73
   

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

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 09:59 am
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The 'laws of supply and demand' have no place in them for pollution, Okie. Someone has to care about that, as it's obvious that the problem will not be solved by the companies who profit greatly off of the oil; and who have shown that they will rarely willingly self-limit their emissions and waste products.

Cycloptichorn

I think you are wrong. People have been demanding something be done about pollution, and there has been, in contrast to totalitarian communist countries or closed societies which have been alot more polluted. Fact is, businesses have devised much of the technology to clean things up, and they deserve credit, not blame.

I will agree that the environmental movement has raised awareness, however it is not uncommon for extremes to cause more harm than good. We need sensible controls, which we could have without all the extremes. The tree huggers shut down nuclear 30 years ago, and that turned out to be negative, just one example.

I believe oil companies are ready and willing for reasonable regulation, and always have been, but it needs to be reasonable in an atmosphere of cooperation instead of adversarial.

There are many people in the environmental movements that are simply opposed to free markets and capitalism, period, and therein lies a large problem.


Further ALL peoples who have enjoyed prosperity along with personal freedoms and attention to human rights have demanded clean soil, clean air, clean water, and preservation of living thngs and the natural beauty around them. Such people are the most environmentally conscious in the world.

I think the problem is not more use of our natural resources and increased industrialization to encourage free societies. The more the better if we wish to clean up the planet.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 10:56 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
The 'laws of supply and demand' have no place in them for pollution, Okie. Someone has to care about that, as it's obvious that the problem will not be solved by the companies who profit greatly off of the oil; and who have shown that they will rarely willingly self-limit their emissions and waste products.

Cycloptichorn

You repeatedly rant about the pollution of the environment by carbon based fuels (e.g., coal). What data do you have access to that shows that the actual effects of the current use of carbon based fuels is detrimental to the health of Americans. What epidemics of what ailments have been recently produced? What reductions in American life expectancy have been recently produced?

Absent such data, your rants appear to be more a confession of your hypochondria than they are disclosures of any real danger to the quality of human life.

Currently, the biggest threat to the health of Americans according to the media is over eating and lack of exercise. It is not what is in their food and water, or what is in the air they are breathing.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 10:57 am
Okie - thanks for the explanation on oil leases. I've another question, on glaciers: didn't the so-called "land bridge" over the Bering Strait consist of ice, not land? We know people crossed it long ago, and we also know it melted away long before our mapmakers went into business, let alone any SUV rolled down the assembly line.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 11:00 am
THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

160.
Climate scientist Luc Debontridder of the Belgium Weather Institute's Royal Meteorological Institute (RMI) co-authored a study in August 2007 which dismissed a decisive role of CO2 in global warming. The press release about the study read, "CO2 is not the big bogeyman of climate change and global warming. This is the conclusion of a comprehensive scientific study done by the Royal Meteorological Institute, which will be published this summer. The study does not state that CO2 plays no role in warming the earth." "But it can never play the decisive role that is currently attributed to it," Luc Debontridder said according to the August 2007 release. "Not CO2, but water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas. It is responsible for at least 75 % of the greenhouse effect. This is a simple scientific fact, but Al Gore's movie has hyped CO2 so much that nobody seems to take note of it," Debontridder explained. "Every change in weather conditions is blamed on CO2. But the warm winters of the last few years (in Belgium) are simply due to the 'North-Atlantic Oscillation'. And this has absolutely nothing to do with CO2," he added.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 11:03 am
ican711nm wrote:

Currently, the biggest threat to the health of Americans according to the media is over eating and lack of exercise. It is not what is in their food and water, or what is in the air they are breathing.

Amen, ican, you got that right.

Just go anywhere nowadays and watch all the flabby people. I have done my own informal poll while watching people now and again, and the distinctly overweight or obese is 25 to 30%. And that does not even include the very slightly overweight.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 11:06 am
okie wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

Currently, the biggest threat to the health of Americans according to the media is over eating and lack of exercise. It is not what is in their food and water, or what is in the air they are breathing.

Amen, ican, you got that right.

Just go anywhere nowadays and watch all the flabby people. I have done my own informal poll while watching people now and again, and the distinctly overweight or obese is 25 to 30%. And that does not even include the very slightly overweight.


I'm glad you both agree that it's not terrorism....
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 11:14 am
High Seas wrote:
Okie - thanks for the explanation on oil leases. I've another question, on glaciers: didn't the so-called "land bridge" over the Bering Strait consist of ice, not land? We know people crossed it long ago, and we also know it melted away long before our mapmakers went into business, let alone any SUV rolled down the assembly line.

Probably so, but we know the world looked lots different at various times long before modern industrialization. Most of the United Kingdom was covered with ice at one time, wasn't it?

As far as Indians crossing the land bridge, maybe, but I think they had alot more ability to go places by boat than they are given credit, after all how did they get to islands, etc. I don't credit the land bridge as having been all that necessary or the primary means of migration, but I am not an archeologist either. It seems Asian type peoples came down to the U.S. from the north, while people came from the south from South America also, which did not require any land bridge to get to this continent. Examples, Navajos language and origins are more from Eskimos or Asians, while Pueblo indians are from South America, etc. All of this that I say is with an "I think," as again I am not an archeologist, but I have done some reading on it.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 12:06 pm
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

Currently, the biggest threat to the health of Americans according to the media is over eating and lack of exercise. It is not what is in their food and water, or what is in the air they are breathing.

