Save the Planet. Eat your Pet.

[Bob Smalser]

Textbook. Winning friends and influencing people. Better even than whale thugs. Wonder what (or who) is next?




http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/2987848/Save-the-planet-time-to-eat-dog

The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.

Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.

The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created by popular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.

"If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around," Brenda Vale said.

"A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don't worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact ... is comparable."

In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats....

http://pic20.picturetrail.com/VOL12/1104763/9745605/291368019.jpg

[Mitchell Andrus]

Maybe the Koreans have had the right ide....

OK, OK. It's a joke. I've had cats all my life. It's a joke. I love dogs too.... with a side of roasted pep....

Another (Monty Python induced), JOKE!

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Bob,

I find your photo so fitting!

The LOML and I spent last New Years Eve.....1st time on a sailboat.....50' sailboat......had a fine dinner on it (I thought at the time).....sailing Auckland Harbor........

[Horton Brasses]

Very amusing. They say meat eaters also have much higher "carbon footprint" than vegetarians. So if we all became vegetarians we could drive Hummers in peace. Essentially it boils down to all the CO2 produced in the production of livestock.

Personally, I think vegetarianism is fine, but with the exception of practicing Hindus it is a luxury that is uniquely afforded to affluent first world people. Try asking starving children in Africa to give up what little meat they get to save the world.

[Don C Peterson]

LOL, Bob. The answer is that they won't stop until we are all virtual slaves who can't make any decisions for ourselves.

[Mitchell Andrus]

Very amusing. They say meat eaters also have much higher "carbon footprint" than vegetarians. So if we all became vegetarians we could drive Hummers in peace. Essentially it boils down to all the CO2 produced in the production of livestock.



That leads to a question: If the meat eaters substituted plant life for the animal products, could enough be grown and would the carbon footprint really be smaller?

There is a puzzle that hits on this.

You are on that desert island we all seem to end up on and you have a bag of grain and a chicken. Do you feed the grain to the chicken and eat the eggs until the grain is gone and then eat the chicken, or do you just eat the chicken and then the grain? It's obvious there's a net loss in keeping the chicken alive, and the eggs come from the grain anyway.

There is an efficiency in cutting out the middle-man (cow) and just eating the grain, but don't the cows process the grain and cull out the waste as we would during digestion, essentially making the cow's meat a purer food (grain minus the manure)?
.

[Bob Smalser]

One problem with being a vegan is that man didn't evolve as one. A principle reason man's brain developed as large as it is was a combination of efficient, high-end nutrition from an omnivorous diet heated by fire, and the complexity of problem-solving required hunting (dangerous) game of sufficient size to feed family groups and clans.

All the amino acid gaps inherent in poorly-planned vegetarian diets need to be filled. This is doubly true if children are involved. Given enough time and some help by pathogens that are also selected for success as they meet their challenges, failure to do so may solve the human overpopulation problem single-handedly. ;)

[phil harold]

People EatingTastyAnimals

[Dan Friedrichs]

... failure to do so may solve the human overpopulation problem single-handedly. ;)

You know, everyone talks about the carbon problem and all the wacky unrealistic solutions to it, and we all have to feel guilty for using a little bit of fossil fuels, but no one seems to want to mention that the quickest, simplest, and most efficacious solution is: Less people.

[Jon Knauft]

Oh my gosh! Soylent Green was ahead of its time. :eek:

[Jason Roehl]

You know, everyone talks about the carbon problem and all the wacky unrealistic solutions to it, and we all have to feel guilty for using a little bit of fossil fuels, but no one seems to want to mention that the quickest, simplest, and most efficacious solution is: Less people.

I've always said that those who advocate fewer people on the planet should lead the way! ;)

Everybody likes more trees, right? Well part of a tree's "diet" is carbon dioxide. So, the more carbon dioxide I produce, the more trees I feed. :D

[Richard M. Wolfe]

Personally, I am tired of people picking on poor defeseless plants. Nobody asked them if them cared whether they were whacked down and barbequed. If you go after animals then at least they have a chance...you have to chase them down or find some other way to outsmart them. :rolleyes:

[Bill Arnold]

... If you go after animals then at least they have a chance...you have to chase them down or find some other way to outsmart them. :rolleyes:
Or just go to the market and buy a nice steak! :D

[Greg Peterson]

You know, everyone talks about the carbon problem and all the wacky unrealistic solutions to it, and we all have to feel guilty for using a little bit of fossil fuels, but no one seems to want to mention that the quickest, simplest, and most efficacious solution is: Less people.

Ah, but in ye' olden days it was a necessity be go forth and multiply. Before the advent of the internal combustion engine farmers that could not afford slaves had to have large families to work the farm. That mode is a bit out dated but still seemingly practiced by far to many.

'Tis of little concern however, as mother nature will correct any imbalance that may occur in her domain. While man may be more than capable of influencing this oasis within an infinity of nothingness, mother nature will always have the last word. The die is cast, we may as well prepare for whatever is in store for us.

Excuse me while I go walk the dog now. She's small, but spirited.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Even more disturbing.....some folks don't want to accept the fact that humans are part of nature..............so in the grand scheme of things....what we do might be what was meant to be or just part of the "natural" evolution of the planet earth and the species.

[Eric Larsen]

The die is cast, we may as well prepare for whatever is in store for us.


Are you suggesting we do nothing? Not even try? Surely if we threw our collective weight into devising means of scrubbing carbon from the atmosphere, we could come up with SOMETHING. It might be too little, too late, but at least we could say we tried. At the moment, all we can say is that we wrung our hands and passed the problem down to a newer (and hopefully more courageous) generation.

What bothers me most about this -- ridiculous stories about moose flatulence, eating pets, companies buying their way out of pollution laws -- is that we as a people do not seem to have the will to do anything about the problem.

My neighborhood is a perfect example. There are two people on my street who recycle. Why is that? Recycling is not mandatory in Las Vegas and there is no penalty for tossing cardboard, batteries, glass and plastic into a landfill.

Basically, unless the carrot and stick approach is used, people do not care enough to do the right thing.

Until "giving a [censored] about the planet" is turned from a partisan political issue into national issue (like winning the cold war)*, the US is doomed to lag behind the rest of the world as a dirty nation.

*In the 50s through 80s, everyone agreed we needed to win the cold war. Opinions differed on how that would best be accomplished. But very few Americans indeed thought we should just hand the planet over to the Soviet bloc.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Eric,

Who determines what's right?

[Eric Larsen]

Eric,

Who determines what's right?

We could pick a name at random out of the phone book. Put that person in charge. And we'd likely get more coherent pollution policy than what we currently have.

Remember the Sprint walkie-talkie ads, featuring firefighters as congressmen? "Ok, who wants clean water."


Really, it should be that simple.

Anyone out there want more polluted water? Air? Dirt? Anyone?

Want to relax pollution laws some more and let companies toss dioxyn next to preschools? Put lead back into paint and gasoline?

What's it going to take for people to step up and say, "I want a cleaner environment?"

Seems to me that 40% of this country is concerned that if we step up to the plate and demand a less toxic world, somehow Al Gore is going to magically be put in charge of the environment. Personally, I don't care if he is. At least he seems to give a [censored.] We have far too many people in this country who don't care one bit.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

I would suggest a few things Eric:

1. In-your-face, distorted confrontational statements by either side on this argument will lead to nothing being done and will just further alienate the two sides.

2. Until both sides really want to treat the others with respect and sit down and come to a resolution, nothing will happen.

Do you want to pay 90% of your income to make such things happen if forced by the government?

Do you want to see a 400% increase in the cost of everything to see it happen?

The distorted accusations and claims by both sides results in turning off the majority of the average Joes and Janes out there.

The science being touted by both sides is not unbiased nor necessarily accurate. Prestudy bias on the part of the scientist and the financial bias forced by those paying for the studies results in poor, disreputable results.

There are probably some reasonable resolutions to problems but people would rather make wild, emotional caustic distorted accusations mistakenly thinking this is going to awaken the general masses. The results are the opposite.

[Eric Larsen]

I would suggest a few things Eric:

1. In-your-face, distorted confrontational statements by either side on this argument will lead to nothing being done and will just further alienate the two sides.

