that climate change may or may not be taking place, is a statement made out of first hand ignorance -- which could as well be made by a blithering idiot with equal credibility.

There you have it folks - if you don’t have a degree from one of our mostly liberal, biased and money-chasing Universities - you’re an idiot.

If this statement is made regarding only US universities, it is a clear example of rank opinion, not fact. And if this statement is about the university/education system world-wide, it is silly at best.

The bottom line for me, regardless of climate change, is that the US ranks at the top of the most energy and resource wasting societies which ever has existed. There is no good, short or long term, which comes from wasting scarce natural resources.

 

[glacialhills]

Telco, I think your info on the subject of Greenland has been influence by the global warming crowd. This is an article I looked up give it a read http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=b9182c6b-2d08-44f0-bcae-7ee6edb43bd5&k=91767 But hey what about where I live here in sw michigan. I am surrounded by glacial moraine's and hills that mile high glacier's pushed up. What caused that to happen? and then why were palm tree like plants growing in this area at one time? we were not even little rodent like animals (or biting into apples in the garden) yet. so those changes were caused by the earths own controls or lack there of. Like I said I just wonder how the earth has stayed as stable as it has for so long.

 

[gw2kpro]

I also don't think that those scientists, with research dollars at stake, are being completely honest about global warming's source.

Here's a story, not that interesting but I'm going to bore you anyway - first hand experience.

When I was in college (place shall remain nameless), I took an after-class job with a professor (who shall also remain nameless) that I had in a biology class the previous semester. It paid squat but I was looking for experience. Looking back, I got a WHOLE lot of experience, I just didn't realize it at the time.

In short, the professor was studying the plight of a certain species of fox found in one part of our state, its numbers had been declining for a long while. He had all these dead foxes that had been trapped, my theory was that the fox numbers must have been declining because they had trapped so many of them. But I digress........

Anyway, there was some evidence that these foxes were getting sick from some type of intestinal roundworm. What us lucky students got to do was to cut open the intestines of these dead, frozen, and re-thawed foxes, empty them out through a series of filters, rinse and plate the residue off of the smallest filter, examine the residue under the microscope, and count the number of roundworm eggs that we saw. He took us through a couple of hours of training and turned us loose. It was a very yummy assignment. Foxes like to eat lots of things that smell good when they are partway digested, frozen for 6 months, then thawed out and rinsed.

After the first two days of my after-class worm-egg counting, he called me into his office. We talked about how many eggs I wasn't finding compared to previous studies; he wanted to make sure that I was counting as many as possible, did I know what I was looking for, and if I wasn't sure about what I was seeing, to count whatever as an egg. I pointed out that I had taken a lot of microbiology, was no stranger to a microscope, and was following his SOP and training as closely as I could, and that I'd do my best not to miss any.

Another two days of after-class worm-egg counting go by. I went slower. Tried to make sure I was counting everything. I was doing it right -- the numbers weren't really that much different than the first two days. Another request to come to his office. This time, he didn't ask me anything about counting eggs. He gave me a speech on how "interesting it was" how a department like his was funded. He pointed out that his fox-roundworm-egg study was up for review in about a year, a lot of projects weren't going to be renewed and this was one that he really wanted to see through. We then talked a little bit about what I was studying and how important good people were to his program, microbiology majors should do really well with this kind of study. We closed with how he was really looking to get the "maximum impact" from this study in order to support the declining fox numbers.

I'm not kidding, I really had that conversation. You always think that kind of conversation happens over some cutting edge technology or to cover something up, etc. but freaking fox roundworm eggs?

I didn't come back to count any more worm eggs, sure it would have been easy to give him the numbers he wanted (can you believe that someone would want inflated worm-egg numbers to try to get State money?). Ultimately, I ended up transferring schools the next semester for family reasons; but I was in a bad spot in his department if I had wanted to continue on there.

There is plenty of good science out there, There is just as much bad science out there. It's almost impossible to filter through who has what agenda. Ultimately, people have to use common sense and -- as my Dad always says -- moderation in everything is the key.

