|
|
|
|
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/5/2008 9:21:42 AM | your right about the email. I made a typo sorry.
Local weather has almost nothing to do with global trends. That's like trying to predict the ten year stock market trends based on how one stock performed on one day. You won't hear me claiming global warming will destroy us in no time, nor will hear any reputable scientist say that. The worst impacts are decades away still. Unless there are dramatic new developments none of us know about yet.
Name one climate scientist who blamed Katrina on global warming. I doubt
you can. Increased frequency and/or intensity of hurricanes is a very uncertain aspect of climate change, and even those who predict one or the other don't expect those changes for a couple of decades at least. As for annual hurricane outlooks those are made by a whole different group than the climate change scientists.
ok lets see local weather and hurricane frequency have nothing to do with climate change? how is that? If the oceans get warmer won't have have more energy to make more powerful storms??? as far as the scientist I said meteorologist do not twist my words. And I can name one, Marty Bass, if you want to find more who said that just turn on the weather channel.
Did you get 100 mpg out of your prius? Even though we differ on global warming, I have to give you that at least you are doing something about it. I can have a debate with someone who is in fact changing there lifstyle instead of just telling me that I need to.
That's all theoretical at this point. There are no government sanctioned carbon credits associated with the price of gas. But face it - the price of gas is just going to continue to rise as we keep increasing global consumption and yet new oil discoveries haven't matched consumption levels in three decades. We've been getting by on what was already discovered before then up until now, but the supply/demand formula is going to keep working against low fuel prices from here on out, with or without any sort of carbon tax.
I never said carbon taxes effect fuel prices. My point was it is a BS way of "saving the planet". Although in my state we have a clean air tax called emissions testing. I say it is a tax because you can pay for an exemption, or pass by putting some alcohol in your tank. yes I agree that demand on oil is mainly why prices are going to go up, however why 300% in a month? And why is it that we get less gas millage out of our fuel now than we did in 1990? How can it be better for the environment if you have to burn more of it?? Also don't we need to consume energy to make the ethanol they add to it? It seems pointless to me. Just look at the old geo metros. I knew people back then that were getting 50mpg. Look at the car adds today if you get 35mpg it's considered great. We had a full size 4wd pickup in 87 that got 27mpg I can't find one that get better than 20mpg today. Why is that?
For thousands of years we maintained a relatively constant CO2 concentration in our atmosphere because we were essentially a closed system - what was breathed out was absorbed by plants and oceans. What we've done is dig up millions of years worth of stored CO2 in fossil fuels and introduced it into the atmosphere. At the same time we've dramatically changed our land use patterns so there are less natural carbon sinks to help balance things out.
pretty much true. but there have been times in recorded history that the climate has changed well before the industrial revolution. My biggest problem with this is lack of proof, when i was a little kid it was global cooling that was going to kill us all. In the 90's it was carbon monoxide that was heating up the earth that and hair spray was eating a hole in the ozone(never mind the rockets we shoot through it) Now it's co2 hmmm. A new problem plauging mankind. Did you happen to see that crazy chick on tv that was talking about how she has decrease her carbon footprint by having a bunch on abortions? My point was about how overboard the global warming people can go.
No, our government has been dragging its feet compared to the rest of the world. It's not a problem that gets anyone re-elected because they know a whole lot of people will think just like you do on this.
dragging its feet compared to the rest of the world? What part of the world are you talking about? China?Russia? India?
That's like saying the government planned 9/11 just so we could increase military spending.
I hope you're not trying to lump me in with the conspiracy nuts. Name calling never wins a debate.