2. Until both sides really want to treat the others with respect and sit down and come to a resolution, nothing will happen.

Do you want to pay 90% of your income to make such things happen if forced by the government?

Do you want to see a 400% increase in the cost of everything to see it happen?

There are probably some reasonable resolutions to problems but people would rather make wild, emotional caustic distorted accusations mistakenly thinking this is going to awaken the general masses. The results are the opposite.

You mean like saying there will be 90% taxes and paying 400% more for everything? :D

We're doing jack-censored at the moment. I'd like to see us do more. This "let's wait/study some more/bicker" hasn't been working. Let's try something else.

[Ken Garlock]

Eric,

Who determines what's right?

I do, dang nab it. :rolleyes:

First step is to start building more and more Nuclear power plants. There are too many fools running around yelling not in my back yard, or what do we do with all the radio active waste?
If the US citizenship can be forced to have medical care, they can darn well be forced to have have a nuc plant in the back yard!
The RA waste can be processed and reused as fuel, France is doing it now.
There are also techniques for cleaning up coal fired power plants, but they up the cost of a new plant by 20%.

Get your axx into the gulf of Mexico and the ANWR and drill for oil. It is plainly stupid not to be doing off shore drilling in the Gulf coast. What are we going to do, set back and let the Chinese and other countries take it all???

YES, yes, yes, there are too many people. And to boot, TV makes a it a great feat to bread like rabbits, just take a look at a couple of the current programs on cable TV. I am surprised that those women have time to get out of bed.:eek:

Vegans, and pita, I respect their right to demonstrate Darwin in action. Just keep to your own group of crazies.... Since the peta people like to parade their cause naked, they should be given parade permits for any weekend when the snow is at least 6" deep.

Finally, all convicted child predators should be castrated and made to wear it around their necks. There should be a national automatic death penalty for the murder of a child conviction. Judges would have no choice!

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Eric,

I don't want to get political but look at the states that have enacted the strongest environmental laws and then look at their current and past financial status. Then look at the comparative cost of living in those states.

To make the types of changes without looking at the current and future costs of those changes would be irresponsible.

It's just as irresponsible to say you don't need any changes because of the costs involved.

There has to be some reasonably negotiated options that would help resolve those issues.

Again....I'm not taking sides in this....I'm just pointing out that I, as an individual, am tired of the bickering, partisan, distorted, absurd positions that groups, political and otherwise, have been taking for the last few decades. I have quit watching television news shows as it is impossible to get unbiased reporting and instead get "editorial commentary" because I am obviously incapapable of deciphering the truth if the news organizations just reported the facts.

[phil harold]

Eric,

I don't want to get political but look at the states that have enacted the strongest environmental laws and then look at their current and past financial status. Then look at the comparative cost of living in those states.



Take this one step further

Countries

Manufacturing has moved to to 3rd world countries because

environmental laws
labor safety laws,
unions
cheaper labor



And remember that
"Capitalism and democracy dont mix well"

[Mitchell Andrus]

Finally, all convicted child predators should be castrated and made to wear it around their necks.

You meant a sign, right? :0
.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Take this one step further


"Capitalism and democracy dont mix well"

Phil,

I'll disagree. It's only when either party exerts or pracitices extremism and becomes too selfish.......to greedy.......to narrow minded and tunnel visioned...........

[phil harold]

Phil,

I'll disagree. It's only when either party exerts or pracitices extremism and becomes too selfish.......to greedy.......to narrow minded and tunnel visioned...........

And there is none of that in the States?

large portion of third world countries are not democratic states

I wonder why?

[Ken Garlock]

You meant a sign, right? :0
.

Yes, but let the sign be a tattoo on the forehead.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

And there is none of that in the States?

large portion of third world countries are not democratic states

I wonder why?


Phil,

I never said there wasn't any of that in the States.........far from it.

I have never even tried to indicate anyone person or groups was free from any blame or to be blamed.

I'm just saying this.

1. Extremist..in your face.....spewing of ridiculous absurd accusations doesn't sell to the masses and can hurt your cause when employed.

2. If you can't show respect to all the interested parties in a confrontation, you will not be shown respect and no viable negotiated deal will happen.

3. It is irresponsible to try to win a cause without investigating and trying to mitigate the resultant financial effects.

4. It is just as irresponsible to deny that these problems are occurring and to ignore them because of a perceived financial hardships.

There is surely a reasonable way to address these problems but until the extremists on both sides of the issue realize that they aren't in the majority and they must learn to negotiate a REASONABLE approach to solving these problems, the problems won't be solved.

[Bob Smalser]

What bothers me most about this -- ridiculous stories about moose flatulence, eating pets, companies buying their way out of pollution laws -- is that we as a people do not seem to have the will to do anything about the problem.



Or.....lighten up and go peddle this new religion to those who can't think past their nose about unintended consequences. The evidence of a disease versus natural cycle is hardly "settled science", and the cures may be worse than the disease.

Wind farms are just one small example of many.

- Are we really gonna plow up thousands and thousands of acres of pristine, fragile desert ecosystems for concrete pads and service roads?

- How difficult, expensive and lengthy a process will it be to condemn the thousands of acres of private property necessary for all those new transmission lines necessary to bring that electricity to population centers?

- How many threatened and endangered migratory birds and bats will be killed annually by all those propeller blades?

- Besides oil tycoon Boone Pickens, who today have positioned themselves to gain financially from such a massive national investment?

- What ever happened to that wind farm planned offshore from the Kennedy estate in Massachussets?



"We live in a time when the methodology of science is suspended. Reactions to human-induced global warming based on incomplete science can only be extraordinary costly, will distort energy policy, and will make the poor poorer...in the case of the effect of CO2 on climate, is to have the courage to thoughtfully do nothing."

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science, Ian Plimer, Professor of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Adelaide, 2009.

[Gary Herrmann]

Quoting part of the quote from Bob's original quote. Um, yeah...

"The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found."

Now, I guess I could go out to the garage and hug my Tundra, but it will just sit there and the metal is kinda cold.

Instead, I'm going to join the fam in the den, watch some college football and decide which labrador to rest my feet on, while the cats prowl the sofa table behind the couch.

AND, I'm gonna have a fire too.

[phil harold]

Capitalism can be defined as an economic system based on private ownership of capital

Democracy can be defined as a doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

So there is the conflict a majority/public vs. private profit

Just take it like your statement "humans are part of nature..............so in the grand scheme of things...what we do might be what was meant to be or just part of the "natural" evolution of the planet earth and the species. "

So the capitalistic human finds a way to make more money by going to a lesser economic country and makes money until that country notices that capitalism has major environmental impact and legislates laws to protect the majority

Remember when products were made all in Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, India, Korea, Thailand, and now China? Each country made things until environmental concerns and laws determined the bottom line and the capitalist moved to the next country to maximize profit. Then we sit here in the States and wonder why they don’t make cabinet saws in the USofA like we used to.

In time, when the whole world has been naturally polluted by humans the manufacturing can come back to the United States…
(at that time we may be in an ice age)



blaa blaa blaa

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Phil,

You are talking theory.

In theory, theory and reality are the same, in reality they aren't.

Manufacturing didn't leave this country because of environmental laws. They left because of workers benefits, state, federal and local taxes, greed on the part of the stockholder and environmental concerns.

Capitalism.....in theory perfect until you inject man the X factor

Democracy....an theory perfect....until you inject man....with special interests and an agenda.....and tunnel vision...

If you have your head in a paper bag, the whole world looks brown......

If you only surround yourself with those with whom you naturally and normally agree....you can believe the whole world agrees with you......

I suggest the world isn't totally brown.....

and the answers to the world's problems aren't black and white like some extremists would portray.

[Eric Larsen]

Remember when products were made all in Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, India, Korea, Thailand, and now China? Each country made things until environmental concerns and laws determined the bottom line and the capitalist moved to the next country to maximize profit. Then we sit here in the States and wonder why they don’t make cabinet saws in the USofA like we used to.



My wife is from Taiwan.

The Taiwanese people got sick of living under martial law and turned their country into a fairly decent democracy.

They got sick of living in a trash heap, and mandated two things:

1) A mandatory national recycling program.

2) A mandate that plastic bags now cost one Taiwan dollar -- about 1/30 of a US dollar.