Amen, ican, you got that right.

Just go anywhere nowadays and watch all the flabby people. I have done my own informal poll while watching people now and again, and the distinctly overweight or obese is 25 to 30%. And that does not even include the very slightly overweight.


I'm glad you both agree that it's not terrorism....

Laughing
Not any more!
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 01:19 pm
The land bridge was land. The Bering Straits are comparatively shallow, around 50 meters deep, and sea level was on the order of 130 meters lower during the last ice age, so Siberia and Alaska were one. That's why they call it a land bridge. It was, probably, extensively glaciated, tho the argument has been made that there were ice-free coastal areas at times and Arctic-adapted hunters rpobably just walked, following herds of animals like caribou. Also Native Americans' DNA is most closely related to native Siberians, which is where they would have been coming from. South America was colonized from North America in its turn, and a very rapid turn it was. They got down to Tierra del Fuego pretty quickly, which is why there are affinities between N. and S. American languages.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 01:36 pm
ican711nm wrote:
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

Currently, the biggest threat to the health of Americans according to the media is over eating and lack of exercise. It is not what is in their food and water, or what is in the air they are breathing.

Amen, ican, you got that right.

Just go anywhere nowadays and watch all the flabby people. I have done my own informal poll while watching people now and again, and the distinctly overweight or obese is 25 to 30%. And that does not even include the very slightly overweight.


I'm glad you both agree that it's not terrorism....

Laughing
Not any more!

Thanks to Bush.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 01:41 pm
Oh, really? He's captured Osama in the last hour or so? After seven years?. I hadn't heard.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 01:42 pm
okie wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

Currently, the biggest threat to the health of Americans according to the media is over eating and lack of exercise. It is not what is in their food and water, or what is in the air they are breathing.

Amen, ican, you got that right.

Just go anywhere nowadays and watch all the flabby people. I have done my own informal poll while watching people now and again, and the distinctly overweight or obese is 25 to 30%. And that does not even include the very slightly overweight.


I'm glad you both agree that it's not terrorism....

Laughing
Not any more!

Thanks to Bush.


You guys mean there has been a time when terrorism killed more Americans than over eating and lack of exercise?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 01:51 pm
Do you have a sense of humor, oe?

You will have to admit there have been no serious terrorist acts here in the U.S. lately.

And just a small point, obesity can be controlled by the individual, but it takes a government to control terrorists, so there is a difference in terms of how each are approached. Its a free country, people can be fat if they choose to, but if so, they should pay for it themselves.

Last point, old age is a sure killer, with a 100% rate, that is if you survive terrorists and obesity, but I am not going to ignore terrorists and concentrate on eliminating old age.
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 01:54 pm
okie wrote:
Do you have a sense of humor, oe?

You will have to admit there have been no serious terrorist acts here in the U.S. lately.

And just a small point, obesity can be controlled by the individual, but it takes a government to control terrorists, so there is a difference in terms of how each are approached. Its a free country, people can be fat if they choose to, but if so, they should pay for it themselves.


So that's a "no" to the above question, right?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 03:20 pm
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
ican711nm wrote:

Currently, the biggest threat to the health of Americans according to the media is over eating and lack of exercise. It is not what is in their food and water, or what is in the air they are breathing.

Amen, ican, you got that right.

Just go anywhere nowadays and watch all the flabby people. I have done my own informal poll while watching people now and again, and the distinctly overweight or obese is 25 to 30%. And that does not even include the very slightly overweight.


I'm glad you both agree that it's not terrorism....

Laughing
Not any more!

Thanks to Bush.


You guys mean there has been a time when terrorism killed more Americans than over eating and lack of exercise?

Of course! That time extended roughly 8 am to 10 am EDT, Tuesday, September 11, 2001.

However, excluding combat, murders, old age, and accidents, it appears from the media that over eating and lack of exercise have been the primary killers of Americans per year since at least 9/11/2001. Pollution has not thus far been shown to be even a measureable killer.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 03:34 pm
Quote:
Ausra, a developer of utility-scale solar thermal power, has opened the first US solar thermal power factory, and the highest capacity plant in the world, in brightly lit Sin City. As if you needed another great reason to visit, right? The factory will produce reflectors, absorber tubes and other components of the company's solar thermal power plants, and will produce upwards of 700 MW of solar electricity generation equipment each year.


http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1856/83/

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 04:14 pm
ican711nm wrote:
Of course! That time extended roughly 8 am to 10 am EDT, Tuesday, September 11, 2001.


And Bush stopped that from happening?

:wink:
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 04:20 pm
old europe wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
Of course! That time extended roughly 8 am to 10 am EDT, Tuesday, September 11, 2001.


And Bush stopped that from happening?

:wink:

Naa! Bill Clinton allowed that to happen!
:wink:
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 04:23 pm
Unfortunately, I don't have a snide comeback to that. I'm just glad that you've won the War On Terror and can now focus on something else.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 04:29 pm
username wrote:
The land bridge was land. The Bering Straits are comparatively shallow, around 50 meters deep, and sea level was on the order of 130 meters lower during the last ice age, so Siberia and Alaska were one. ............


Thank you very much, UserName. With all due deference, how can we account for the fact that the sea level managed to rise 130 meters since then? And if, perchance, no SUVs were involved, why is this Greenland glacier discussion on previous pages of this thread at all relevant? Any info appreciated Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 07/09/2025 at 01:42:28