I agree that we need to do something about exhaust gasses and landfills ect. But don't feed me the BS about global warming! there is no proof and climate cycles are always removed from the conversation. Over and over we heard about how katrina and el ninio was because of global warming. Katrina was a hundred year storm and they are called that for a reason. look at the weather channel once in a while and you will see that the ocean is cooling at the moment and that the ice caps are growing. Yes they were shrinking but I believe that they grow and shrink over the decades which is part of out planets natural cycle. If you get a chance kick me over a link to that 100mpg prius i am very interested in how you pulled that off. I would love to figue out way to get better mpg out of my cars. oh here is the correct email ou812didu2001@yahoo.com sorry bout the typo. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/5/2008 12:04:10 PM | A few factoids:
* It would take about 109 earths to equal the width of the suns diameter (Sun=1.39 million km Earth=12,700 km)
* Over 1 million Earths would fit inside the Sun’s volume
* The sun has a total luminosity output of 386 YottaWatts
(386,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts)
* The total luminous energy output received by earth from the sun is 174 PETAWATTS (174,000,000,000,000,000) watts.
* A 0.1% increase in luminosity dumps an extra 174 trillion watts (174,000,000,000,000) watts into our planetary energy balance.
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/solar_irradiance_1611-2001.png
here's the data for the graph (from NASA):
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
WOW! CO2? | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/5/2008 5:36:28 PM | | ^^^^^^^^^^Then why don't you fight to start USING this fabulous energy, instead of fighting to make sure we continue to rely on polluting, poisonous fossil fuel ? | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/5/2008 6:51:52 PM |
I hope you're not trying to lump me in with the conspiracy nuts. Name calling never wins a debate.
Sorry, but when you say:
Lets get real the only reason that our government has decided to back this is because they figured out how to make a killing at it.
That sounds very much like accusations of a conspiracy. Especially when just about every elected government in the country, and many non-elected ones, have endorsed the concept of human-induced global warming. That would turn it into a global conspiracy. What I did was point out how your words came across. If you meant something other than a conspiracy to manipulate an unsupported theory into a cash cow, please correct my interpretation.
ok lets see local weather and hurricane frequency have nothing to do with climate change? how is that? If the oceans get warmer won't have have more energy to make more powerful storms??? as far as the scientist I said meteorologist do not twist my words. And I can name one, Marty Bass, if you want to find more who said that just turn on the weather channel.
That's one theory, and someone else already pointed out a climate scientist who tried to quantify the impact climate change had on Katrina. Most are careful whenever there's a single weather event to say that it's impossible to blame any one event on climate change. I've read a lot of studies on the potential for more hurricanes or more intense hurricanes due to warmer water. Certainly the fuel argument makes sense, at least for the intensity aspect, but there is still lively debate over whether frequency will increase, and enough counter arguments about intensity that I take care not to include hurricane arguments in my climate change assertions until the experts come closer to agreement.
We had a full size 4wd pickup in 87 that got 27mpg I can't find one that get better than 20mpg today. Why is that?
Was it rated for that or is that what you actually measured? One reason is that detroit kept putting more and more horsepower into their trucks and cars. The average sedan today has more power than many sports cars of the seventies. And we keep adding more gizmos and gadgets, more weight, and have put a higher premium on creature comforts than fuel economy. It used to be that a truck was designed to be a workhorse. Now it's just a differently shaped SUV that has bigger tires and goes really fast.
Oh, and yes, the planet has many natural cycles. But that doesn't mean human actions can't affect them. Plants live and die, rivers rise and fall, erosion is a natural event. It's pretty well documented that we can significantly impact those events. We do the same with climate.
Did you get 100 mpg out of your prius? Even though we differ on global warming, I have to give you that at least you are doing something about it. I can have a debate with someone who is in fact changing there lifstyle instead of just telling me that I need to.
Yup, sure did, but it was a bit of a stunt. Five of us took turns in the car to go 1400 miles nonstop on one tank and average 110 mpg. Google 'prius marathon' to read all about it. It takes the right conditions, though - a good quality road where people won't mind a car staying between 30 and 40 mph, and hot humid weather without rain.
We did it because at the time there was a lot of hype about how a Prius didn't get the fuel economy people expected out of it. We set out to prove that it isn't just the car, it's how you drive it. I can pretty much duplicate that feat anytime I have those conditions for a while, but the best I've done on my own for an entire tank is 72 mpg. I'm showing 64 mpg on my display right now, over 500 miles into the tank, which is fairly typical summer time performance for me. I drop into the fifties in the winter time, sometimes lower.
