Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Cycloptichorn wrote:

When you don't have a good argument, resorting to exaggeration and hyperbole alwa.... wait, never works.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Economic damage. That's all that really matters at the end to you guys. That it will cost money for companies to do things in a cleaner fashion, and we can't have that.
Cycloptichorn

QED

foxfire wrote :

Quote:

So preferring unplugging to 'burning up', I presume you guys have pulled the plug on your refrigerators, freezers, kitchen range, furnace, air conditioner, vacuum cleaners, hair dryers, television sets, radios, stereo equipment, and are lighting your homes with candlelight from hand rolled candles made from beeswax melted in a hot spring? You surely have put your automobiles up on blocks, are eating only organically grown vegetables watered with whatever rain that falls and can be consumed raw. You are walking everywhere you go because even a bicycle requires excessive energy to produce. And your community of course tolerates nudity well as clothing also require unacceptable quantities of energy to produce, at least until skills of preparing and lacing together animal hides are redeveloped. I suggest while a few spades and shovels exist, that the people begin digging fresh caves now and learn to use primitive means to start fires before their homes become uninhabitable.

wow , wow , hold your horses , foxfire .
steve spoke of dangers of excessive greenhouse gas emissions.
personally i cannot see any advantage to mankind in ANY KIND OF EXCESS - but perhaps you may want to show us some EXCESSIVE EXCESSES that benefit mankind .
i'm always ready to look at something new .
i don't think i'm a luddite , but simply think that much is to be said for MODERATION in everything - it's just my opinion and likely not shared by everyone .
if you believe that EXCESS is more beneficial to mankind than moderation , i'm here to listen .
hbg


in the meantime ... ... ... >>>

Quote:

presumption
n 1: an assumption that is taken for granted [syn: given, precondition]
2: (law) an inference of the truth of a fact from other facts
proved or admitted or judicially noticed
3: audacious (even arrogant) behavior that you have no right
to; "he despised them for their presumptuousness" [syn: presumptuousness,
effrontery, assumption]
4: a kind of discourtesy in the form of an act of presuming;
"his presumption was intolerable"

Hybrid automobiles do emit less CO2 and actually given high fuel costs, they can reasonably pay for themselves. But why isn't a profit motive an acceptable reason to produce and/or buy these? How effective woud this initiative have been if gasoline was still 50 cents a gallon?

- but gasoline is no longer at 50 cents a gallon ; i remember paying 29 cents an IMPERIAL GALLON - that's the large one ; those days seem to have gone ; i think we have to GO WITH THE FLOW .

- from what i read in automotive magazines , HYBRID GASOLINE/ELECTRIC CARS are no longer being considered the best choice to reduce energy consumption and pollution ; a/t automotive writers clean TURBO-DIESEL - possibly diesel-electric - cars are a much better option ; btw that's the way europe has been going already for some years .
we've already discussed that on some other thread .


Is there no reason to suspect that all of this is just whistling in the wind to make some folks feel like they are actually doing something when there is no evidence that they are actually accomplishing anything?

- from what i've read and seen , plenty is already being accomplished - but i don't see any reason to stop now .
recently an AMERICAN carpet producer (the biggest in the U.S. ? can't remember his name) appeared on a CANADIAN TV program ; he explained how his engineers had dragged him screaming and shouting to adopt GREEN TECHNOLOGIES , and as it turned out , his costs decreased and profits increased ;
he stated that many manufacturers simply don't want to try anything new , even if it is better .
i think the BIG THREE auto manufacturers are a good example what can happen if management suffers from calcification and reisting to move FORWARD - perhaps they have been awakened now .

And how far do we have to rewind to our less modern past in order to comply with existing mandates, let alone actually make a difference?

- i see NO reason to rewind but to go FORWARD !
if we had not gone forward , we'd still be living in caves and eat raw meat - certainly not my choice !
but i believe we have to continue to go forward rather than deciding to stop now .
we'll either have to move forward or we'll drift back , that's my opinion .
has mankind ever benefitted from standing still ?

I don't think these are unreasonable questions to be asking.

- NO !
and iv'e tried to give you my "unscientific" opinions ..
not being a scientist , i can't prove them from my own experiments .

And I don't think it is unreasonable to suggest that our efforts can be better spent helping people adjust to inevitable climate change rather than trying to alter our climate.

- what i am wondering is : how much climate change - increase in temperature - can humans cope with ?
some studies suggest that an increase in the average temperature of about 3 degrees is the maximum that the human body can adjust to .
if that is correct and if the increase would reach more than that - for whatever reason - we might as well stop worrying . no adjustments one way or the other would make any difference - it's goodbye charlie !.

If it isn't for the economic damage, why are you Conservatives against being Conservative on this issue? What's the good reason not to play it safe?

I'm interested in you explaining this in depth.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

If it isn't for the economic damage, why are you Conservatives against being Conservative on this issue? What's the good reason not to play it safe?

I'm interested in you explaining this in depth.

Cycloptichorn

Can I answer? Simple concept really, when you place artificial constraints on a product, you skew the free market, which is the most efficient. Requiring us to buy certain kinds of light bulbs for example, that may not be the most cost effective, is akin to breaking windows so that you can stimulate the glass industry. Your vision of all kinds of jobs in the environmental industry is not efficient, and may actually end up producing more pollution. You do create jobs, but to what end? Wasted work is a waste, plain and simple.

