Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Interesting article about the "godfather of global warming"      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 SSC-SAF
Joined: 5/20/2012
Msg: 1
Interesting article about the "godfather of global warming"Page 1 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/22/green-drivel

I used to work with a number of brilliant scientists and meteorological experts, half of whom believed passionately in man-made global warming and half of whom did not. If those folks, who made it their business to research and educate others on weather and climate, could not agree, I felt that the jury was still out (although I lean towards it being a natural cycle). JMO
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/24/2012 12:43:06 PM
I've heard a lot of pro and con on the theory of global warming. Many say the burning of fossil fuels and the by products released are what cause the alleged warming of our planet.

I've heard that carbon dioxide emissions trap the HEAT in our atmosphere. I'm not a scientist but I guess this could be true. If indeed the planet is warming could it be because of the HEAT we're producing? Maybe even moreso than the gases produced?

Think about it... Every car, home heating system, electrical generating facility, other than hydro produces HEAT.Most everything humanity does that makes us modern involves the generation of HEAT in their functions. And of course generates insulating carbon .

We're producing HEAT on a massive worldwide scale. And, also producing a substance that insulates our atmosphere preventing the escape of the HEAT. Does OUR production of HEAT cause our planet to get warmer? Or, is our planet even getting warmer? Judging by our last Ohio winter I'd say so...
 pfif
Joined: 6/11/2012
Msg: 3
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/24/2012 2:04:18 PM
Why do people bait on this subject?

People are often oriented to winning at any cost. The first casualty of war is the truth. And this is a political war.
 SSC-SAF
Joined: 5/20/2012
Msg: 4
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/24/2012 3:04:28 PM
Bait?

Did you read the article in the link, or are you making assumptions?
 want to travel
Joined: 7/29/2006
Msg: 5
view profile
History
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/24/2012 3:48:52 PM
I agree
this is not to do with any kind of politics, and I really wish politics would just leave the subject alone
Global warming is real, it is in no way 'natural', the climate is changing in a very dramatic way
just over a decade ago, the northwest passage was frozen, throughout most of the year, now it is never frozen
de salinization of the oceans is real too, it is estimated by 2050, 80% of all ocean life will vanish

I love to dive, and I can see that coral is dying off, some of which is centuries old
this is a very real global problem, that involves everyone, from wall street to main street
profits should, and can not come first
 CoolBreezez
Joined: 8/20/2006
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/24/2012 6:43:06 PM
That's an interesting article. James Lovelock appears not to be dismissing global warming, but he is modifying his views of what might result. I think he reaches for the voice of reason. A good scientist learns to modify his views and theories when the evidence doesn't fit.

He rightly criticizes the extremists on both sides- the global warming denialist and the religious environmentalist, which both refuse to accept new information. The world is warming up- its hard to refute that when you see the ice on mountain tops and the poles disappearing. The mechanism appears to be the CO2 we put into the air- but could be part of the climate cycle too. But the trouble is - trying to predict the future. How strongly will the effect last how big will it be and what will the fall out be. I don't think anyone that's honest can predict with any certainty.

And there are some things we could do to improve the situation. The two biggest ones at our disposal - Natural gas from Fracking and nuclear power, cause the environmentalists extreme fits. Much of the screaming about fracking is overhyped and unsubstantiated. Some problems are due to lack of oversight too , which can be fixed. Natural gas could supply energy for the next hundred years with a greatly reduced CO2 output.

No energy source is without environmental impact, but inertia is caused by fighting over every new development, rather than accept things won't be perfect and dealing with those problems. Reasonable compromises can be worked out and balanced approaches taken.