I'll try to send you a document I put together on Prius fuel economy tips. A lot of them are specific to the Prius, but skim past those and you'll find some that will work with any car. Obama is catching a lot of heat for promoting one of them - put more air in your tires. All the way up to the sidewall maximum, and check your pressure regularly. It really does work, and improves handling and tire longevity as well. Check your inbox for more.
Dave | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/5/2008 9:14:01 PM | In all human history, people with power over others almost always try to increase that power. It not a conspiracy, its normal behavior.
The more I research the physics of CO2, the more I find fault with the AGW theory. At the same time, the same observations that are used to strike fear in the public, have natural and man made explanations far more likely than CO2 created warming. The success of the fear campaign may not be a conspiracy but a great many "conspiracies" to profit and gain political power from the fear have been hatched. The natural tendency of those in power to grab more power are served well by public fear no matter what the justification. The vegetarian aspiring artist Hitler had his Jews and the AGW crowd have their evil oil companies conspiring against the public. Following the mold of the Nazi propaganda machine, anyone who disagrees with the party line is part of an oil industry conspiracy. Part of that machine seeks to connect hurricanes to AGW with Katrina the star example. The biggest lesson to be learned from Katrina is to not depend on government yet the AGW folks would make us more dependent on government, not less.
*- The above poster is advised to immediately ratchet down the hyperbole, and lose the "Nazi" comparisons. The poster that followed is correct in pointing out that you have stepped over the line here, and not only on this front. Our forum rules are also quite specific that we don't have patience for the soapboxing of personal conspiracy junk theories either. Keep the debate above board and on topic or you will find your posting privileges swiftly curtailed. If I have to come back to this thread again for this silliness there will be immediate consequences. -TheMadFiddler-*  | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/5/2008 9:55:44 PM | The vegetarian aspiring artist Hitler had his Jews and the AGW crowd have their evil oil companies conspiring against the public. Following the mold of the Nazi propaganda machine, anyone who disagrees with the party line is part of an oil industry conspiracy.
I gotta ask - is Godwin's Law enforced in these forums?
Godwin's Law is often cited in online discussions as a caution against the use of inflammatory rhetoric or exaggerated comparisons, and is often conflated with fallacious arguments of the reductio ad Hitlerum form.
For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress.
Just wondering.... If not I'd be happy to respond to the post.
Dave | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/6/2008 8:04:28 AM | The purpose behind Godwin's Law is to provide a means to say "enough is enough" when a debate descends into the ridiculous. To compare Hitler's socialism with modern climate science is simply ridiculous.
On a more reasonable level, it's one thing for a business or industry to fund science aimed at improving technology. Building a better mousetrap, a more efficient engine, etc.... In other words, if a company charges a science team with a goal that will give them an edge up on the competition by providing a marketable product or service more profitably, or by introducing a new product, that's legitimate.
But when a tobacco company tasks scientists with proving tobacco isn't harmful, or an oil company funds scientists ONLY if they question AGW, that's lousy science no matter how you look at it. It would be just as flawed for another funding source to only fund science that proved the opposite. It's quite legitimate and necessary to explore the connection between human activities and climate change, but to presume in advance how strong that connection is or isn't goes completely against the scientific method.
So yes, when contrarians cite science paid for under the above circumstances, I reject it and find it pertinent to point out to other readers the connection. It's up to them to form their own judgements.
Dave | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/6/2008 9:20:15 AM | Lets get real the only reason that our government has decided to back this is because they figured out how to make a killing at it.
That sounds very much like accusations of a conspiracy. Especially when just about every elected government in the country, and many non-elected ones, have endorsed the concept of human-induced global warming. That would turn it into a global conspiracy. What I did was point out how your words came across.
gee thanks for pointing that out. Yes I do not trust the government. The three biggest lies in the English language are, I'll still love you in the morning, the check is in the mail, and your government cares about you. But just because I do not believe our government has a sense of right and wrong does not mean that I think they planned 911, I just love the way you guys (by that I mean left wingers) like to call people nuts to discredit them. I have not stupped to calling you names even though I do not agree with you veiw.
