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

real life wrote:

I think we can sort out the wheat from the chaff really quickly here.

I doubt it.

Quote:

I would love to hear from some of the true believers in the concept of global warming.

What I want to know is, if you truly believe what you say:

Do you heat/cool your home using fossil fuels? (This would include electricity gained by burning coal, etc)

Yes, to an extent. I have a couple of solar panels (see below) and I get most of my energy from the city.

Here in Austin we have the Greenchoice energy purchase program which allows citizens and businesses to direct their funds to renewable energy sources, in particular, wind farms in West Texas. While technically the energy I use to heat and cool my household comes from the same grid as everyone else's, 100% of the money that I pay goes to the renewable wind farms in west Texas. I pay a higher rate for electricity for this.

Quote:

Do you use public transportation or a bike to commute to work?

Bike; I put over 2k miles on my bike last year. And lost twenty pounds in the process.

Quote:

How many miles do you put on your car annually?

Zero. I sold my car. Waste of money and I don't agree with polluting every time I need to go someplace. People tell me that you have to have a car to get by; it seems to me that humans existed for several hundred thousand years without one, so why is it so neccessary now? I don't buy it.

If I had the money to buy a very-efficient hybrid, or electric car, I would.

Quote:

How many miles per gallon does your car get?

Zero; but my bicycle gets about 30 or 40 miles on 3 Clif Bars, which is about the same price as a gallon of gas.

Quote:

Do you use any other gas driven machinery (lawn mower, weed trimmer, motorboat, etc) ?

Only public transportation, Greyhound Bus, Aeroplanes, and I do believe my weed whacker runs off of gasoline.

Quote:

Do you attend events at night (concerts, movies, sports events, etc ) or shop during the evening which necessitates extra electricity usage and therefore may cause more fossil fuels being burned?

Sometimes.

Quote:

How many electric or gas appliances have you disposed of to cut back on your use of energy? What were they?

Shrug. I just keep the lights off and the AC off when I'm not around. My electric bill is quite low.

Quote:

What alternate power source are you using for your home's needs and what % of the power used at your home is from this alternate method?

I have two solar panels that provide about 10-15% of my monthly bill. They should, at current rate, pay themselves off in about 4 years. I have a solar stove which I bought last year that works great on sunny days.

Quote:

Are you just talking the talk, or are you walking the walk?

What do you think?

What have you done?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Okie,

Believing in Climate Change isn't a political agenda. Being a proponent of caution when it comes to pumping chemicals and substances into our environment which may be inimical to life isn't a political position.

Regardless of climate change; regardless of the temperature of Mars; regardless of any of that, it still remains a good and morally valid position to attempt to reduce emissions and pollutants into our environment. There is no doubt whatsoever that substances such as mercury and lead are harmful to release into the environment, yet the Bush admin rolled back regulations on both of those. There is no doubt that gasolines and oil products are harmful to plants and animals when not handled correctly.

For a long time, we have not considered the environmental costs of doing business here in America. There are ways of fixing our pollution problems, but they are fought constantly by folks who scream 'there is no proof of global warming!' and then began to whine about how expensive it will be for companies to be held responsible for cleaning up the messes they make in the course of business.

Here's an idea that would work immediately: mandate that chemical and production plants draw their water downstream from where they release their waste. Self-policing would solve the problem immediately.

Do you agree that pollution, and the effects of said pollution, are a giant problem regardless of your opinion of Climate Change and overall Global Warming?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Okie,

Believing in Climate Change isn't a political agenda. Being a proponent of caution when it comes to pumping chemicals and substances into our environment which may be inimical to life isn't a political position.

I disagree. I think the political component of believing in climate change is huge. I believe the modern home of the socialist-communist movement is the environmental movement. I am not accusing you or some others, but I believe the political idealogues of those stripes are using the environmental movement to further their cause. It is ironic that communist countries are some of the most polluted countries in the world.

Quote:

Regardless of climate change; regardless of the temperature of Mars; regardless of any of that, it still remains a good and morally valid position to attempt to reduce emissions and pollutants into our environment. There is no doubt whatsoever that substances such as mercury and lead are harmful to release into the environment, yet the Bush admin rolled back regulations on both of those. There is no doubt that gasolines and oil products are harmful to plants and animals when not handled correctly.

I agree that we should minimize pollutants. As an example, I am not in favor of mass produced beef and chicken that are pumped full of antibiotics, growth hormones, etc. There are some pollutants that are not as threatening, and I think we need to take a moderate approach in terms of cost and benefit. One man's pollutant might be another's mineral supplement. Common sense needs to be employed. For example, it might make sense to spend a dollar to remove 99% of something but may not make sense to spend $1,000 to remove 100% of something. I think the market can be used effectively by an informed public by requiring the suppliers of products to disclose what their products contain and how they are produced, such as in food that we buy.