Requiring us to buy certain kinds of light bulbs for example, that may not be the most cost effective

How much will I save by using CFLs?

An average Canadian home has 30 light fixtures, indoors and out, that consume close to $200 of electricity every year. Replacing just five bulbs with ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs in high-use areas can save up to $30 a year, depending on location and amount of time used. That means you'll pay off the added cost of the bulbs in less than two years, and they last for at least five. Better still, you won't have to change them as often!

Unplug the sun, icann, or we are all going to burn up.

okie wrote :

Quote:

Requiring us to buy certain kinds of light bulbs for example, that may not be the most cost effective

have you asked an electrical engineer to explain the cost-effectiveness of CFL's ?

we have switched most of our bulbs to CFL's - except the oven bulb and outdoor heat-activated halogen bulbs .
not only uses less energy but last a lot longer and i don't have to climb on the stepladder very often to change bulbs any more .
btw some of our "circlite" fluorescent bulbs have been in use for "15" years !

from a very long article on bulbs (see link) :

Quote:

How much will I save by using CFLs?

An average Canadian home has 30 light fixtures, indoors and out, that consume close to $200 of electricity every year. Replacing just five bulbs with ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs in high-use areas can save up to $30 a year, depending on location and amount of time used. That means you'll pay off the added cost of the bulbs in less than two years, and they last for at least five. Better still, you won't have to change them as often!

in today's paper cfl's are offered at $5.97 for three - and there is often an additional rebate by G.E.





source :
ENERGY EFFICIENT CFL's

Perhaps a car is a better example. You cannot simply look at the gas mileage of a car to determine if it is the most energy efficient model. You must also consider that the price of the car includes varying amounts of raw materials, which took energy to mine or produce. The plant that produces the car may take more or less energy to have built and operate than for other cars. The components of various cars are different, and for hybrid cars, batteries are required which also require energy to extract the materials and to build them, and some components may become in short supply if used in much larger quantities. The labor force uses energy as part of getting to work. Another factor is the life expectancy of the vehicle, so if a less economical vehicle lasts twice as long, you only have to make half as many, which obviously requires less energy. The point of all of this is the fact that energy is an important component of every facet of manufacturing vehicles, which all feed into the cost of the vehicle in some way, along with other factors.

okie wrote :

Quote:

Perhaps a car is a better example. You cannot simply look at the gas mileage of a car to determine if it is the most energy efficient model. You must also consider that the price of the car includes varying amounts of raw materials, which took energy to mine or produce. The plant that produces the car may take more or less energy to have built and operate than for other cars. The components of various cars are different, and for hybrid cars, batteries are required which also require energy to extract the materials and to build them, and some components may become in short supply if used in much larger quantities. The labor force uses energy as part of getting to work. Another factor is the life expectancy of the vehicle, so if a less economical vehicle lasts twice as long, you only have to make half as many, which obviously requires less energy. The point of all of this is the fact that energy is an important component of every facet of manufacturing vehicles, which all feed into the cost of the vehicle in some way, along with other factors.

i sure admire you for making all the necessary calculations BEFORE making a car purchase !
we should all be doing that before making any purchases !
hbg

okie wrote :

Quote:

Perhaps a car is a better example. You cannot simply look at the gas mileage of a car to determine if it is the most energy efficient model. You must also consider that the price of the car includes varying amounts of raw materials, which took energy to mine or produce. The plant that produces the car may take more or less energy to have built and operate than for other cars. The components of various cars are different, and for hybrid cars, batteries are required which also require energy to extract the materials and to build them, and some components may become in short supply if used in much larger quantities. The labor force uses energy as part of getting to work. Another factor is the life expectancy of the vehicle, so if a less economical vehicle lasts twice as long, you only have to make half as many, which obviously requires less energy. The point of all of this is the fact that energy is an important component of every facet of manufacturing vehicles, which all feed into the cost of the vehicle in some way, along with other factors.

i sure admire you for making all the necessary calculations BEFORE making a car purchase !
we should all be doing that before making any purchases !
hbg

I am tired of the nazi like tree huggers out there.

Get Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs at Wal-Mart

Here's a simple way to save money, save energy and save the environment: Change a light bulb. By replacing one 60-watt incandescent light bulb with an equivalent 13-watt Compact Fluorescent light bulb, you can make a big difference.

okie wrote :

Quote:

I am tired of the nazi like tree huggers out there.

here is a message from one of those "nazis" :wink:

Quote:

Get Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs at Wal-Mart

Here's a simple way to save money, save energy and save the environment: Change a light bulb. By replacing one 60-watt incandescent light bulb with an equivalent 13-watt Compact Fluorescent light bulb, you can make a big difference.

I am absolutely certain the florescent bulbs do not put out the same level of light that the incandescent bulbs do.

Foxfyre wrote:

I am absolutely certain the florescent bulbs do not put out the same level of light that the incandescent bulbs do.

You get those bulbs from 2300 K to 7000 k - no difference to traditional bulbs at all.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I am absolutely certain the florescent bulbs do not put out the same level of light that the incandescent bulbs do.

You get those bulbs from 2300 K to 7000 k - no difference to traditional bulbs at all.

I can put incandescent bulbs into the ceiling light assembly in my office and need no supplement light to work. I replaced with the largest fluorescent bulbs the assembly can take and I do need supplement light to work. You can tell me that there is no difference til the cows come home, but I'm telling you, the fluorescent lights are not as efficient as the incandescent bulbs in that fan/light assembly.