:
I hope you're not trying to lump me in with the conspiracy nuts. Name calling never wins a debate.
Sorry, but when you say:
Lets get real the only reason that our government has decided to back this is because they figured out how to make a killing at it.
That sounds very much like accusations of a conspiracy. Especially when just about every elected government in the country, and many non-elected ones, have endorsed the concept of human-induced global warming. That would turn it into a global conspiracy. What I did was point out how your words came across. If you meant something other than a conspiracy to manipulate an unsupported theory into a cash cow, please correct my interpretation.
ok lets see local weather and hurricane frequency have nothing to do with climate change? how is that? If the oceans get warmer won't have have more energy to make more powerful storms??? as far as the scientist I said meteorologist do not twist my words. And I can name one, Marty Bass, if you want to find more who said that just turn on the weather channel.
That's one theory, and someone else already pointed out a climate scientist who tried to quantify the impact climate change had on Katrina. Most are careful whenever there's a single weather event to say that it's impossible to blame any one event on climate change. I've read a lot of studies on the potential for more hurricanes or more intense hurricanes due to warmer water. Certainly the fuel argument makes sense, at least for the intensity aspect, but there is still lively debate over whether frequency will increase, and enough counter arguments about intensity that I take care not to include hurricane arguments in my climate change assertions until the experts come closer to agreement.
We had a full size 4wd pickup in 87 that got 27mpg I can't find one that get better than 20mpg today. Why is that?
Was it rated for that or is that what you actually measured? One reason is that detroit kept putting more and more horsepower into their trucks and cars. The average sedan today has more power than many sports cars of the seventies. And we keep adding more gizmos and gadgets, more weight, and have put a higher premium on creature comforts than fuel economy. It used to be that a truck was designed to be a workhorse. Now it's just a differently shaped SUV that has bigger tires and goes really fast.
measured it. 1987 full size king cab ford pickup with 4wd and off road tires. My point is that the gas does not go as far anymore and it gets worse in the summer. Don't believe me? check your milage in december and then check it again in July, the "summer blend" gas burns faster. All of it burns faster than it used too, it does not even smell like gas anymore.
We agree that we affect the environment and should take care of it but man made global warming has not been proven and for every study saying it it real there is a study to say it is not. Thanks for the link by the way. I have seen hyper miling before and have had the misfortune of running into these guys on the freeway. If every body starts doing it I am going to open a transmission shop!!! I think there is a better way to power our cars I just am not sure why we don't use it. I do believe that big oil and big money have something to do with it or we would have more wind and nuclear plants in this country already. And the electric car would not be a fantasy instead there would be one in every driveway by now. I think it has to do with corporate profits more than anything and although I think you global warming guys are nuts I will admit that some good things are going to come from it. Just don't expect me to believe the sky is falling just cause you say so. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/6/2008 3:06:35 PM | To relaxing_in_the_sun:
Would you mind adding (quote) or using " " to indicate a quote, when you respond to someone? I am trying to make sens of your answer, and it's very difficult when you can't differentiate your answers, from someone else's answers, from your own answers to someone else's answers, and so on. Thanks! | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/6/2008 3:40:29 PM |
^^^^^^^^^^Then why don't you fight to start USING this fabulous energy, instead of fighting to make sure we continue to rely on polluting, poisonous fossil fuel ?
There's no sum you can do that would make all this energy usable with present technology. In future, with sufficient economic (and hence scientific and technological) progress, we probably could. This is true for wind, wave, tidal and solar power. For the record, I'm pro nuclear power, particularly as there are designs around and in use now that are far, far safer than they were in the past.