Guess what?

Their trash production went down by two thirds. That's a vast improvement. The island is a lot greener, prettier and a lot less smelly. I don't see a down side, and it didn't cost a thing to implement. The costs were mitigated by a decrease in health problems and a boost in productivity. And best of all, a boost in fishery production. You can eat the fish in the rivers again. You couldn't before.

Debate global warming and climate change all you want. But there are some things that really can't be argued:

1) There is an island of plastic trash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Pacific_Garbage_Patch) about the size of Texas floating in the middle of the Pacific Ocean. Fish are eating the tiny pieces of plastic. Humans are eating the fish. Some humans are getting sick.

2) Rich nations are exporting their garbage to poor nations -- simply moving the problem "out of sight, out of mind."

3) Recycling saves a huge amount of energy, and decreases landfill growth tremendously.


Why the heck aren't we pushing recycling? Only two families out of 40 on my street recycle. What's it like in your area?

I don't see any reason why we as a people should not demand a cleaner environment. There are many things we could be doing that are either zero net cost, or negative net cost that would help. Yet, we do nothing. And some people seem to be all for filth. I don't see how that is an arguable position.

[Dan Friedrichs]

Why the heck aren't we pushing recycling? Only two families out of 40 on my street recycle. What's it like in your area?


I don't recycle. Mostly because in order to participate in my local recycling program, I'd have to pay additional money for collection. If the stuff I was recycling had any value, the garbage company would pay ME to pick it up, not the other way around.

I used to live in Iowa, where there was a 5c deposit on cans and bottles. I recycled them there. Now I live in Colorado, where there isn't a deposit. I throw cans in the trash (and I cringe every time I do - but what's the alternative? PAY someone to come pick up my valuable scrap metal??!)

I feel bad, because I know what I'm doing is bad for the environment. But the cost of recylcing seems to be more than the value of the recyclables.

[Greg Peterson]

Eric, I am of the opinion that after 150 years of belching tons of pollutants into the atmosphere, 24/7/365, to suggest that human activity can have absolutely no influence on our ecosystem flies in the face of reason.

Of course the climate on earth is changing. It always has and always will. But to deny that human activity hasn't contributed is to suggest this ecosystem is so vast that virtually nothing short of a 100 meter space rock is capable of influencing the atmosphere. The planets capacity to absorb the pollutants we emit is not infinite.

Volcanoes are frequently cited by deniers are influencing the climate. They then mockingly suggest we should regulate volcano emissions. Yet they fail to recognize that they just proved that it takes virtually very little to impact our climate.

China is bringing coal fired power plants on line weekly. Developing nations rightfully expect the same lax regulations or absence of regulations that we enjoyed when we were developing into a first world nation.

There is money, big, silly piles of money, to be made in green these days. We need a new power grid. We need a diversified energy base.

Plenty of deniers see the problems. But where they see problems, I see opportunities. I prefer to look forward, recognize the opportunities that exist, and let the flat earth community become further isolated.

[Eric Larsen]

I feel bad, because I know what I'm doing is bad for the environment. But the cost of recylcing seems to be more than the value of the recyclables.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=aurora+colorado+recycling+centers&aq=2&aqi=g3&oq=aurora+colorado+recy&fp=7cb176c9e9b48866

Why not drop off your cans at the very least at a recycling center? There seems to be plenty of them in your area.

Not to pick on you personally, but the "it costs more" argument doesn't wash with me.

Demand that your municipality institute a recycling program. Call your assemblymen, selectmen, or town council. Have your like-minded neighbors do so, too. (But don't try to convince anyone who's not in favor of recycling -- they'll think you're a "drank the Kool-Aid" environmental lunatic if you do. Seriously. There's no reasoning with the "drill-baby-drill, pave the planet" crowd.) Keep calling, especially around mid-October.

Ask the people at your recycling center why there isn't curbside pickup. They'll likely have a better answer for you than the politicans.


It drives me nuts when I hear things like, "I'm not going to 'go solar' because it costs a little more."

I place value on not digging perfectly-good coal out of the ground and burning it. More than I place on a kilowatt of electricity.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Greg,

I'll agree about the belching but I'd suggest that one MT. St. Helen's will up your 150 years of belching in just one or two blasts over time.

Anyone who believes man can not or has not effected the environment has his head in a paper sack.

Anyone who thinks we should spend an unlimited amount of money and do it today and we'll worry about how we will pay for it in the future.....well they have their head in that same paper sack.

Both forms of denial are irresponsible.

[Greg Peterson]

Ken, I agree that the extreme perspectives are just that, extreme. And as such only serve as anchors for those that are unable or unwilling to navigate the calmer waters that comprise the happy medium.

We have choices and options. Each passing generation will likely have fewer choices and options.

I am of the mind that things are changing and it is in my best interests to operate from this assumption. Fresh water will become less abundant (already is) and temperatures will continue to rise. Oregon will be the new southwest, and the southwest will be largely uninhabitable. This may take a century or more to occur, and well past my life span, but I am convinced the die has been cast and we can only act now to minimize future changes.

The planets climate is one big and complex system. Change use to be slow, gradual and organic. Meeting the demands of 7 billion people can not be without consequences.

[Eric Larsen]

Greg,

I'll agree about the belching but I'd suggest that one MT. St. Helen's will up your 150 years of belching in just one or two blasts over time.

Anyone who believes man can not or has not effected the environment has his head in a paper sack.

Anyone who thinks we should spend an unlimited amount of money and do it today and we'll worry about how we will pay for it in the future.....well they have their head in that same paper sack.

Both forms of denial are irresponsible.


If we were spending unlimited amounts of money, that would be one thing. We're spending next to nothing. And anytime someone suggests we spend SOMETHING, there is a huge backlash of "Ow! My wallet! My wallet!"

What's it going to take until we start taking this seriously? Water rationing?
Category 6 hurricanes? Starvation from crop failures?

I think future generations are going to look back at us and say, "What in hell were they thinking? Were they thinking at all?"

[Dan Friedrichs]

Why not drop off your cans at the very least at a recycling center?

Because then I have to save them, wash them, and drive them somewhere (all activities which cost energy, which is what we're supposedly saving by recycling). If the net energy or work or money output was greater through recycling, then the garbage haulers would pay me to come to my house and pick up the cans (or at least do it for free), rather than asking me to pay for it.

Once mining new material becomes more expensive than recycling old, people will start recycling, because there will be an economic benefit to it. Why not just let the market take care of the problem, rather than regulating?

[Eric Larsen]

Once mining new material becomes more expensive than recycling old, people will start recycling, because there will be an economic benefit to it. Why not just let the market take care of the problem, rather than regulating?

Because the market doesn't do anything based on "what's best for everyone" only on "what's best for me."

EDIT -- Besides, unless you drive your cans to the center in an Abrams tank, recycling will be a net energy savings. And a big pollution reducer.

http://shiftyourhabit.com/truth-or-trash/recycling-one-aluminum-can-saves-enough-energy-to-power-a-television-through-the-entire-rose-parade/

"Each time you toss your empty soda can into a recycling bin instead of into the trash, you help save about 585 watts of energy—enough to watch a three-hour event on a 40-inch LCD flat screen TV."

"Bauxite mining involves blasting and bulldozing 5.9 tons of earth for every one ton of aluminum produced."

"Making aluminum cans from recycled materials eliminates these raw material steps and, therefore, achieves huge energy savings. Indeed, aluminum can recycling saves 25 billion kilowatt hours of electricity per year—enough to power a television in every household through the first half of the Rose Bowl."

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Eric,

I don't know where you live but local business have spent 10's of millions to reduce the pollution from the local paper mill.

Keep in mind,

businesses have to make a profit or they either go out of business or take it elsewhere.

Then you 'll complain about the lack of jobs or products made in the USA.

You can't have it both ways......profit or gone....elsewhere or out of business.

[Eric Larsen]

You can't have it both ways......profit or gone....elsewhere or out of business.

Why does business INSIST that it's "pollute or perish?" They've been saying that for decades. And it's simply not true.

We're smart enough to send men to the moon. We stopped a hole in the ozone layer as big as the United States.