 

[jebatty]

Isn't it a relevant question to inquire and pursue whether the climate change now taking place (no one disputes that material climate change has taken place in the distant past) signals a change not characteristic of the relatively stable climate the earth has enjoyed for the last approximate 10,000 years? And it seems that the last 10,000 or so years have been relatively favorable for civilization as we now know it. If we are heading into an uncharacteristic climatic change, the consequences are? That is the big question. A relatively stable climate means a relatively stable civilization as we know it, at least from a climatic impact, and I find that to be a positive outcome.

And isn't it also a relevant question to inquire and pursue whether the change in CO2 which is now occurring signals a change which will result in? That also is the big questions. I don't see seriously disputed in the literature that CO2 levels now are higher than they have been in the last 800,000 years or so. What does that mean?

Many of us may live long enough to know whether the "good" and the "bad" scientists and researchers are tooting their own political and economic horns or are being a bit more objective.

I vote for responsible conservation of all resources all the time -- there is no down side to that. And just maybe 50 years from now my grandchildren will say, "at least grandpa tried to do something about it," instead of saying, "why did grandpa do this to us?"

 

[termv]

On the other hand, Climate Change does not in almost any case threaten our existence as a species. As per the reports, the poor will suffer most (as usual) and we can adapt. However, adaption will cost vastly more than the alternative - which is the reduction of CO2 output.

"The poor" which will be most of middle America if things continue down this path, while the rich totally disregard what they preach. Need I remind anyone of the ABC News story "Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- A $30,000 Utility Bill"? The article states "Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours." "Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it.""

You can read the entire article here. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888

I'm all for cleaning our act up but if you aren't helping, don't preach to me.

 

[Telco]

The real problem is, if you give someone a degree you give them credibility whether they deserve it or not.

I hope you're not implying that those without degrees deserve to be listened to. Even assuming some with degrees may be a few watts short of 100, most without degrees are blithering idiots when it comes to real knowledge, as opposed to rank opinion.

Yep, that's EXACTLY what I'm stating. Going to college does not magically bestow intelligence upon a person. College is more like painting a wall with dead fish, you keep throwing dead fish at the wall and hope something will stick. They don't pop a college grad's head open and install a more powerful processor or a common sense module. Getting a degree also does not suddenly change a person's mental makeup or make them ethical. If the person has no ethics, the only thing college will show that person is how best to apply their moral shortcomings to their own betterment.

Let's consider the following about the American college grad:

1. Most begin life at least 50 grand in the hole, if not more.
2. College grads brought us Enron, and are currently either sitting in jail.
3. College grads brought us the dot.com meltdown.
4. College grads brought us the current housing meltdown, and will soon be sitting in jail.
5. College grads said in the 1970s that a new ice age was upon us.
6. College grads are now saying a new global heat age is upon us.

Real knowledge comes from experience, NOT book learning. You can't truly grasp a concept until you are putting it forth in a real life situation, no matter how perfectly you can execute the math. Most anyone can figure something out when it needs to be done. Anyone who considers a college degree to be the only measure of intelligence is a person who values appearance over value. If you'd like to be that way, fine, but I will continue to take a person's measure by how they act and speak, not by what's hanging on their wall.

Telco, I think your info on the subject of Greenland has been influence by the global warming crowd.

Heh heh... actually, not unless they were writing history books in the 1970s. I'm a voracious reader, and really enjoyed reading my history books. What I was stating about how Greenland and Iceland got their names came from those history books. The Vikings discovered those two islands right about 1000 years ago if I remember correctly. Very interesting read on that, goes along with other news stories I've read where they've found tropical plants from core samples in the Artic. I guess SUVs were to blame for that one too. Heh heh... And here's another reason to blame man for global warming: underwater volcanoes near Greenland that are melting off the Greenland ice shelf, suspected of causing global warming in previous eras. Not that any of this means I'm not going to continue to try and cut how much pollution I emit, but I'm certainly not going to take the blame for a climate shift.

 

[gw2kpro]

"Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it.""