For now at least, it looks like the world wont end tomorrow but it will change - that's guaranteed. James Lovelock has shown he can be a good scientist, not a preacher or oracle- thats an honourable person.
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 7
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/25/2012 9:37:28 AM
The pedantic fiction known popularly as 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' (since re-named to become known as 'Climate Change') has been proven to be a lie and a fraud - as well as a provable misuse of the scientific method - from its inception. It still has as a 'leading proponent' one Dr James Hansen, unfortunately of NASA. He is still spouting the lie about 'global warming' even in the face of the IPCC emails proving that there was a conspiracy to both ignore and alter the data points against ( or, in this case, for ) the mendacious conceit they wanted to promulgate upon the world for their private gain. Look, they already have the 'carbon trades' and 'carbon offsets' in place that benefit the few (that would be 'them') at the expense of the many (that would be 'us'). We pay for their lies and lifestyles while they ignore the size of the 'carbon footprint' their corporate jets, cars, and homes leave on 'Holy Mutha the Urf'. The 'global warming' crowd is strictly a command-and-control group ... their 'concern for the environment' consists of them saying 'jump' and us asking 'how high?'. It's a 'Do-as-I-say, not-as-I-do' lifestyle and mindset. They would have everyone save themselves back in the days of pre-Industrial Age living and wearing hairshirts so long as they have minions who will toil to make life a pleasant experience for them as they drive the nation's highways in their Vulvos with their Birkenstock-shod foot pressing the pedal to the floor ... James Lovelock is truly the exception to the rule - I can only hope others will attempt to be as honorable as he.

The SUN is the cause of 'global warming'. If we didn't have it, none of this would be taking place.

Carbon dioxide is a good thing. It makes plants grow. It's not a 'greenhouse gas'. Water vapor, tho', is. Those of us who deny 'anthropogenic global warming' are not unwilling to accept 'new information' ... we are unwilling to believe doctored information presented as science-based and honest when exactly the opposite is proven to be the case. 'Open-minded' is not equivalent to 'stupid' and 'gullible'.

As for those who want to 'limit carbon dioxide emissions', here's a solution: Don't ever exhale again ...
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 8
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/27/2012 6:46:30 AM
@ Nr 10 ...


" ... I think its ridiculous to blame "both sides", ... "


There's no need to blame " ... both sides ... " since only the side proclaiming the 'truth' of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming' knowingly lied about the data they manipulated in order to make their 'facts' fit their 'science'. Those of us who called 'Bullshit' early and often and denied their provably false 'claims' are now proven correct. Any and all blame is justifiably placed on the 'AGW / Climate Change' alarmists who started the lie.

The entire 'AGW / Climate Change' model is now almost completely flushed down the crapper. Want proof? Search for 'results' of the just-ended 'Rio + 20 Conference'. Its only 'accomplishment' was to provide an opportunity for a few minor 'political leaders' to stay at a luxurious resort while they preached austerity for others. 'Rio + 20's opening - and closure - didn't appear in the NYT or WaPo because 'news' about more important things, like sex trials, were considered more newsworthy. No 'news' about Western governments making huge redistributionist payments to Third World nations as a 'mea culpa'. Bono was nowhere in sight. The millions who were initially deceived because of the panic created by the 'AGW / Climate Change' crowd have finally figured out (thanks to everyone who helped disprove it) that climate alarmists are primarily deceitful, self-interested liars. It's over.

The 'AGW / Climate Change' crowd can forget making their anti-fossil fuel agenda the law - it's not going anywhere. With luck and persistence, 'Rio + 20' will be the death knell for 'AGW / Climate Change' alarmism as it rots in the landfill of history.
 Arata_na_Yoake
Joined: 1/25/2012
Msg: 9
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/27/2012 8:22:37 AM
The more correct term is climate change. As for it being man made? The answer is...sort of. Yes, it happens in cycles and naturally so. The problem is that we've been increasing the extremes. Natural disasters like eruptions, wildfires, and etc. wreak havoc on the environment. However, it was built to accommodate them. The problem is we're releasing as much pollution as an eruption while also eliminating the natural buffers (cutting down rainforests, and developing on flood plains).
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 10
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/27/2012 3:18:52 PM

I felt that the jury was still out (although I lean towards it being a natural cycle).

It is without a doubt a natural cycle, but to discount humans role in the cycle is a failure to understand the cycle and nature itself.

All living things play a role in the climate and humans have made a significant impact on it.


That said, regardless what we do or do not do, it will not change the fact that at sometime humans will no longer exist on Earth, though it should not be used as an excuse to pollute for the purpose of profit.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/27/2012 4:43:24 PM

As for it being man made? The answer is...sort of.


Sort of? That sounds like waffling, rather than an answer.


The problem is that we've been increasing the extremes.