Are you suggesting that we're not smart enough to reduce pollution significantly, and still turn a profit doing it?

I think we have the capability. I think we have a willpower problem. (Oh no! It's inconvenient! Five minutes to prepare recycling is too much out of my busy life. I have "So You Think You Can Dance" to watch!)

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Greg,

I agree to a certain extent and I"ll explain.

I have had some discussion with a friend who is a retired teacher with a Masters in Biology and Counseling. In 1964 he walked into a university geology class for the first time where the professor stated "The earth is now entering an ice age of which it has gone through several." The point being that some geologists believe the earth may have gone through several warmings and several ice ages.

I personally don't think man has the proven scientic data to say without a doubt whether or not we are beginning a catasrtophic warming or an ice age. I place little credibility in the science presented on the subjects because of two reasons. One...the persons performing the studies and analysis may have already had a personal bias before performing the study and just looked for evidence to prove their preconcieved theory. The other argument against the data is financial. The person financing the study predetermined what the results would be when they paid for the study.

Frankly, I am quite skeptical in this rush-to-print/post/release society that we live in today.

I don't watch much news on television any more. One of the reasons, too often the results of a study are released and a couple of weeks, months or years later another study is released countering what the previous study found. Another of the reasons I don't watch is there are NO UNBIASED reporting going on anywhere...tv or cable....newpapers... They have to editorialize for the "dumb" public. I find the attitude of the news industry insulting.

That said, my wife ordered our 2nd recylce bin on Friday.....Eric

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Eric,

Businesses or state governments cannot spend more than they take in for any lengthy period of time before they go bankrupt.

Take a look at the states that have implemented strict ecological standards.....businesses are leaving....high tech, high paying jobs are leaving....... and those same states are on the verge of bankruptsy.

I don't think it's a matter of willpower, it's a matter of a change of mindset.


There has to be reasonable ways of implementing and paying for the changes required. There has to be as much money in resolving these issues from a business standpoint as there is in creating these issues.

One thing is for sure. Caustic, in-your-face attacks by either side of the argument is not winning the support of the public. And thus both combatants remain minorities and nothing is happening.

[Dan Friedrichs]

Because the market doesn't do anything based on "what's best for everyone" only on "what's best for me."

EDIT -- Besides, unless you drive your cans to the center in an Abrams tank, recycling will be a net energy savings. And a big pollution reducer.



So if it's a net energy savings to recycle, and the energy saved has some value, why won't someone else come pick it up at my house for free?

[Eric Larsen]

"We live in a time when the methodology of science is suspended. Reactions to human-induced global warming based on incomplete science can only be extraordinary costly, will distort energy policy, and will make the poor poorer...in the case of the effect of CO2 on climate, is to have the courage to thoughtfully do nothing."

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science, Ian Plimer, Professor of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Adelaide, 2009.


Or, we can cherry pick the scientist who says what we want to hear, despite the fact that the book is considered "unscientific" by most scientists.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php


So if it's a net energy savings to recycle, and the energy saved has some value, why won't someone else come pick it up at my house for free?

Call someone at your city office and ask!

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Or, we can cherry pick the scientist who says what we want to hear, despite the fact that the book is considered "unscientific" by most scientists.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php



Call someone at your city office and ask!

Eric,

Could you be guilty of cherry picking the one you want to believe?

And even if you want to call your city office

SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE BILL. THERE ARE NO FREE RIDES.

Look at the states that have passed the most stringent ecological standards. Businesses are leaving in droves....high tech, high pay jobs are leaving with the businesses and the states are going bankrupt. You can't for any length of time spend more than you receive.

That is IRRESPONSIBLE.

You can beat your chest and shout and scream.....ECOLOGICAL IRRESPONSIBILITY.

There is such a thing as FINANCIAL IRRESPONSIBILITY.

You seem to want to preach ecological reality.

I asure you there is a financial reality.

Explain that one to the future generations.

[Eric Larsen]

Eric,

Could you be guilty of cherry picking the one you want to believe?

And even if you want to call your city office

SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THE BILL. THERE ARE NO FREE RIDES.




I tend to listen to what the scientists at NASA have to say. They're apolitical. And the warnings are freakin' DIRE. (They're currently worried about losing the West Antarctic Ice sheet. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=38678)

Seems to me, it's the "drill-baby-drill" crowd who wants the free ride. They want to do whatever the hell they want -- because that's what they've always done. And they want to pass the problem down to their children, and grandchildren. They're not prepared to pay one thin dime for their excess. And they're unwilling to change their lifestyle one IOTA to reduce their personal pollution contribution.

"Let's do nothing! A crackpot scientist in Australia says it's OK!"

How is THAT responsible?

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Eric,

I doubt seriously if you can find an apolitcal scientist at NASA or any other organization. You believe them to be apolitical. I doubt it.

How do we pay for what you suggest?

The states with the most stringent ecological standards....are losing businesses and jobs.....they are going bankrupt. One of the reasons is higher taxes and yes, the higher ecological standards figure into increased cost to operate a business there.

The companies who moved their factories to other countries did so for one reason. It became less profitable to operate a business here. Think about this. They had to put out lots of money to establish the factories in those other countries and then they finally started seeing a return on their investments.

I agree with some of what you desire but the reality is you have to pay for it. Period. Nothing is free. Sooner or later, you have to pay for it. The day my employer quits sending me a paycheck, I won't be going to work. I don't work for nothing. I have bills to pay. There are no free rides. My creditors will allow me so much credit and will only let me go so long without paying my bills. Then, they want payment. There are no free rides.

As surely as we can't afford to ignore the ecological problems we are facing, we can't afford to ignore the cost of dealing with them. When reasonable people of both sides of the issues are willing to sit down and repectfully and openly discuss the problems, reasonable resolutions will be found.

Until then, rants will not win many converts. It may fan the flames of those already on that side of the argument but IMHO emotional, in-your-face rants will drive away many more than it will convert. This goes for both sides of these issues.

[Eric Larsen]

Eric,


The states with the most stringent ecological standards....are losing businesses and jobs.....they are going bankrupt. One of the reasons is higher taxes and yes, the higher ecological standards figure into increased cost to operate a business there.



According to the McGregor book "Environmental Law and Enforcement (http://books.google.com/books?id=y1y8r3kqHbYC&lpg=PA40&ots=38S_qhHeIF&dq=toughest%20state%20environmental%20laws&pg=PA40#v=onepage&q=toughest%20state%20environmental%20laws&f=false)" the states with the toughest laws are:

California
Connecticut
Delaware
Indiana
Louisiana
Massachusetts
Michigan
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New York
Oregon
Pennsylvania

Only Michigan, California and Oregon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_unemployment_rate) are at the bottom of the unemployment rankings -- but you can make arguments that environmental laws aren't the only reason for California and Michigan's woes.

"It'll cost money" is always the rallying cry of the polluters.

But I'm more concerned about the things we COULD be doing for little or no net cost, but aren't. Recycling, reducing plastic bag consumption (really, who can't bring canvas sacks to the market?), encouraging higher gas mileage (especially the new diesel technology), and MOST OF ALL, training unemployed workers to install PV net-metered solar.

PV solar systems could transform this country (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_important.html). The technology is there, we lack qualified designers and installers. And yet there are millions of Americans who are desperate for a job.


And just one more thing, Ken -- almost every post, I have tried to support my opinions with linked data. I'm no fool. I know that numbers can be skewed and data fudged. But at least I'm trying to show I'm not just pulling numbers and facts out of my posterior.

Every reply from you has been a variety of "It costs too much" and "Business will suffer!" -- with nothing to support it.


I think Greg's right -- there is huge opportunity out there for green industry. Opportunity is knocking, and we're wasting precious time with partisan bickering.

Every year, our options on how to address climate change shrink. We're not doing near enough. And we can do a lot more without having to make a big sacrifice.

[Heather Thompson]

Eric,

I doubt seriously if you can find an apolitcal scientist at NASA or any other organization. You believe them to be apolitical. I doubt it.

How do we pay for what you suggest?

The states with the most stringent ecological standards....are losing businesses and jobs.....they are going bankrupt. One of the reasons is higher taxes and yes, the higher ecological standards figure into increased cost to operate a business there.