Read it carefully. Al believes that, if you are a rich American, it's OK to consume 20 times the resources of the average american as long as you take steps to reduce and "OFFSET" it.

Offset logic is EXACTLY like this: It is OK for me to throw McDonald's trash out the window of my car every day coming home from work as long as I pay somebody to pick up an equivalent amount of trash on the weekend.

The word "offset" is used by rich people who realize that conservation is, in fact, difficult and requires real, day-to-day personal sacrifice. They want to "offest" (buy) their way "green" because that sacrifice is often "inconvenient" and bothersome.

The personal, day-to-day activities of people like Al Gore destroy the earth at a rate that is incomprehensible to most of us (certainly he has to be in the top 1% of all resource consumers) yet he has profited a great deal, won awards, and become a mouthpiece for saving the planet?

The hypocrisy is staggering. What's next? The NRA issuing a press release that they believe there are too many guns on the streets and that we should all take steps to reduce our gun ownership?

 

[Telco]

Yep, and Al's a college graduate, too. Look how intelligent his college education made him, and how ethical he is as a result. :roll: But since Al's got a college degree, it MUST be OK to throw bags of McDonalds out the window, or zinc mining runoff into the Caney Valley River so long as you throw a few bucks towards providing solar ovens to the poor.

 

[jebatty]

On the other hand, Climate Change does not in almost any case threaten our existence as a species. As per the reports, the poor will suffer most (as usual) and we can adapt.

It seems to me suffering poor may indeed threaten our existence as a species. Mounting numbers of poor around the world spell strife, revolution, terrorism, and the desire to take from those who have. The poor are the breeding ground of a great deal of the world's troubles today. Wealthy people rarely revolt, they wage wars against those who threaten their wealth. We can just wait for the war that spills into the nuclear arena, and then who knows what will happen to the species now known as humans.

 

[jebatty]

I was listening to Public Radio today, the topic of the program being whether people are tired of the "green" message and what could be done to make the message more meaningful. One listener said it's time to stop talking and start acting, and then the listener mentioned Al Gore with his green message but actions which are not very green. A similar sentiment has been mentioned in this forum, the implication being that somehow Al Gore's message would have more meaning if his actions appeared to be more in sync with his message.

So, if Al Gore were among the "greenest" of us, would his message have any more power? Are you not accepting his message because his actions aren't green, but you would accept and act on his message if his actions were green? What is the relevance to the message of apparently contrary actions of the message giver?

 

[offroadaudio]

I was listening to Public Radio today, the topic of the program being whether people are tired of the "green" message and what could be done to make the message more meaningful. One listener said it's time to stop talking and start acting, and then the listener mentioned Al Gore with his green message but actions which are not very green. A similar sentiment has been mentioned in this forum, the implication being that somehow Al Gore's message would have more meaning if his actions appeared to be more in sync with his message.

So, if Al Gore were among the "greenest" of us, would his message have any more power? Are you not accepting his message because his actions aren't green, but you would accept and act on his message if his actions were green? What is the relevance to the message of apparently contrary actions of the message giver?

You should run for office with that double talking!

 

[dlpz]

I think it would be fantastic if Al Gore were living green, he could afford it.

You want to make an impact, take the bus to work. I tell that to everyone I know bitchin about gas prices, but the complaints are the bus is far too inconvenient or only scum bags take the bus.

 

[mbcijim]

I bought a scooter this summer. Goes 55 MPH and I just got 70 Miles on .91 Gallon of gas. I think that makes me green!

 

[jebatty]

You want to make an impact, take the bus to work. I tell that to everyone I know bitchin about gas prices, but the complaints are the bus is far too inconvenient or only scum bags take the bus.

I think you made a really important point. At least in the US, "who we are," or being the "right kind" of person, or at least having the appearance of being "upper class" and "successful" is very important. These thinks for many have become more important than building strong relationships with family and friends, than spending time with your children to read to them or play with them, than keeping up with world events, than participating in community events as leaders and workers (not just spectators). What has become important is things (keep spending "for the economy" while the world goes to hell), not relationships. The price we're paying for that cultural mentality is heavy.