Quote:

For a long time, we have not considered the environmental costs of doing business here in America. There are ways of fixing our pollution problems, but they are fought constantly by folks who scream 'there is no proof of global warming!' and then began to whine about how expensive it will be for companies to be held responsible for cleaning up the messes they make in the course of business.

I am far from convinced that the earth is as fragile as some believe. I do not believe it is logical to employ draconian measures to achieve minimal effects in the industries that provide us the standard of living that we have. For example, I do not subscribe to the belief that the internal combustion engine is a serious threat to mankind. To put some of this in perspective, you need to realize the massive amounts of so-called pollutants emitted into the atmosphere by a single volcanic eruption.

Quote:

Here's an idea that would work immediately: mandate that chemical and production plants draw their water downstream from where they release their waste. Self-policing would solve the problem immediately.

Sounds good, but is it practical in the locations in which the plants are located?

Quote:

Do you agree that pollution, and the effects of said pollution, are a giant problem regardless of your opinion of Climate Change and overall Global Warming?

Cycloptichorn

No, I don't think the problem is as giant as some want us to believe and I do not think it is causing any kind of catastrophic climate change. Apart from the climate change issue, pollution is not a huge problem. We are living as long or longer now than ever. We have reduced some pollutants, and in a free enterprise system, we will continue to discover ways of minimizing pollution. And the most serious pollutants applied to people are done to themselves by themselves, such as cigarettes, alcohol, overeating, and no exercise. Far more harm is being done to people by their own lifestyles instead of pollutants.

I believe intelligent man is part of the ecosystem, and being intelligent brings about inventions and industry with all of its effects, which are also part of the ecosystem. I do not believe we could destroy the earth before we destroyed ourselves, and the earth would recover without us.

P.S. I commend you for practicing what you preach in terms of living frugally without waste, which brings about less effects on the environment, but you are still part of the industrialized system.

0 Replies

Quote:

Scientists fear new attempts to undermine climate action

David Adam, environment correspondent
Friday April 21, 2006
The Guardian

Britain's scientists are drawing up a plan to fight renewed attempts by sceptics and industry-funded lobby groups to derail international action on climate change.
According to a confidential internal memo, the Royal Society expects "groups and individuals" to question the science of global warming and the need to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

It predicts that lobbyists will try to undermine a report next year from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is expected to give a new warning on climate change.

Sources say the report, a draft of which was handed to governments earlier this month, will warn that global warming could drive the Earth's temperature to levels far higher than previously predicted. The report draws together research over the past five years and will be made public in February.

The Royal Society memo says: "It seems likely that these groups will again seek to undermine the IPCC in the period around publication. There are already signs these groups will be targeting European countries and Canada to seek to provoke opposition to the Kyoto protocol."

The document says the oil company Exxon Mobil has tried "to influence public opinion about the threat of climate change". It also says "concerted efforts" were made in 2004-05 to change the way the UK media covered climate science after Tony Blair declared that global warming was one of his priorities.

The memo shows concern that parts of UK media do not reflect the scientific consensus that human emissions of carbon dioxide are driving climate change. It highlights articles in the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph, which it says "appeared to be directly influenced by information distributed by lobbyists".

But the memo also criticises environmental campaigners for misrepresenting scientific evidence and says that green groups and the British media "have been guilty of expressing unjustified certainty about the science of climate change".

It criticises Greenpeace for blaming global warming for the 2003 heatwave that killed 30,000 people across Europe. Global warming could not be blamed for individual weather events, although it does make some more likely to occur.

In a statement, the Royal Society said: "This is an internal memorandum based on our own analysis of the way in which climate change has been covered in the UK media.

"It is clear that a number of well-funded and well-orchestrated media campaigns were carried out, by groups that are opposed to the Kyoto protocol and measures to restrict greenhouse gas emissions. There are signs that these groups are preparing similar media and political offensives ahead of the publication of the IPCC fourth assessment report in 2007."

0 Replies

Anyone who argues that "Global Warming," or "Worldwide Climatological Change," or whatever other proper term one prefers, is not a political battlefield is either naive or disingenuous.

The sad aspect of this issue is that there is an enormous number of people (who may very well represent a majority) who have formulated an opinion and position on this issue by virtue of cues provided to them by their favorite political personalities, and not by science.

It's particularly sad because it is not so different now than it has been throughout history when we might have forgiven our ancestors for their ignorance.

While there remains rather large segments of the population who argue against the rational with the irrational: Creationists, we now have entered a time wherein irrational beliefs and opinions are purported to be centered not on Faith, but Science.

How different is a history teacher, today, sitting in a Starbucks asserting that it is fact that humanity is responsible for current climatological fluctuations from a village elder, hundred of years in the past, sitting in the town square asserting that it is a fact that God created the world in seven days?