The companies who moved their factories to other countries did so for one reason. It became less profitable to operate a business here. Think about this. They had to put out lots of money to establish the factories in those other countries and then they finally started seeing a return on their investments.

I agree with some of what you desire but the reality is you have to pay for it. Period. Nothing is free. Sooner or later, you have to pay for it. The day my employer quits sending me a paycheck, I won't be going to work. I don't work for nothing. I have bills to pay. There are no free rides. My creditors will allow me so much credit and will only let me go so long without paying my bills. Then, they want payment. There are no free rides.

As surely as we can't afford to ignore the ecological problems we are facing, we can't afford to ignore the cost of dealing with them. When reasonable people of both sides of the issues are willing to sit down and repectfully and openly discuss the problems, reasonable resolutions will be found.

Until then, rants will not win many converts. It may fan the flames of those already on that side of the argument but IMHO emotional, in-your-face rants will drive away many more than it will convert. This goes for both sides of these issues.

Ken,

I have watched this thread with great interest, there are many with passionate points of view here, some I agree with and others I do not. As to the issue of companies moving their manurfacturing overseas, tax laws were changed with reguard to business, prior to the change business was taxed based on profits. In order to reduce their tax burden the companies would invest in their infrastructure and employees and thus grow the business. With no penelty on profits it was logical to ship the manufacturing overseas and pay slave labor wages and have little to no enviormental responsibility.

I do agree that the initial costs of being environmentally conscious will be somewhat higher in the beginning, remember what a calculator cost thirty years ago. I attended a Green Building Expo last Friday and was pleasantly surprised with the enthusiasm and progress that is being made here in the Chicagoland area. I watch alot of public television as I find it to be the most open minded source of information. This is a link to a show called Green Builders, it will require an hour of your time and I hope that you invest that much in it, I think it is worth it. http://video.pbs.org/video/1088152802/

This is a link to anoth PBS show called Architecture 2030, this one is only 24 min. http://video.pbs.org/video/1094055821/

Heather

PS I have recycled since the mid sixties, used to pick newspaper from the curb on garbage day, used to make about sixty dollars a week depending on the market price, learned about supply and demand.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Folks,

I am not against recycling. Last Friday, the LOML ordered our 2nd recycling bin because 1 didn't hold enough for what we are recycling.
We have recycled since the '80s BTW.

Locally 2 trucks pickup up trash.....1 for combined trash and 1 for separated recycling. What is the carbon footprint caused by running the 2nd truck? What is the carbon footprint of remanufacturing the recyclibles into a product?

It is irresponsible to deny man is contributing to the negative ecological effects.

It is just as irresponsible to want to pass legislation or regulations that force standards without a reasonable way of paying for it. THERE ARE NO FREE RIDES. Someone has to pay for that 2nd truck that is running in my neighborhood.

Eric, you can link to all the sources of information you want. I'm am not taking sides of business or envionmentalists. Statistics links....data....all too often is looked at and appreciated and quoted and linked because it backs one's personal biased beliefs. And of course, the other guys data is junk science....biased data....

BTW....the financial status of the states of California and Michigan is????

Heather..the initial higher costs of enviromentally friendly heating, ac, higher mileage vehicles...that's part of the financial problems presented to everyone and part of the reason change has been so slow to happen.

Take ethanol.....how much power is burned in refining it? That is no solution......and for a lower BTU energy to boot.

I have said from the beginning......extremists from both sides....they live like they have their heads in a paper bag and the whole world is brown. Both sides. Until reasonable moderates from both sides want sit down and showing respect for each other, reasonably discuss the problems and look for reasonable resolutions...there will not be any resolutions.

Extemists from both sides of this argument refuse to accept they are in the minority. They fail to realize that continued zealot, overly emotional, absurd rants hurt their causes more than helps their cause. Both sides.
And thus they don't have a majority and the problems will continue.

BTW Eric....I have never said it costs too much. All I have said it will increase the cost of doing business or the cost of living. This has had an effect on businesses.

The energy problem is not new. I wrote a college prep english term paper in 1967 predicting the coming oil shortages and how oil produced from oil shale could help mitigate the shortages. My main sources of reference was the oil companies data. They predicted then it would happen by the '80s. Since then oil was discovered in larger quantities in Alaska, the Middle East etc. The point is over 40 years ago it was known these days were coming.

The problem is there. Continued mud slinging isn't going to win friends, converts or get the problems resolved.

Both sides have extremists that hinder their causes more than help same.

[Dan Friedrichs]

PV solar systems could transform this country (http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pv_important.html). The technology is there, we lack qualified designers and installers. And yet there are millions of Americans who are desperate for a job.


I actually work in the PV field, engineering inverters for grid-tie systems. PV has a place and a use, but what you say is untrue: There is no lack of designers/installers. The problem is that, with current electric rates, our best designs will take 20+ years to produce enough electricity to justify their cost, and system lifespans are generally ~30 years. Additionally, you get huge problems with power distribution - sure, the PV supplies plenty of juice in the middle of the day, but you also have to plan for a week of cloudiness, which means having full-capacity nukes/coal ready to step in and take PV's place. If you're going to build a full capacity coal plant anyways, why add PV? (there are reasons, of course, but the solution is not cut-and-dried "Put PV everywhere!" like you seem to think)



Locally 2 trucks pickup up trash.....1 for combined trash and 1 for separated recycling. What is the carbon footprint caused by running the 2nd truck? What is the carbon footprint of remanufacturing the recyclibles into a product?

Exactly. What really bugs me is the "recycling" of glass. Drive a truck around town, collect bits of dirty glass, wash the glass, crush the glass, re-melt the glass, and make new glass. Versus just going and getting a truckload of clean, fresh sand. Apparently the recycled glass takes about 25% less energy to re-melt, but then again, collecting it is a pain.

I think what we need is not just people running around screaming about how important recycling is, we need some reasonability, too. Using enough energy to MELT SAND to make a container for a $1 jar of spaghetti sauce is a poor use of energy.



Call someone at your city office and ask!

You are suggesting that recyclables are valuable commodities, that's why we should save them and recycle them, rather than throw them away. If that were true, we wouldn't need government intervention - private enterprise would step in and collect these "valuables". Since that isn't happening, you must be wrong. Someone has considered this business plan, and decided that the value of recyclables (in terms of raw materials and energy) is less than the cost to haul and process them.

[Eric Larsen]

THERE ARE NO FREE RIDES.

The problem is there. Continued mud slinging isn't going to win friends, converts or get the problems resolved.

Both sides have extremists that hinder their causes more than help same.

You have managed to work those three terms into almost every reply. You're also asking a lot of open-ended questions that are easily answered with google.

Every year for the past 10 years has seen record heat numbers, "100 year" floods and storms, and massive drought.

Yet, every time there's a cold snap, there are people RIGHT HERE ON THIS FORUM that get a free pass when they say, "Where's your global warming now, hippies?" (OK, I'm paraphrasing the words, but not the intent.)

It is my opinion that these people are the "extremists" and that the people who ask, "Why we don't clean up after ourselves?" are the moderates. And yet we kow-tow to these extremists for fear of offending them.

Climate is changing. Why it's changing is of secondary importance. What we do about it is the primary consideration. And as mentioned earlier, what we're currently doing (for the US at least) is "jack-[censored]."

Our economic woes are a drop in the bucket compared to what people will be going through in 50 and 100 years. Let's do what we can for them. We've studied and waited too long. The data is in. We have a job to do. Let's get started.

[Greg Peterson]

Ken, any serious scientific claim must pass peer review. Sure scientists have a hunch or even a bias. But to imply the community at large is engaged in some vast conspiracy is a bit hard to buy.

The only ones that I've seen or heard claim the climate change isn't real are persons or organizations that have a stake in the status quo.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Greg,

If all scientific studies must pass peer review, why are there so many studies announced and the rejected later? Medical studies are a really good example. Those are announced and then rejected several months if not a couple of years later.

I suggest that most peer groups are there for the benefit of the peers not the public.

[Eric Larsen]

the solution is not cut-and-dried "Put PV everywhere!" like you seem to think)

It's seven years here in Southern Nevada, not 20. I'm good with those numbers. And after 15 months, I'm still near the bottom of the list, waiting for installers.