Really? How can you know that? The amount of energy involved in impacts of large extraterrestrial objects, or changes in the earth's orbit, or movements within the earth, or large-scale vulcanism, or the gravitational effect of the moon is so vast that it dwarfs anything man does. The Pleistocene glaciations resulted in very extreme changes in the earth's climate, and man's role in them was negligible.


However, it was built to accommodate them.


What does that mean? You make the earth sound like a ship that was built to be seaworthy, but whose foolish crew is now pushing beyond even its robust capabilities. What evidence is there that someone or something built the earth to accommodate disruptions like those, or, for that matter, for any other purpose? The earth just happens to have survived for 4.6 billion years--not because of the way it was "built."

There's good evidence Mars has not accommodated the disruptions it's experienced, or at least not very well. It seems to have lost its atmosphere and its liquid water, and to very nearly have broke in two at some point. And facts like the existence of the Moon, the odd inclination of a couple of the outer planets, and the presence of an asteroid belt suggest some planets or planet-like bodies didn't survive at all. None of that had anything to do with people.


<div class="quote"> to discount humans role in the cycle is a failure to understand the cycle and nature itself . . . All living things play a role in the climate and humans have made a significant impact on it.

I wonder how you know how significant the effect of people on the climate cycle is. Are you a scientist?
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 12
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/27/2012 5:02:00 PM

I wonder how you know how significant the effect of people on the climate cycle is...

I wonder where you got the idea that I said I could quantify it.

I said it is a significant impact and a basic understand of the cycles in nature and how man has affected those is proof of mans impact on the climate.

If you have evidence to the contrary that show humans have no or little to no affect on the climate please feel free to post it.




Are you a scientist?

Why, do you need the services of a scientist to help you understand how the climate works and what the main drivers are, and how all living things play a part in that?
 CoolBreezez
Joined: 8/20/2006
Msg: 13
view profile
History
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/27/2012 6:12:23 PM
I think Lovelocks message in article link the OP quoting is that we don't know with much certainty what is going to happen. He also still believes in global warming but finding practical solutions to reduce carbon emissions. He still supports the use of nuclear and using the vast quantities of shale gas for power generation. And his vision may already be coming true.

In the last year, natural gas, flooding onto the market, partly from fracking is becoming the new choice of fuels for electricity generators. Its cleaner and more efficient, resulting in lower emissions. The US is getting "greener" due to- fracking! And getting lots of cheap energy too. Go figure.

Take a look at the article from Forbes.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/05/30/shale-gas-takes-on-coal-to-power-americas-electrical-plants/
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 14
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/27/2012 6:21:32 PM

In the last year, natural gas, flooding onto the market, partly from fracking is becoming the new choice of fuels for electricity generators. Its cleaner and more efficient, resulting in lower emissions. The US is getting "greener" due to- fracking! And lots of cheap energy too. Go figure.

Using a few million gallons of water to frack a well which may be fracked up to 18 times and along with all the toxic chemicals added to the water is not "greener".

And thanks to people like Bush & Cheney, companies are exempted from complying with the the Safe Drinking Water Act, when they frack.

It exempts companies from disclosing the chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing. Essentially, the provision took the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) off the job.

This is know as the Halliburton Loophole.
 CoolBreezez
Joined: 8/20/2006
Msg: 15
view profile
History
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/27/2012 7:21:24 PM

Using a few million gallons of water to frack a well which may be fracked up to 18 times and along with all the toxic chemicals added to the water is not "greener".


Note that I used the term "greener" not explicitly "green". All industrial sources of energy have their draw backs. In my area, people are up in arms over windmills right now.

But if you put it beside coal, I still think it looks a lot cleaner in several ways. From mining it to all the leftover ash and mercury and sulphur to the larger amounts of Co2 produced it definitely has more issues.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_effects_of_coal
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 16
view profile
History
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/27/2012 7:31:27 PM
AA, I tried to look up what chemical are used in the fracking operation. Could'nt find them. Said it was a trade secret, or something to that effect.

Meanwhile, I've heard of people in W. Virginia who can ignite the water coming from their taps. The gas is getting into their groundwater. Probably the "top secret" chemicals used in the fracking process too. Also, this process is said to be a possible cause of earthquakes. Not proven, but in highly fracked areas I've heard it happening.

I realize we need the energy,but why not be more open about the process and disclose the chemicals? . Research and regulate the process. What they're doing now could have future consequences that we may not realize until it's too late.
 Kings_Knight
Joined: 1/20/2009
Msg: 17
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/27/2012 8:31:22 PM
@ Nr 19 ...