Honestly, AGW sceptics aren't against alternative power; indeed we'd give anything to rid ourselves of reliance on unpalatable regimes in Russia (gas) and the Middle East (oil). But the fact of the matter is that Human Technological Progress is dependent on economic growth and at the present moment in time, economies require hydrocarbons. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/6/2008 3:47:31 PM | AGW sceptics remain a small, alienated group who must descend to conspiracy theory, because in short, they have no science to stand on. Like the obnoxious 3 year old who says "why, why, why", no evidence seems sufficient. Time and time again they have been debunked by physicists and climatologists, but instead they cling tirelessly to their beleif that no human activity affects the planet.
As I watch our icecaps melt, our forests lain waste with pine beetles, watch the desertification of the African continent and suck in the morning smog, I cant help but feel a twinge of anger at the AGW sceptics. I have a hard time understanding how denial can reign in such a pressing time.
But I applaud the debate here, and the AGW sceptics, I do respect your input and welcome it. This isnt a thread to cheer on global warming "beleivers", its a thread on the science underlying climate change, and dissenting views are welcomed and appreciated. There are some terrific arguments here, even though i dont accept them prima facie. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/6/2008 4:25:05 PM | Just for the record, so no one feels their conspiracy was picked on unfairly while others were allowed to remain, I do NOT claim a conspiracy by fossil fuel companies to squelch climate change science.
A conspiracy implies secret collusion, and Exxon and the National Coal Association have been quite open in their opposition to mainstream climate science and their willingness to fund anyone with science credentials who chooses to challenge that science. The rest of the oil industry has taken a much less blatant stance, and BP has been an industry leader urging action on climate change. The natural gas industry has been plugging their status as the 'least carbon' fossil fuel option.
Indeed, one of the most convincing presentations I've seen on anthropogenic climate change was made by an engineer from BP to a group of oil industry experts. That was six or seven years ago, and he wasn't all that well received, but wasn't rejected out of hand either.
A growing number of Exxon stockholders have been vocal in their opposition to Exxon's climate change PR strategies, but not enough yet to pass a resolution to change them. The coal association has softened its approach, pushing 'clean coal' initiatives and geologic carbon sequestration as a way to continue to mine and burn coal without as much impact on the climate, but not long ago they too openly funded contrarian scientists ONLY if they continued to contradict mainstream climate science.
The coal folks will still trot out contrarian science now and then, but their heart doesn't seem to be in it any more. I scratch my head every time I drive by the billboard in Charleston, WV sponsored by a large mining equipment supplier that says simply in large bold letters "YES COAL", and in smaller print below "clean, carbon neutral coal". I keep meaning to call them up and ask them just what carbon neutral coal is, but do note the effort to present coal as a non-contributor to greenhouse gasses, rather than pretending it just doesn't matter anyway.
So no conspiracy theories here. I just think it's worth noting when science is cited that was funded by those quite open about seeking a predetermined outcome.
Dave | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/6/2008 4:44:51 PM | Honestly, AGW sceptics aren't against alternative power; indeed we'd give anything to rid ourselves of reliance on unpalatable regimes in Russia (gas) and the Middle East (oil). But the fact of the matter is that Human Technological Progress is dependent on economic growth and at the present moment in time, economies require hydrocarbons.
Leaving AGW aside for the moment, we're essentially in agreement.
We agree on the need to transition to renewable energy.
We agree that we can't just do that today.
We agree that a healthy economy is essential to future progress.
I'm not as pro-nuclear as you are, but acknowledge that nuclear will have to play a role in the next few decades.
Amazingly, I find myself agreeing with of all people Paris Hilton, who in a spoof presidential ad this week suggested that we approve limited offshore oil drilling under strict environmental oversight, and devote a chunk of the proceeds to fund accelerated renewable energy research.
Go ahead and laugh, but that's the sort of integrated transition I support. Yes we need to keep using fossil fuels, but their days are numbered. We should be doing all we can to smooth and accelerate the transition by having our current energy production help set the stage for the cleaner, greener, energy infrastructure to come. We can do that by tapping into fossil fuel profits to fund next-generation energy research.