I'd LOVE to get into the PV industry here -- but I have no desire to climb around on roofs. I'm a bit old for that.

A week of cloudy days? I wish I could see that.


You are suggesting that recyclables are valuable commodities, that's why we should save them and recycle them, rather than throw them away. If that were true, we wouldn't need government intervention - private enterprise would step in and collect these "valuables". Since that isn't happening, you must be wrong. Someone has considered this business plan, and decided that the value of recyclables (in terms of raw materials and energy) is less than the cost to haul and process them.

My local recycling center (less than a mile away), will pay me for metal. So obviously, that has SOME value. Las Vegas is happy to pay for recycling pickup because it has some value compared to chucking it all into a landfill.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

You are certainly welcome to your opinion Eric!

So am I.

[Bob Smalser]

Or, we can cherry pick the scientist who says what we want to hear, despite the fact that the book is considered "unscientific" by most scientists.



Except that works both ways. I'll give you that today there are more campfires (cars, houses, etc) per family unit than during the bulk of modern man's 35,000-year development, but that doesn't mean Plimer is wrong that there are major periods of time in the planet's development with greater C02 production than today, without major warming occurring. Moreover, you conveniently ignore my more simple comments on the stupidity involved with wind farms wind farms.


Wind farms are just one small example of many.

- Are we really gonna plow up thousands and thousands of acres of pristine, fragile desert ecosystems for concrete pads and service roads?

- How difficult, expensive and lengthy a process will it be to condemn the thousands of acres of private property necessary for all those new transmission lines necessary to bring that electricity to population centers?

- How many threatened and endangered migratory birds and bats will be killed annually by all those propeller blades?

- Besides oil tycoon Boone Pickens, who today have positioned themselves to gain financially from such a massive national investment?

- What ever happened to that wind farm planned offshore from the Kennedy estate in Massachussets?


And......."It seems anyone questioning this new religion is called a denier and is attacked immediately. I am not disagreeing or denying that manmade green house gasses can affect global temperature, but if that is the case how does cap and trade work as a solution, it really does not reduce or cap CO2, it just rearranges the deck chairs. Al Gores movie is claimed to have 13 factual inaccuracies and can not be shown in some UK schools without that disclcaimer. Maybe Plimers book needs the same disclaimer."

Either way, these impacts didn't happen overnight and nor will an effective approach toward solutions....if solutions are either necessary or possible. Blindly wrecking the economy as we know it in hasty stabs toward the unknown to please the those who've positioned themselves to gain financially may not be the answer either.

[Greg Peterson]

Blindly wrecking the economy as we know it in hasty stabs toward the unknown to please the those who've positioned themselves to gain financially may not be the answer either.

The global economy is such a massive piece of machinery that change is not something it can do well or quickly. No one is suggesting throwing the baby out with the bath water, although it seems like it at times.

Ken - I'm more skeptical of reports underplaying or outright denying global warming isn't real when you look at who has financed the reports and 'scientific studies'.

As for peer reviewed reports, sure some of them turn out to be false. They eventually get caught or weeded out. The process works. Same for medical reports. The process isn't perfect, but it pits one scientist against another to prove which one is right.

Imagine the name one could make for themselves by proving James Hansen as a fraud. I read accusations from some pretty smart people, but they have as yet to prove any of his work as fraudulent, inaccurate or misleading.

Heck, the physicists can't explain gravity or time, yet we know it exists. Climate change is a theory, supported by facts. I'll let the guys that study this stuff day in and day out and can synthesize all the facts into a proper theory.

I can cite facts out of context as well as any denier.

[Neal Clayton]

People EatingTastyAnimals

yea, that's me ;).

survive without prime steaks? not likely...

[Bob Smalser]

The global economy is such a massive piece of machinery that change is not something it can do well or quickly. No one is suggesting throwing the baby out with the bath water.

No, but to paraphrase Carville, don't forget the economy, stupid.

You pay the extra two or three grand a year for electricity. Or even more if you live in coal country. Then talk to me about it. Raising those costs during an economic recession is the height of stupidity. This didn't happen overnight, and higher taxation can wait til we get some jobs back. You are imposing those costs on every electricity user, not just those who have the ability to pay. Which means the rest of us still working pick up the slack with even higher subsidies, charity and rates.

[Bob Smalser]

I notice that you have not addressed my post in this thread, please take the hour and a half to watch the links that I have posted. Also here in the Chicago area they have condemed thousands of acres to build a third airport south of Chicago proper, many families have lost their homes and farms, it has been accessed as a prime wind farm site (much better than another airport).

As to the issue of endangered migratory birds and bats, how many creatures are endangered due to mans stupidity and the global economy.

In the early 80's a cargo ship emptied it's ballast tanks in the Great Lakes and gifted us with the Zebra Mussel and most recently the Quagga Mussel, commercial fishing of yellow pearch was banned shortly after. The Zebra Mussel has consumed the food that fry perch eat and the population has dropped by 80%, in the Eastern US damages are accessed at 5 billion dollars per year. The Zebra Mussel has recently made a cross country trip to Lake

Mead, Hoover Dam is in trouble due to the cooling system to the turbines. If you do not know, one Zebra Mussel produces 1 million off-spring in a single season, do the math. George Carlin did a comedy about this, he stated that the world will always be here, it is just man that is going away, I have a son and hopefully grand kids some day, I want them to have a world to enjoy.


I didn't respond to Post #52? You were addressing Ken directly.

Nor do I intend to address Zebra Mussels, the impacts of DDT on bats, fish kills in turbines or George Carlin.

[Curt Harms]

........
- What ever happened to that wind farm planned offshore from the Kennedy estate in Massachussets?

NIMBYism at its finest. Similar to what happened to offshore oil drilling? If you must, but at least 50 miles offshore so it doesn't impact my (greedy, selfish) self or my beachfront property values. Meanwhile I'll give (some of the taxpayers- aka you suckers- $) to some high profile environmental causes.




"We live in a time when the methodology of science is suspended. Reactions to human-induced global warming based on incomplete science can only be extraordinary costly, will distort energy policy, and will make the poor poorer...in the case of the effect of CO2 on climate, is to have the courage to thoughtfully do nothing."

Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, The Missing Science, Ian Plimer, Professor of Earth and Environmental Science, University of Adelaide, 2009.

[Bob Smalser]

Here's another example of the bad science happening every day......Man-Induced Global Warming being the answer and evidence being unconsciously tailored to fit rather than the other way around.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm

....The UB researchers and their international colleagues were able to pinpoint that dramatic changes (in artic ice sediments) began occurring in unprecedented ways after the midpoint of the twentieth century.

"The sediments from the mid-20th century were not all that different from previous warming intervals," said Jason P. Briner, PhD, assistant professor of geology in the UB College of Arts and Sciences. "But after that things really changed. And the change is unprecedented."

Hmmm. What happened to all that dirty coal burned during the Industrial Revolution commencing the midpoint of the 19th Century?

I happened to be around during the midpoint of the 20th Century, and the late 1950's was the point when we began serious efforts to clean up the pollution mess beginning in 1850 which reached its high point during WWII. Cleaner fuels were used, environmental laws were passed, smokestacks were scrubbed, forests replanted (until their current acreage exceeds that of 1750, let alone 1850), car emissions were regulated, etc et al.

Surely the massive spike in post-1950 world population provides the answer? Oops. Looks like a big "nope" there, too. The traditional polluters are in decline and their replacement by China and India a much later phenomenon than 1950.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/WorldPopulation.png/800px-WorldPopulation.png
http://www.woodenboat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=2363815&posted=1#post2363815

As I've said, when premise development begins with the conclusion, you have religion, not science.

[Bob Smalser]

Meanwhile I'll give (some of the taxpayers- aka you suckers- $) to some high profile environmental causes. [/COLOR]

As I borrow some fat cat's Lear Jet to fly me to speaking engagements, with severalfold the environmental impact of a coach ticket.

But it's for such a good cause, eh? Namely, me.

[Greg Peterson]

You[/I] pay the extra two or three grand a year for electricity.

Bob, I can tell exactly where that $2k-$3k tax you cited came from and I can also tell you that not only is that figure absolutely false, it is so absurdly false that I'm surprised that one of your intellect would buy that line.