" ... Meanwhile, I've heard of people in W. Virginia who can ignite the water coming from their taps. ... "


Seriously ... ? What a load ... first, this is hearsay; second, it's anecdotal; third, it's BS. If this had any basis in fact, every one of the Obama State-Controlled Media outlets (i.e., ABC, CBS, NBC, CNBC, NPR, PBS, and MSLSD) would have this on the news every day non-stop until we gagged whenever the news came on. Is that happening? No. The other things you mention are pretty much at the same level of unbelieveable dis- and misinformation. "The gas is getting into their groundwater." Oh please. Where's the PROOF? "Top secret chemicals" ... ? I suspect too much Steve Quayle or Alex Jones. "I've heard it happening." Again: Hearsay and anecdote. The 'fracking causes earthquakes' lie has already been DISPROVEN several times. Where's your PROOF of it causing earthqukes? You couldn't find the chemicals used in fracking? Could be because it's proprietary information. You could read the Materials Safety Data Sheet (the MSDS) and still not know the chemical makeup of the product. That's only in the Materials Characteristic Data Sheet (the MCDS), and those aren't made available to the public. It's much more exciting and conspiratorial, tho', to play up the fact that the information is being 'suppressed' rather than given away to the 'torches 'n pitchforks' crowd by the supposed 'offenders'. These non-factual speculations are in the same league with 'space aliens', the 'chupacabra', 'Sasquatch', and the Josef Goebbels' 'Big Lie' school of public information.

This technique is taken directly from the 'Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change' Big Book Of Secrets - make outrageous and unprovable claims designed to create panic and then just sit back and watch people do your work for you. Sorry, cap, but we're onto the game you types like to play. Ain't gonna work. Call George Noory. Maybe he needs more idle speculation and fresh 'red meat' for the 'True Believer' crowd. Where is 'UFO Phil' when we need him ... ?
 HayYager
Joined: 6/8/2012
Msg: 18
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/27/2012 8:52:04 PM
Another Global Warming Thread. I don't even have to read it to know how it is going. Man is to small to undo something God has created. Those who don't believe that have posted the proof of their belief over and over and over again in hundreds of other threads, so they don't even bother to respond to this one knowing it would be pointless. Someone eventually post a little snippet of truth and proof and the deniers cover their ears, close their eyes and sing lalalalalalalala until the the person with the proof goes away.

And then the deniers sit back once again comforted by the knowledge that it doesn't really matter what happens here on Earth because eventually the promised Rapture will come.
 Blalah
Joined: 3/25/2012
Msg: 19
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/27/2012 8:58:20 PM
Yes that posted proof is so utterly undeniable.

Or, is our planet even getting warmer? Judging by our last Ohio winter I'd say so...
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 20
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/27/2012 10:09:51 PM

Meanwhile, I've heard of people in W. Virginia who can ignite the water coming from their taps. The gas is getting into their groundwater. Probably the "top secret" chemicals used in the fracking process too.




And thanks to people like Bush & Cheney, companies are exempted from complying with the the Safe Drinking Water Act, when they frack.

It exempts companies from disclosing the chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing. Essentially, the provision took the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) off the job.



I am originally from & still have rental property in what you call moron racist-a$$ West Virginia. My property lies within part of the most gas-rich area of the Marcellus Shale Deposits, & is being fracked as we speak. There are no less than 4 gas wells in the immediate area surrounding my property. Each well head is part of a land tract that consists of somewhere between 500-1000 sq. acres. Nearly every acre in the county is being fracked, those acres not yet fracked are under contract & will start soon.

I have well water on the property, along with all the other homes in that area. Before any fracking takes place, the gas company contracts an independent company which performs a $500 comprehensive well water test that consists of about 15 or so pages of virtualy every possible chemical, element, & carcinogen that is present in my well. Everything in the test is within all set limits. If anything changes, I contact EPA & DNR who demand a new test & compare results. So far, so good.

There is also a large creek on my property that starts in Pennsylvania & drains into the Ohio River. Despite full-bore fracking of the entire length of the creek area, everything is still crystal clear, with fish swimming. So far, so good.