Dave | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/7/2008 7:35:27 AM | | Fossil fuel profits? The return on investment by the oil companies is actually low compared to most businesses and extremely low when the risks are taken into account. Any additional taxes on this highly taxed commodity will simply be passed on to consumers as are taxes in any commercial enterprize. The taxes then suppress growth. "I" and "O" may be close together on your keyboard but the word is still "Government", not "Givernment". In any taxes, a large percentage of the wealth is skimmed off to pay for the bureaucracy of the skimming within the government and on the part of the payer for the accounting and paperwork. Another overhead skimming occures during payout. The allocation of payout is controled by bureaucrats and politicians. I am not aware of any elected politicians with a strong technical background in alternate energy or a proven track record of innovation. 80% are lawyers, more skilled at getting rich suing people in courts run by fellow lawyers who are getting rich just supporting the law suits. How many trees will need to be cut down to support the paperwork? Worse yet, how will those who do not have the proper political patronage get any of this funding? | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/7/2008 1:26:01 PM |
Go ahead and laugh, but that's the sort of integrated transition I support. Yes we need to keep using fossil fuels, but their days are numbered. We should be doing all we can to smooth and accelerate the transition by having our current energy production help set the stage for the cleaner, greener, energy infrastructure to come. We can do that by tapping into fossil fuel profits to fund next-generation energy research.
Well, in a pragmatic sense, if we both end up at the same solution from different starting points, then this discussion is superfluous. My only complaint is the damage being done to the public perception of Science. For example, breaking news on Wahl & Ammann:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3393
This kind of thing is rife in the Warmist camp but I'm sorry to say the media almost never report it, as they would if it were an underhand paper presented by the sceptics. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/7/2008 7:13:34 PM |
Well, in a pragmatic sense, if we both end up at the same solution from different starting points, then this discussion is superfluous. My only complaint is the damage being done to the public perception of Science. For example, breaking news on Wahl & Ammann:
Well, there's certainly no shortage of lousy science on the skeptic side of the fence. I've countered a bunch of it in various posts on this topic in different threads. I don't claim all the science supporting AGW has been perfect by any means, but do believe the weight of evidence is strongly on that side.
Regardless, I also feel certain that all the changes in energy practices and shrinking our carbon footprint will yield many multiple benefits unrelated to climate change, and far less negative consequences, other than the standard resistance to change that always happens when policies shift.
We do want the same end result, it seems. So maybe we can shake hands and resolve not to bicker over the reasons for getting there?
Dave | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/7/2008 9:30:57 PM | The basic premise of AGW is CO2 in the atmosphere causing the warming through it "green house" effect. The term "green house" is in error is several ways. The IR absorption characteristics are wrong for the supposed effect and even this effect is far past saturation meaning any increase will have no effect. Other than coincidence, where has this been refuted?
As for the coincidental yet anecdotal observations often used to "prove" AGW, all have other explanations, mostly natural, some man made. Do you have anything to refute the theories I mentioned? I have yet to see any.
I would suggest the bad science is in the form of bias against "evil" big oil.
"Weight of evidence" if measured in pounds from the publish or parish crowd is still a voting process. That is politics, not science.
Back to the what to do about it becomes the argument. Some of the AGW proponent choices have included such things as ethanol mandates with such an array of environmental damage it can be described as a disaster. The human toll will likely be in the hundreds of thousands and it has been labeled a crime against humanity by the president of India.
What the AGW crowd has brought us is misleading "scientific" labels, poor science, biased observations, environmental destruction, and starvation. The celebrity crowd is sold on it and when they are not in rehab, they campaign for even more. The science of AGW is in the science of selling, not physics. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/7/2008 10:26:18 PM | I confess that I do not understand the gist of your IR absorption saturation argument. It's tempting to just once again say that I trust all the national science organizations who have endorsed AGW, but I did try to do some research to see what it is you're talking about. Everything I found related to greenhouse effect, IR absorption, and saturation supported the concept of an increasingly threatened planet as CO2 levels rise.
One excellent summary of climate science dating back to the 1800's I found here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm
It covers the steady development of climate science, including the mis steps, the gaps in knowledge, and the growing certainty that we're facing unprecedented circumstances due to human activities. It's a good read.