Irrespective of which side of the scientific argument you fall, you should keep in mind that if there is a more competitive and catty group of people than scientists, run for cover whenever they pass.

Because one side or the other can call upon Time Magazine or National Review summaries of a mind numbing breath of data to assert that SCIENCE supports their personal view means very little, if anything.

Personally, I believe that the "Global Warming" zealots, ironically, are granting humans with far too great powers. I say ironically because these folks usually default, in any argument, to the position that humanity is a blip on the cosmic radar screen. Someday humanity will have the ability to not only alter the climate on this world but on alien worlds as well, but this will not happen, in mho, for many many years. Currently, we are nowhere near wresting control of our ecology from Mother Nature.

Admittedly, I may be as wrong as anyone else, but you will not find me trying to shove these opinions down anyone's throats based on politically motivated "scientific" studies.

Science and politics make horrible bedfellows and that is what we find on this issue.

0 Replies

Quote:

The sad aspect of this issue is that there is an enormous number of people (who may very well represent a majority) who have formulated an opinion and position on this issue by virtue of cues provided to them by their favorite political personalities, and not by science.

This is a rather interesting view, which I don't share - from the European point of view, at least.
(Here, "environmental agencies" are run be scientists, not by politicans.
I garee, however, that their researches may be focused more to the one or to the other direction.)

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Quote:

The sad aspect of this issue is that there is an enormous number of people (who may very well represent a majority) who have formulated an opinion and position on this issue by virtue of cues provided to them by their favorite political personalities, and not by science.

This is a rather interesting view, which I don't share - from the European point of view, at least.
(Here, "environmental agencies" are run be scientists, not by politicans.
I garee, however, that their researches may be focused more to the one or to the other direction.)

There, "environmental agencies" are run by governmental employees with scientific credentials, not scientists. Perhaps European scientists employed by their governments are able to remain entirely independent of the political pressures of their employees. How wonderful if that is the case, but I sincerely doubt it is.

There is no absolutely objective method for awarding someone the title of "scientist," whether it be in Europe or the US, and if there were, what would you make of the fact that not all "scientists' agree on the causation of Global Warming or any number of other "scientific" issues?

In any case, my comment (which you quoted) related to the "common man," and not, necessarily, someone annointed as a "scientist."

I don't have much faith in "scientists" being able to view these issues without political influence, and so I surely do not believe the "Average Joe (or Hans)." will.

0 Replies

In the movie "Volanco", the L.A. city crisis manager (Tommie Lee Jones) consults with a geologist (Anne Heche). When asked how certain she was of a theory of a developing volcano, she replied: "I am a scientist and for a scientist 'certainty' is a very big word."

While the movie was entertaining, it was pure fiction. That one line, however, was profound and should be underscored by a whole lot of 'scientists' who claim certainty on causes of global warming when their own models do not yet support their theories. And to me, the 'me too' crowd creates more questions than reassurance in my mind.

I am all for the research to continue and for us to be informed. I certainly have no problem with humans doing reasonable things to conserve, preserve, and protect our environment and natural resources and I like to think I do my part.

I am not at all opposed to doing reasonable things to avoid artificially manipulating our environment. I am not willing to sign on to massive costly policies or significantly alter my lifestyle based on what appears to be very inexact science at this time.

Meanwhile, the affluent, better educated free people of the world usually demand and get clean clean air, water, soil and protect the beauty of their surroundings and the creatures who live there. Seems to me that the main thrust of the problem should be directed at helping make more peoples of the world more free, more affluent and better educated so that they would be motivated to do the same.

0 Replies

The climate change denialistas are the twenty-first century version of "flat-earthers."

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Anyone who argues that "Global Warming," or "Worldwide Climatological Change," or whatever other proper term one prefers, is not a political battlefield is either naive or disingenuous.

So what? Everything is political.

So let's just ignore climate chnage, let's just continue to poison the planet. It's only one planet. It just happens to be the only place known in the universe in which we can surive. Big deal!

0 Replies

Nobody is ignoring climate change. We are wanting good information about what causes any climate change that may be happening, however, and an open mind should be open to possibilities that human generated CO2 and other greenhouse gasses may be only part of the problem and may be none of the problem.

0 Replies

So you shouldn't call it "greenhouse gasses" any more but something "good nature gasses" or similar.

0 Replies

Why?

0 Replies

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1131275.stm

http://www.deanesmay.com/archives/000031.html

http://www.globalwarming.org/

I of course agree with Foxfyre. Scientists have only scratched the surface on this subject. First of all, we don't know for sure if there is a problem, secondly if there is a problem we don't know what is causing the problem, and third, if there is a problem and we knew what is causing it, there is no guarantee we could or if we would even desire to fix the problem.

The current desired fix via Kyoto really accomplishes very little. So if the problem is real, it looks to me like Kyoto has very little effect anyway. So why institute a fix that does not even accomplish its purpose when we don't even know if what we are fixing needs fixing, can be fixed, or should be fixed?

