Inconvenient

[Coloradoboi]

(PalmatierMeg @ Mar. 25 2008,12:26)

QUOTE

Gee. I remember, long, long ago: Nuclear Winter (a-a-a-i-i-i-e-e-e!)

Humankind always magnifies its abilities in the scheme of things. When global warming has run its course, good ol' Nuclear Winter will be back, stylishly updated as "Global Freezing" (brrrr) and people will pray the all the hot air will prevent a catastrophe that will wipe out everything but amoebas. Live long enough and what goes around, comes around (unless an asteroid gets us first, but that's another crisis entirely).

The nuclear winter theory was never as well agreed upon by the scientific community.

Wether or not you guys want to admit it, the verdict is in, the planet is warming, and most scientists believe it is due to human activity.

Only a small portion of scientists still do not believe in global warming, however it has been made to appear to be a much larger number of scientists by groups who want to disprove global warming.  

Either way, it certainly can't hurt to conserve a bit.

[amazondk]

I have done a bit of investigation on this subject and I really have not seen that a small portion of experts in the area believe that the warming is man made.  The more you look into the subject the more it appears that the contrary is more common.  Not that human activity has no impact, the question is how much.  I just find it hard to believe that it is the main cause.  As do many people much more informed than me. If I were to bet on things I would bet on the planet sliding into another ice age at some point in time. And, that may be sooner than later.  We are after all in an interglacial period.  And nothing says that we have left the age of ice.  And, that is a much bigger problem than warming.  In either case it is important to treat our planet the best we can.  Yes the world has warmed since we left the Little Ice Age in the mid 1800s.  But we still have not reached the temperatures of the Holocene Maximum some 6,000 years ago.  In addtion I would agree that the measurement of world temperatures is still very flawed.  There is no indication that in my part of the globe, that is from the equator south to Tierra del Fuego things are getting warmer.  In fact the cold fronts are already hitting southern Brazil.  And, last winter was far from warm.

dk

[putu enjula]

I agree with Don, we should treat our ecosystem as best as we can.  I say ecosystem because the planet could care less if humans inhabit it- there are many resilient species such as cockroaches etc. that will survive if we screw it up for ourselves. We should probably concentrate on other issues such as ground water pollution, urban runoff, overfishing, pesticides, hormones, viagra in the drinking water, etc.   I think it is hard for us to gage how much harm we are doing carbon dioxide-wise. Scientists can't  even agree  whether the climate is actually warming or cooling.  I saw a commercial today promoting "going green" and I noticed it said "help the climate crisis"  So I guess their covering their (beep) by being vague...  they are safe whether it is cooling or warming.  

And BTW the latest stories have been claiming global cooling, not warming, for those who are not up with current events.  

As for myself, I recycle everything that is in the "mixed paper" category. Now more than ever because I am on an island.  I recycle junk mail, newspaper, cardboard containers whether it be a cereal box or a box of pasta. I  even recycle the cardboard at the end of a toilet paper roll. I recycle all plastic, cans (including canned food) and every piece of glass.   Some people claim it causes more pollution to recycle but, I abhor trash...  and landfills ain't pretty.

[putu enjula]

One thing for sure is that anyone can find "evidence" for whichever position they would like to take.

For example, I'm going to play devil's advocate...

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cf...34384/story.htm

http://www.newsminer.com/news....-alaska

http://www.bismarcktribune.com/article....344.txt

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/002200701070313.htm

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8583

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/02/11/m...d.ap/index.html

This one is interesting...

http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_de...._type=1

[amazondk]

Angela,

Last Sunday when I was driving north with my customer from Holland we talked a lot about this subject and came to the same conclusion.  No matter what is happening, cooling or warming there is probably little we can do in one respect or another.  But, we can take certain measures on a personal or even a local government level to at least help make our planet a better place.  As you say nature really does not care what humans do.  Nature will react to obtain balance in natural systems whether this is good or bad for humans.  I saw something not too long ago about the amount of plastic per square km floating in our oceas.  That is plastic in very small pieces.  It is a lot.  Here in Brazil some years ago they used to wrap everything you bought in paper, now it is all plastic bags.  The two things that are hard to get away from even the most remote areas here are plastic bags and plastic PET bottles.  Who knows how many PET bottles are floating around the world at any given time.  Aluminum cans on the other hand are nearly 100 percent recycled in Brazil.  I have even had people collect them off the table when I still had some beer in one.

dk

[amazondk]

Angela,

Thanks for the articles.  I know that my parents in Montana have had a pretty cold winter.  Here in equatorial South America we have had a very wet rainy season.  In fact the seasonal flood this year will be a big one.  The water levels are up all over the basin.  During the 2005 drought there was a lot of talk that deforestation had caused climate change and that large parts of the Amazon forest would suddenly turn into savanna as there would not be enough water to keep the forest in it's current state.  I am not saying this can not happen.  In fact it has happened many times in past million years of ice age ups and downs.  As the planet gets colder it gets drier.  If you take into account that 18,000 years ago the ocean water level was I believe around 100 meters lower than today you can grasp just how different the planet was just a short time ago on the geologic clock.  I am not in favor of deforestation and poor land use.  And, I do not claim that if deforestation persists on a large scale there will not be impacts.  There will be.  But, the alarmists of the 2005 Amazonian drought have had a hard time supporting their claims.  It has gotten wetter every year since.  In fact that drought was the biggest one in 100 years.  Which points to the fact that it had happened before and is normal part of the climate cycle here.

dk

[putu enjula]

Well, imho if the ice caps are melting then it must be getting warmer but who knows how much we are speeding things up...  hasn't there been a warming trend since the ice age? ???