But back to the IR issue - do you have any sources to cite that make your case? Your argument is not one of the standard ones trotted out by other skeptics that I've gotten used to shooting down. I'd like to understand better what you're trying to say.
I won't argue that corn-based ethanol is hard to justify. I was dubious about that strategy from the beginning. But choosing a faulty initial strategy to address a major problem does not negate the need to address the problem. It only makes more urgent the development of better strategies. And the more time we waste debating whether we even need to worry or not, the further behind we get on taking substantive, practical action.
Dave | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/7/2008 10:59:35 PM | I don't understand what the hub-bub about global warming is about.
Earth is warming up? Well, I got to say say, welcome to past trends, lol, the Earth has been warming up for well over 10'000 yrs. Wake the frick up people. Sure we and our greedy self rewarding behavior, has certainly sped things up, but new, fraid not. To late to change the trend, afraid so. To quote a commercial, " The moon effects tides, and tides effects lobsters, can a lobster affect the moon?"
There many things that we need to do to ensure our survival, and the survival of our ascendants. Stop using so much land!!!!! Densify our population. Makes commuting much easier and cheaper, as well as allowing for more energy efficient modes of transportation. Make communal areas more relevant in every day activities. Make people more aware of their neighbors. We need better farming methods, better sources of energy, and / or learn how to use less. The next time you are out driving around ( by yourself I'll bet ) look at the waste of land all around you in the city.
Peace to all. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/8/2008 12:11:15 PM | "To relaxing_in_the_sun:
Would you mind adding (quote) or using " " to indicate a quote, when you respond to someone? I am trying to make sens of your answer, and it's very difficult when you can't differentiate your answers, from someone else's answers, from your own answers to someone else's answers, and so on. Thanks! "
yeah i see my last post was hard to read. how do people make the quotes in light blue boxes anyway? | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/8/2008 12:35:41 PM | "There many things that we need to do to ensure our survival, and the survival of our ascendants. Stop using so much land!!!!! Densify our population. Makes commuting much easier and cheaper, as well as allowing for more energy efficient modes of transportation. Make communal areas more relevant in every day activities. Make people more aware of their neighbors. We need better farming methods, better sources of energy, and / or learn how to use less. "
although I agree that lots of land is wasted I do not agree that we all need to live in cities. I personally hate city life and the congestion that comes with it. Now don't accuse me of destroying the planet with long commutes because I work at home. Our Fathers and grandfathers worked hard so that we could have "the American dream" and part of that dream is being able to live on a lake in the country if you want to. Why do we need to be more aware of our neighbors? I hate nosy neighbors! what you are proposing is socialism and if I wanted to live in a socialist country I'd move to Europe. We have great farming methods. I hope you don't think ethanol is a better source of energy. Another interesting point is that 200 years ago if you said source of energy people would look at you as if you were nuts, now its heavy on everyones mind.
"look at the waste of land all around you in the city.
Peace to all."
Yeah no kidding. It has always pissed me off that they will tear down a bunch of trees to build a new shopping center four block down from a deserted shopping center!!
Peace and freedom
freedom first | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/8/2008 3:20:26 PM |
yeah i see my last post was hard to read. how do people make the quotes in light blue boxes anyway?
You add (quote) and (/quote) between your quote, but use square bracket instead of round ones. Look on the right side of your screen when you write a reply, there is a column full of funny icons you can use in your message. Just above the top icons,  and  you will see an example of a quote. It says: "This allows you to quote a previous post", but between square brackets. Use that! :-) | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/8/2008 6:31:52 PM |
ust above the top icons, and you will see an example of a quote. It says: "This allows you to quote a previous post", but between square brackets. Use that! :-)
you think I would have seen that....thanks. | |
|
| The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/8/2008 7:44:35 PM | The other trick you can use is the "edit post" function that appears under your name on a post for about 15 minutes after you make a post. That way if you look at what you just wrote and it didn't come out the way you intended, you can just click on "edit post" and make whatever changes you want.
I use that one a lot.
Dave | |
|
| |
|
|
Home
login 