That figure was offered by politicians and then repeated, and continues to be repeated, via the politicians media outlets and personalities.

Simply put, that figure is a political tool, and not a very subtle one at that.

[Bob Smalser]

Bob, I can tell exactly where that $2k-$3k tax you cited came from and I can also tell you that not only is that figure absolutely false, it is so absurdly false that I'm surprised that one of your intellect would buy that line.

That figure was offered by politicians and then repeated, and continues to be repeated, via the politicians media outlets and personalities.

Simply put, that figure is a political tool, and not a very subtle one at that.

Perhaps.

But show me exactly how my local electricity rates won't increase dramatically when all the hydroelectric plants are knocked down on behalf of salmon and replaced with something like wind farms that must be developed from scratch.

Or all the thousands coal-fired power plants throughout mid-America are replaced with something else.

How are all those new facilities gonna be paid for? Creative accounting? More deficit spending?

When premise development begins with the conclusion, you have religion, not science.

[Greg Peterson]

Go talk to California about the soil surrounding all their highways in the LA area. In short, it is polluted beyond any safe standard with lead.

Who would have thought that a few million cars could cause so much of a problem? You can't see see it, so it must not be real.

Lead, mussels, Pacific Gyre, China's completely unregulated coal plants and high tech equipment dumping grounds, and on and on and on. No one of these is a concern, but the accumulative effect over time is bound to push the planets ability to absorb and negate the effects beyond its limits.

I could ask rhetorical questions about ocean acidity levels, the salination engine in the Atlantic ocean and so on, but I would be taking facts and evidence out of context to support a bias.

As for myself, I am merely a laymen and have no standing in the science community. Therefore, nothing I say will be taken with any more certainty than anything said by anyone else in this forum.

[Heather Thompson]

Bob,

I took the time to read the entire article that you posted in Post #66, it seems that if you take the time to read the entire article it will debunk your claim of bad science. The very opening to the article states, "ScienceDaily (Oct. 25, 2009) — The possibility that climate change might simply be a natural variation like others that have occurred throughout geologic time is dimming, according to evidence in a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper published October 19."

It never fails to amaze me how people that are set in stone on a position will cherry pick particular lines from an article to support their opinion. There were comments earlier in this thread that until both sides come to the table to discuss the topic open mindedly there will be no chance for change. I try to be very open minded in all things that I discuss, it frustrates me when open dialogue is hindered by such actions.

Heather

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163513.htm#

[Eric Larsen]

That population graph you're touting shows population as a percentage of each world region.

So you're proving that Asia and Latin America have been getting slightly denser. And Europe less populous -- compared with the rest of the world.

The same site shows that there were about 2.6 billion people in 1950, and a little less than 7 billion today. The yearly growth rate -- same site as your graph, mind you -- was around 1.5% in 1950, shot up to more than 2% in the early 1960s, and has been leveling down to 1.2% ever since.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

Are you suggesting there has not been a gigantic increase in population in the last 60 years? How do you explain those 4-point-something billion people who showed up since the 1950s?

Are you suggesting that average temperatures are decreasing? Just pull the data out of the newspapers of the world and you'll see that they're rising.

Are you suggesting that sea levels are not rising? Taken a trip to Tuvalu lately?

Glaciers not receding? Lakes not drying up? Storm intensity not increasing? Crops not failing?

The warning signs are all around you -- and you choose to wear blinders.

It is becoming apparent to me that the Silent Generation (aka Greatest Generation) and Baby Boomers are going to have to die out as a political force before we can get anything done.

[Heather Thompson]

Perhaps.

But show me exactly how my local electricity rates won't increase dramatically when all the hydroelectric plants are knocked down on behalf of salmon and replaced with something like wind farms that must be developed from scratch.

Or all the thousands coal-fired power plants throughout mid-America are replaced with something else.

How are all those new facilities gonna be paid for? Creative accounting? More deficit spending?

When premise development begins with the conclusion, you have religion, not science.


Bob,

In your Post#64 where you quoted from my PM to you about the Zebra Mussel problem you were confused when I referenced Hoover Dam, it is not a problem with fish kills in turbines, the mussels clog the cooling lines which cause the systems to be shut down. I did mention that in the Eastern US it is costing 5 billion per year in damages. There is fear that the mussel population will make it to Oregan shortly. I wonder what that will do to your electric rates. It is time for the world to sit down and address the issues that affect us all, Zebra Mussels are only on invasive problem.

Heather

[Dan Friedrichs]

Here's another example of the bad science happening every day......

I just want to point one thing out: The climate scientists who do this research are generally people who are EXTREMELY well-educated, and most of us have NO place questioning them. Not to say we can't critically evaluate their positions, but these people have 8+ years of postsecondary education, followed by decades of doing nothing more than studying these issues. To read a summary or two of their work, then believe you have the capacity to declare it invalid, is the height of vanity, IMHO.

Would you walk into an operating room and say, "Hey Doc, what you're doing doesn't seem right to me, let me give it a try..."?

We can be skeptical, but should still be respectful. These people are experts. You trust the scientific establishment to provide you with safe drugs, effective medicine, flightworthy airplanes, etc - so why does anyone feel that they can just ignore the scientific results that they don't find convienient?

[Don C Peterson]

I tend to listen to what the scientists at NASA have to say. They're apolitical.

ROTFLOL Apolitical? Are you serious? These guys make their living on TAX PAYER MONEY, don't you think they have a vested interest in creating the illusion of a looming disaster? Wake up, for heaven's sake.

The problem for them is that their "science" is provably wrong. There's been no warming for the past decade. Their models all predicted that there would be warming in the Troposphere and in the oceans, it isn't happening. And most importantly the vaunted CO2/warming connection is backwards. Increased CO2 FOLLOWS historic warming trends so it CANNOT be the cause.

[Glenn Clabo]

This thread is quickly spiraling downward. I think it's time to give it a rest.

Okay folks...I believe a deep breath was needed to calm everyone just a bit.

The thread is open again. Please try to speak to each other like you would if you were face to face. This subject has always ended ugly here...let's make this be the first that doesn't.

[Glenn Clabo]

"WASHINGTON - An analysis of global temperatures by independent statisticians shows the Earth is still warming and not cooling as some skeptics are claiming.The analysis was conducted at the request of The Associated Press to investigate the legitimacy of talk of a cooling trend that has been spreading on the Internet, fueled by some news reports, a new book and temperatures that have been cooler in a few recent years.
In short, it is not true, according to the statisticians who contributed to the AP analysis."


Also..."These guys make their living on TAX PAYER MONEY, don't you think they have a vested interest in creating the illusion of a looming disaster? Wake up, for heaven's sake."


That's a little strong when you consider your avatar indicates that you are a Marine. Are you saying anyone who lives on TAX PAYER MONEY create illusions to justify thier jobs?

[Greg Peterson]

I've not seen anyone post here that is qualified to weigh in on the matter. We can all cite reports, anecdotal evidence and use whatever 'facts' available to support our bias.

Some are inclined to believe the climate is warming, others don't believe it is changing.

The science is settled for the time being. Sure, someone could come along and find a fatal flaw in all the different models in use. It certainly would not mean the scientific community had an agenda.

With so many different individuals and agencies looking at the data and forecasting for a myriad of reasons, the likelihood that most everyone is coming to not only the wrong conclusion but the same conclusion, is so remarkably remote.

I see little risk in rethinking our energy production, distribution and use methodology. We're using energy technology that is fundamentally the same as what was in use 150 years ago. It's just the scale that has changed.

[Eric Larsen]

I've not seen anyone post here that is qualified to weigh in on the matter. We can all cite reports, anecdotal evidence and use whatever 'facts' available to support our bias.


I disagree with this. Surely we should be talking. The more we talk about problems of this magnitude, the better.

We don't have to be climate scientists to discuss what we should be doing. The climate scientists give us data, we as a nation have to step up and implement plans based on that data.

Even though some people have opinions that strike me as unarguable as, say, "there is no gravity" or "the earth is flat," eventually enough people will hop on the environment train so that we can move in SOME direction. I'm convinced that eventually we will begin. The questions are, 1) When will we begin?; and 2) Will there be enough time?