Fracking takes place around 4000-7000 feet below the surface in the Marcellus Shale layer of the earth's crust. Well water in that area is anywhere between 20-500 ft below the surface. My well is tapped at 37 ft.

Frack solution is trucked to the well head in hundreds of tanker trucks. It is a mixture of a few things...mostly water, sand & a phosphate-based emulsifier, not much different chemically than laundry detergent. The reason for that is that when the frack solution is pressure-pumped into the drilled vein, the "detergent" solution soaks into the porous shale much more easily, thus easily "pressure cracking" the layer & releasing the trapped gas. The pressurized released gas then pushes the frack solution BACK to the surface through the very same drilled vein via the well head, where it is re-collected in the same tanker trucks that delivered it. The pressurized gas is BEHIND the frack solution, so most all the solution is pushed back out of the well head by the pressurized gas behind it. Once the solution is expelled & collected, the gas flows freely.

Each well tract of land has perhaps 100 homes on it, with 100 water wells. Multiply that by hundreds of gas wells, & we are talking thousands of water wells. A FEW wells experienced naturally occuring methane buildup in the empty space in their underground water wells, not generally due to fracking, but caused by the initial drilling of the vein within the first several-hundred feet of drilling, where this methane is usually found. When that layer was disturbed with the initial drill, the disturbed methane pocket seeped into the nearby water well cavity.

It wasnt natural gas - simply unstable natural methane pockets in & around the well that were released by local drilling through that shallow layer. A rare occurance. Gas companies are aware of this now, & install methane monitors & release valves in the very very few wells in trouble areas. A FEW wells were also contaminated early on.. Techniques have been modified, & problem solved it seems.

When fracking first started there, most cities, schools, parks, etc banned drilling or fracking on their properties, due to propaganda-based scare tactics. Once the truth was told, most drilling restrictions were lifted one-by-one. Colleges, high schools, hospitals, even county parks in the greater area around my property in WV are being drilled on now, with no complaints. EPA & DNR reps monitor each drill site.
 Cobra977horsepower
Joined: 4/16/2012
Msg: 21
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/27/2012 10:34:50 PM
The sky is falling!!...the sky is falling!!
Those "Climate Change" advocates are full of BS.
In 1975, the scientists were warning everyone that we were headed for the next ice age. Less than 30 years later, the crooked politicians have the scientists convinced that now we're gonna burn up.
Short of an all out global sized nuclear war, mankind and his so-called pollution is'nt going to even put a scratch in the health of the planet.
Every time a volcano erupts, it spews thousands more times the toxic ash and emissions into the air than all the factories and cars in the world combined.
 Neopoli
Joined: 3/1/2011
Msg: 22
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/28/2012 8:40:09 AM

You couldn't find the chemicals used in fracking? Could be because it's proprietary information. You could read the Materials Safety Data Sheet (the MSDS) and still not know the chemical makeup of the product. That's only in the Materials Characteristic Data Sheet (the MCDS), and those aren't made available to the public.


True. The fracking solution is a trade secret, developed by research & development depts. of the energy companies, funded entirely by them. They spent the $$$ developing & perfecting it, & rightfully can keep it from the competition.

Its not much different than Big Mac Secret Sauce, or KFC secret recipe. Those are trade secrets, but we can figure out what main ingredients/thingees are thrown in. Yet we juuuust cant seem to be able to duplicate it exactly.

Other competing energy companies have generally figured out what makes up that c o c k t a i l(at their own expense). In the area of what some of you here call moron racist-a$$ed West Virginia where I came from, its general common knowlege among residents & property owners, including me . We know that 90+% of it is water & a detergent-like phosphate/alkali emulsifier compound that reacts with the shale layer.

The main basic chemical there is present in your laundry detergent & carbonated soft drinks, just to name a few. Whenever you squirt SHOUT! on a stain, you are doing much the same as fracking. They are sort of SHOUT!-ing out the gas underground with a mostly retrievable & recyclable diluted water-soluble mixture of that basic ingredient.

All chemicals, etc used in the solution are on file with EPA & DNR as stated above. These are standard run-of-the-mill MSDS-listed chemicals, & most are presently being used in multitudes of commercial, institutional & household applications on a smaller scale. Obviously there is nothing in there that is dangerous or poisonous, or it would not have been approved for use.
 Arata_na_Yoake
Joined: 1/25/2012
Msg: 23
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/28/2012 4:04:44 PM
Sort of? That sounds like waffling, rather than an answer.