0 Replies

Everything is political which is why it behooves us to examine the politics of so-called experts who claim to be taking objective, scientific positions.

Climate changes have been occurring on this planet for millions of years. Some generational span of existing species must bear the brunt of the change. You and your children can live along the San Andreas fault for all your lives and never experience anything more than a few minor tremors, but all the while the tectontic plates are shifting and building up pressure. It may fall to your grandchildren or their grandchildren to experience the inevitable devastating results of a major earthquake. Sooner or later, someone will, and sooner or later someone will feel the effects of global climate change.

The Ice Age wasn't the product of humanities technology and yet it still came and it still shaped the world and the life on it.

As okie has correctly pointed out, we don't know if there is anything we can do to forestall the current global climate change that may or may not be in progress, and more importantly, we don't know if we would if we could.

Let's assume that scientists could agree that we could postpone a global climate change if we stopped using fossil fuels altogether. What would it matter? The world cannot agree on reducing the use of such fuels, it will never agree to eliminating it.

The left has embraced Climate Change as a cause because it's solution (at least by there way of thinking) is yet another means to establish the egalitarian utopia they so wish for. No more SUVs (that only the rich can afford), no more factories (that enrich the rich), no more mining to feed industry (that enriches the rich).

First of all, the notion that class structures will somehow breakdown in a post-technological, luddite wetdream of newborn agrarian society is just plain stupid. Where does anyone think these structures came from? The Industrial Age gave birth to far more than factories and coal mines.

Secondly, not only will a reduction in technological reliance not achieve universal equality it will harm those who currently reside in the lower classes. If, for example, we outlawed air conditioners tomorrow, who would suffer most? The rich would simply move to cooler climes.

Of course the counter argument is that no one is suggesting that we return to a post Industrial Age world. I would beg to differ, but accept that many of the Climate Change Crusaders are not. What they are arguing however is that we restrain our passion for production and progress, willingly retard the drive that has brought us to where we stand today, stop and remain on one rung of the ladder we have been climbing for hundreds of thousands of years.

If our advancement has detrimental side-effects, then the answer is not to halt our advancement, but to direct some portion of our energies into improving our technology so that it is not injurious to our well-being. It is not a given that technology will bring ruin to the world.

It is a fact that we are polluting our environment less than we did ten years ago. It is a fact that our forested lands have grown, not shrunken, over the last ten years, and it is a fact that we are doing more to respond to global warming than many of the countries who signed onto the Kyoto Treaty. (See the cover piece in this Sunday's NY Times Week in Review).

Climate Change Crusaders makes ridiculous claims like "We'll never see ice again!"

So the seas rise? They were bound to anyway. They won't rise in a day or a year (unlike the entertaining but politically idiotic film the Day After Tomorrow might suggest) and so there will be plenty of time for people with foresight to react. That many will not, and will suffer when the tipping point is reached is unavoidable but no reason to change the way we live.

0 Replies

Most things in life are indeed political. Individual efforts to change the use of fossil fuels will have little to no impact on global warming.

With two ice ages thus far for this planet, maybe we're headed for another one in a couple of million years.

0 Replies

Quote:

Everything is political which is why it behooves us to examine the politics of so-called experts who claim to be taking objective, scientific positions.

Finn d Abuzz wrote a great summary of the situation.

The U.N. is very, very political. I would value what their experts say about climate change as basicly worth less than a hill of beans. As Rush says, and I came to the same conclusion independant of his assessment by the way, the environmental movement is the new home of the old communist movement. Communism has utterly failed where tried, and it has become obvious to most people, so in order to have any credibility, they need a new vehicle on which to ride to power. Since individuals and business are the cause of all our environmental ills, then to save us all, government is the only answer, according to them of course. The irony of the whole situation is that communist countries have some of the worst environmental track records of all time. The environmentalists do not seem to care much about that, which is a tipoff as to their true agenda.

0 Replies

okie, You make an interesting observation about ecology and communism. Some people just refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that indivudual action to save this planet has no impact on our ecology; the increased use of fossil fuels will not deminish at any time while Chna and India, the most populated countries on this planet, finds more needs for it.

0 Replies

On the other hand, if everybody thinks that way, no changes at all would happen on any subject.

0 Replies

Quote:

okie, You make an interesting observation about ecology and communism. Some people just refuse to acknowledge the simple fact that indivudual action to save this planet has no impact on our ecology; the increased use of fossil fuels will not deminish at any time while Chna and India, the most populated countries on this planet, finds more needs for it.

First of all, the whole concept of "saving the planet" is an indoctrinated view or term that implies the planet is being destroyed now, and if so, that we both know why and that we have the ability to save it, which are three very flawed assumptions in my opinion.

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know