Anyway the main point of posting those articles was to show that you can find all kinds of "hypotheses" with the "evidence" to support them.  

I think it's just best to reduce pollution in general.

This article looks at the bright side

http://www.southbaymobilization.org/newsroo....ars.htm

[sonoranfans]

(Cycadcenter @ Apr. 12 2008,11:19)

QUOTE

Here is another article from The Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story....00.html

Bruce

Bruce,

that link contains is a very good article for lay people.  Science isnt about consensus, its about research, development of ideas and critical review of those ideas.  Ideas are reviewed and tested with research data and new ideas are born to better fit the data.  Early in Einsteins career, scientists of the day were in consensus that many of his theories were nonsense, and they were wrong.  Einstein himself didnt believe in the probablistic nature of quantum mechanics proposed by shroedinger("god doesnt throw dice"), and he was wrong, totally wrong.  The greatest scientists are wrong at one time or another, so I am not suprised if "scientific consensus" is incorrect on the more comlex issues that face scientists.  Its actually typical that we scientists are wrong before we get it right.  The development of science depends on it, and political hacks interfering with the development of science tends to create a consensus and stunt the development of new ideas that may be required to "get it right".

[Coloradoboi]

(amazondk @ Apr. 13 2008,06:00)

QUOTE

Thanks for the articles.  I know that my parents in Montana have had a pretty cold winter.  Here in equatorial South America we have had a very wet rainy season.  In fact the seasonal flood this year will be a big one.  The water levels are up all over the basin.  During the 2005 drought there was a lot of talk that deforestation had caused climate change and that large parts of the Amazon forest would suddenly turn into savanna as there would not be enough water to keep the forest in it's current state.  

Imho, I don't think just a few years should be used to debunk global warming.  Just because you have one cold winter, doesn't mean that the planet overall isn't warming.

oh, and another thing... i love how we all keep it so civil in here.  this is what makes palm talk so great.

[amazondk]

Scott,

Although I am no scientist I did major in Geography in college and have always been interested in what happens to the Earth.  Or, what has happened over it's history.  The more I have looked into this subject the more it has become apparent to me just what you say.  A few years should not be used to come up with a postition on what is happening to the planet.  It is clear that the planet has warmed since the end of the Little Ice Age in the 1850s.  That is a good thing as it has made the world more friendly for humans.  What I can not find is anything that convinces me that this has been caused by any provable degree by human activities.  Even the measurements of climate on a global scale are far from reliable.  As Angela points out there are opinions all over the spectrum.  It is easy for the news media to come out and say that this or that is caused by Global Warming.   But, that does not mean that the real trend of climate on the planet will be warmer or colder.  I personally hope that it is warmer.  As stated earlier, a colder plantet is not a very nice place.  A large percentage of humanity already does not have much to eat.  With a colder, drier world this will only get worse.  From all indications the next ice age will come and that will not be a good thing for humanity.  The question is just like a hurricane in Florida, When not If?  If the planet had not warmed since the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago it would be unlikely that we would even be burning fossil fuels today.  Taking that into account it makes it even more imperative that we manage our planet and it's resources well.   I think that this is more important than wether the planet has gotten warmer or colder over the past decade.  

dk

[Neofolis]

None of these things would be an issue, if there were less humans.  We have already caused the extinction of numerous species, due to our expansion and with current technology, sufficient sustainable fuel sources for our current ways of life would be difficult at best.  I appreciate that technology will improve and times will change as necessity dictates, but how many more species are we prepared to lose on the way.

Without some form of global population control, preferably through education rather than sanction, we will continue to encounter problems.

I appreciate the argument of survival of the fittest, but do we really want to end up alone on this planet, with the exception of farmed wildlife and exhibits in controlled environments.  Whilst there is great conservation work being done around the globe, if population continues to increase, it will have to go somewhere.  Yes technology will help to alleviate the effect with taller buildings, cleaner fuels, more economical products, but at what point do we stop wiping out other species from existance.

[_Keith]

(Neofolis @ Apr. 15 2008,12:13)

QUOTE

None of these things would be an issue, if there were less humans.  We have already caused the extinction of numerous species, due to our expansion and with current technology, sufficient sustainable fuel sources for our current ways of life would be difficult at best.  I appreciate that technology will improve and times will change as necessity dictates, but how many more species are we prepared to lose on the way.