[Neal Clayton]

regardless of all of the above, from growing up on the gulf coast, here's are some indisputable facts, as they relate to average temeperatures...

a) at 80 degree ocean surface temps, a tropical storm is a glorified thunderstorm. you can stay at the fishing camp and ride it out, just park the truck on high ground and put the boat on the trailer.

b) at 85-87 degree ocean surface temps, a tropical storm turns into a cat2/low cat3 hurricane. probably gonna need to board up the windows and hit the road.

c) at 90 degree plus ocean surface temps, you get hurricane katrina. if you don't leave, you're probably dead.

"so what's the difference if temps go up 5 degrees?"

in chicago, not much. in new orleans, miami, houston, etc....quite a lot.

having not read alot of the science, my personal observations over my 35 years...

when we were kids in the 70s we played outside every day. there weren't any 105 degree days that i could remember then, because we were outside in the sandlot football game every day during the summer breaks, and on the rare days that it reached 100 our parents wouldn't let us play outside all day. these days, 102-105 degree days in july and august are pretty common here. not every day, but more of those days.

so is it safe to say that it's 5 degrees warmer than it was then during the hottest months? i think so. and like i said, and anyone else who lives on the southern coasts can verify, the difference between 80 and 85 or 85 and 90 in hurricane season is a helluva big difference...

[Greg Peterson]

Vineyards here in the Willamette valley are having to move their grapes to higher altitudes. The weather they are experiencing is warmer and more extreme. The hot days are hotter and drier. And the rain is torrential.

The weather is getting extreme. Last December we had 14" of snow. In August we had nine days in a row over 90 degrees, with most of those days being over 100, topping out at 109 degrees.

This fall has been very balmy so far. Normally by now the evenings would be chilly. A heavy shirt is all that is needed.

Warmer and more extreme.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

There are geologists who believe the earth has gone through several ice ages.

100 years.......a short time relative to the age of the earth.

[Neal Clayton]

yep, very short.

the sad thing is, if we spent half of the money that we spent coming up with BS science to argue political opinions on the matter, we could pay for whatever's required to find out the facts, and what to do about it.

unfortunately most political particpiants (including officials and the voting public) aren't very interested in facts most of the time.

[Eric Larsen]

yep, very short.

the sad thing is, if we spent half of the money that we spent coming up with BS science to argue political opinions on the matter, we could pay for whatever's required to find out the facts, and what to do about it.

unfortunately most political particpiants (including officials and the voting public) aren't very interested in facts most of the time.

I'd argue that we've found out the facts already. The climate scientists are unequivocal about it. (OK, there are a handful of holdouts -- who I think are probably bought and paid for -- that many latch on to.)

As for what to do? There is no lack of great ideas -- carbon dioxide scrubber (http://www.physorg.com/news141915261.html) technology for instance. We're not implementing them for two reasons -- 1) people balk at the cost (which isn't much compared to how much we throw our military's way); 2) There is a vocal minority that seems to be dead set on doing nothing at all, and taking a "wait and see" approach.

We also have a lot of crappy ideas -- like a company's ability to buy it's way out of responsibility with carbon offsets. (http://www.wikihow.com/Buy-a-Carbon-Offset) No, that isn't good enough. Companies need to clean up their damned mess, just like everyone else.

Then there's the height of hubris -- China and India aren't cleaning up, so we shouldn't have to either. For one thing, China has better environmental laws on the books than we do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_of_China). They aren't enforcing them, and business is flouting the laws. But it is slowly getting better. People balk at having to wear surgical masks all day long so they don't get lung cancer in their 20s. So it will eventually improve.

China has stricter MPG regulations (http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/2771/) than we do. Most of Asia taxes older cars at a higher rate than new cars to get people to give up their gas guzzlers. I'm all for that kind of legislation (with an exemption for classic cars that are driven less than X miles per year, of course).

Seven percent of our nation's diesel supply goes up in smoke so that truckers can run their air conditioners when they are sleeping. That's just retarded. (I cannot find the link, but I'm fairly sure it's 7%.) There are ways to retrofit trucks so that they can chill a heat sink while driving, which cools them when stopped without running the engine. This is one of those "no-brainer" (costs less than the wasted fuel -- EDIT Costs less than the wasted fuel over the life of the truck) policies that we could choose to implement, yet for some reason do not.

[Bob Smalser]

I was fascinated with these Antarctic ice cores back when they were completed in 1998 and also the later 2003 European Project coring drilled 300 miles distant.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Epica_do18_plot.png

The Vostok coring was deeper but the European cores go back farther. Above the two data sets are overlayed with the European on top and the Vostok beneath. And below the Vostok core data is arrayed in the typical graph usually published.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Vostok-ice-core-petit.png

What's remarkable are.....

- how closely the different cores correlate.
- the uniform height and depth of world temperature and C02 highs and lows.
- the uniform spacing of warming and ice ages.
- the appearance of cause-effect with geologic activity - C02 - temperature.
- that overlaying human activity shows the appearance of zero impact.

Modern man has been present on all continents for 30,000 years, and he and his more primitive predecessors have only used regular, controlled fire for cooking, agriculture and hunting for 50-100,000 years. Before that man-made fires date to 400,000 years, but it's questionable how numerous, regular and controlled they were. Certainly nothing remotely like the Cro Magnon era to today.

I'm hardly drawing conclusions that these are "proof" that temperature cycles are caused by geologic or solar phenomena and that man has zero impact, but they do raise questions about buying into a new religion on Anthropologic Climate Change.

[Don C Peterson]

Anyone who thinks that the Global Warming (now conveniently re-labeled "climate change" alarmists) don't have a political agenda, should watch this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature=player_embedded

And also go here and read this report:

http://www.nipccreport.org/index.html

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Folks,

Glenn Clabo and I often don't agree on subjects.

I'm sure he'll agree with me on this.....this thread is really, really becoming too political and I will predict it will be closed shortly.

[Don C Peterson]

Also..."These guys make their living on TAX PAYER MONEY, don't you think they have a vested interest in creating the illusion of a looming disaster? Wake up, for heaven's sake."


That's a little strong when you consider your avatar indicates that you are a Marine. Are you saying anyone who lives on TAX PAYER MONEY create illusions to justify thier jobs?

First off, I'm a former Marine. And no I'm not saying what you suggest. What I am saying is that scientists on the public payroll are no more, and no less, apt to arrive at their conclusions based at least in part on self interest.

Why is it that any scientist who disagrees with the global warming alarmism is automatically labeled as being "bought" when in fact the opposite is quite often true. Those who have pointed out holes and fallacies in the "accepted science" are ridiculed, denied funding, and even have their lives and livelihood threatened by the "enlightened" and "tolerant."

How many government grants go to those who question anthropological global warming as opposed to the hundreds of millions of dollars that are funneled James Hansen and like minded scientists who have a definite political bias. Why are people not alarmed that government funding of science means that it is inherently politicized?

The climate is so complex that to claim that the "science is settled" is nothing more than a blatant attempt to cut off any debate. It is fundamentally dishonest.

Here are some indisputable FACTS:

1. The computer models used to show warming cannot accurately model what we know happened in the past, so how can they possibly predict the future?

2. The IPCC report was NOT written by scientists but by bureaucrats who often changed the meaning of the scientific language that was supposedly the source.

3. The "hockey stick" is a complete fabrication and even the IPCC has been forced to abandon it. In fact the models that produced it are so biased that given a set of totally random inputs, they all produce the same result.

4. There is no warming in the Troposphere. According to the "accepted" theory this is where the warming would commence and be the most acute.

5. Finally, as the records that Bob posted show, CO2 levels have historically FOLLOWED warming trends.

[Ken Fitzgerald]

Folks,

Keep in mind


IN-YOUR-FACE tactics seldom win converts and usually only adds to the already gathered perception that the poster is a fanatic not worthy of one's attention.

THIS GOES OUT TO BOTH SIDES OF THIS ARGUMENT.

Everyone has a right to an opinion. If you don't respect the other person's right to have their own opinion, how can you reasonably expect someone to respect your right to your opinion?

I'm going to get the opinion of other Moderators before or IF this thread will be reopened for posting. We may decide to just remove it from public viewing and move to the Moderator's Forum.