Here's the thing about science, we're ALWAYS learning more. Things aren't always black and white - one cause does not always equal one result, and vice versa.


Really? How can you know that? The amount of energy involved in impacts of large extraterrestrial objects, or changes in the earth's orbit, or movements within the earth, or large-scale vulcanism, or the gravitational effect of the moon is so vast that it dwarfs anything man does. The Pleistocene glaciations resulted in very extreme changes in the earth's climate, and man's role in them was negligible.

I majored in Environmental Engineering, I've worked for 3-4 years in water resources and with numerous people who have far far more experience than me. My University Professors hold Ph. Ds and have published many scientific articles. All of this has pointed to mankind worsening climate change conditions. Remember, I said we weren't responsible for it - just that we've contributed to worsening the highs/lows.


What does that mean? You make the earth sound like a ship that was built to be seaworthy, but whose foolish crew is now pushing beyond even its robust capabilities. What evidence is there that someone or something built the earth to accommodate disruptions like those, or, for that matter, for any other purpose? The earth just happens to have survived for 4.6 billion years--not because of the way it was "built."

There's good evidence Mars has not accommodated the disruptions it's experienced, or at least not very well. It seems to have lost its atmosphere and its liquid water, and to very nearly have broke in two at some point. And facts like the existence of the Moon, the odd inclination of a couple of the outer planets, and the presence of an asteroid belt suggest some planets or planet-like bodies didn't survive at all. None of that had anything to do with people.

The Earth is built to accommodate climate change in the sense that anything that hasn't evolved to survive, dies. Planets are old, we are not. In a million years, Mars could be flourishing with life for all we know. Forests grew long before mankind inhabited this world, given that they act as a natural filter/absorbent of CO2, how can you deny the fact that we've reduced their numbers have not had an effect? If I remove a roof shingle from a roof, do you think it'll be as efficient when it rains? How about if I remove 10?


I wonder how you know how significant the effect of people on the climate cycle is. Are you a scientist?

I'm an Environmental Engineer and I agree with him. As do my coworkers and Professors who have far far more experience in the field.


True. The fracking solution is a trade secret, developed by research & development depts. of the energy companies, funded entirely by them. They spent the $$$ developing & perfecting it, & rightfully can keep it from the competition.

There's a difference between releasing the ingredient information and releasing the quantities of the ingredient information. The former is necessary for safety/regulation (see drugs and pharmaceuticals), whereas the other is something they're entitled to hold secret. If Mercury made your sausage taste better, do you think it's something that the company deserves to hold secret? No, because you'd be poisoned. Mind you, that was a rather extreme exaggerated example.
 SSC-SAF
Joined: 5/20/2012
Msg: 24
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/28/2012 6:41:46 PM

Meanwhile, I've heard of people in W. Virginia who can ignite the water coming from their taps. The gas is getting into their groundwater.

Perhaps you don't realize that methane seeps , as well as petroleum seeps, occur naturally. That is how the world's first oil well was developed - Edwin Drake decided to drill on Oil Creek where the Native Americans had been using the natural seeps for hundreds of years..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_Well

Without being anywhere near any kind of well for hundreds of miles, you could have enough naturally occurring methane in tap water to ignite it.
 Doremi_Fasolatido
Joined: 2/14/2009
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Interesting article about the godfather of global warming
Posted: 6/28/2012 7:12:42 PM
SSC, yes I understand that methane seeps. And, don't get me wrong about my views on fracking.... First, as I said in a previous post we need the energy. Fracking seems to be a less destructive method of energy extraction than mining coal. And, the burning of natgas gives off less pollutants and is more energy rich than a similar amount of coal.

However, the fracking process is still a fairly new one. I'm simply saying find out what the future ramifications of this process are. Be more upfront about the chemicals used. And, control the processes used in fracking to ensure a minimal environmental impact. Hey, fracking could be the answer to our energy problems. Or, it could create a whole new set of them.... As this article states, do the due diligence. http://www.nicholas.duke.edu/dukenvironment/f11/in-the-midst-of-a-fracking-firestorm
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Interesting article about the "godfather of global warming"