Without some form of global population control, preferably through education rather than sanction, we will continue to encounter problems.

I appreciate the argument of survival of the fittest, but do we really want to end up alone on this planet, with the exception of farmed wildlife and exhibits in controlled environments.  Whilst there is great conservation work being done around the globe, if population continues to increase, it will have to go somewhere.  Yes technology will help to alleviate the effect with taller buildings, cleaner fuels, more economical products, but at what point do we stop wiping out other species from existance.

Once the limites of sustainability are reached, there are only two possible answers:

Man - War

Nature - Disease and Famine

The system will reconcile itself if we don't.  Best if we do it.

Perspective =

[Coloradoboi]

An interesting article i saw today in the paper about Amtrak.

Perhaps we could cut emissions simply by using public transit?  

"Our nation spends hundreds of billions of dollars a year on highways, bridges, rail lines, buses and railroads that connect communities, shape patterns of growth and development, and sustain the economy. But there is no comprehensive national transportation policy to drive this titanic task.

Amtrak will serve a record 26 million riders this year, but Congress has consistently given the railroad hundreds of millions of dollars less than it needs to pay for capital improvements, including the replacement of worn track, repairing bridges and rebuilding rail cars.

President George W. Bush even tried to end federal assistance for passenger rail service. For next year, Bush has proposed cutting Amtrak by 40%, giving it half the $1.67 billion the agency is requesting. Amtrak spends $500 million a year on debt service alone. Bush's proposed $800 million for Amtrak would require the railroad to cut a large share of its 22,000 miles of service.

Put in perspective, the $1.67 billion Amtrak is requesting for the entire year is little more than the cost of one large planned highway project in metro Detroit: rebuilding seven miles of I-94 in Detroit.

With a little help from the federal government, local governments can develop successful regional transit systems. A country spending more than $120 billion a year in Iraq can't afford to neglect its own mobility needs. "

I am fortunate enough to live in an urban neighborhood with a train stop less than a block away from me.  I rarely ever use my car.  I take the train daily, and there is a whole foods located just around the corner for me to get my groceries.  

To me, it seems like people have sterotypes about living downtown... "It's unsafe, dirty, etc"

I have a beautiful home in an area with almost no crime, and a great yard perfect for all my plants.  Believe it or not, it wasn't even that expensive.

It is the perfect solution... the convenience of downtown with the comforts of the suburbs.

[steve 9atx]

Scott

Amtrak is different than your local commuter train.

Nobody does/will ride Amrak NYC-LA like they would ride the equivalent London-Edinburgh.

Much better we spend our $ on "clean coal" and nukes.

I just want to see Algore caned for being a lyin' POS.  Is that too much to ask???

Steve

[Coloradoboi]

^ I am well aware that Amtrak is much different than your local commuter train.

my apologies.  it was misleading for me to bring up public transit.

My point in bringing up that article is that we are cutting money away from trains, which are efficient, and do not pollute the environment as much as cars, and we are still expanding our highways.  Something seems wrong with that picture...

[_Keith]

When is the last time you have seen a local, or even a state government invest in a grand vision for the future.   Once it was not rare, today it is.    It takes a leap of faith, and a vision past a 4 year election cycle.  Give me your examples.

[palmmermaid]

I think overpopulation is one of the biggest causes of problems on this planet. More people means more of everything else - food, water, and garbage! We have to find a way to control population and to feed people with a smaller footprint. We are lving longer and having more children - both of which contribute to overpopulation.

We can all do small things that have a big impact. Cutting our consumption of meat by 10-20% would be a great start. Industrial farming is one of the biggest polluters on this planet. I don't eat beef raised and fattened in feed lots any more. I won't eat farmed fish or shrimp. I try to buy only seasonal and organic produce from local farmers. I don't use any pesticides on my yard. If you have weeds in your lawn, just mow over them. I actually overseeded my hated St. Augustine with a pasture mix this year. This will create a healthier lawn in the small area of lawn I still have.

Permanent water restrictions are a must - even for golf courses. Most plants can adapt to 2 days a week.

Recycling is a must. We don't need any more junk in our landfills. All paper, plastic, aluminum, and glass can be recycled. Use cloth napkins and rags instead of paper towels. Buy recyled paper products. Reuse things. Repurpose things. We used to do all of the things we should be doing today as a matter of necessity. We now live in a disposable society and it is costing us.

Don't use chemicals to clean with. Good old white vinegar will kill almost anything. Baking soda is a great cleaner. We used it for toothpaste when I was growing up. Use soap instead of detergent. I don't use chlorine bleach for anything. I keep a very small bottle around in my hurricane supply kit to purify water if needed. Don't use plastic cups, eating utensils, or plates.

Change your light bulbs and turn them off when not in use. Open your windows and turn off the air conditioning unless it is unbearable - above 82. Fresh air is wonderful. Turn on the fans. Plant trees around your house to shade it.

None of these things are big items but all make a good impact on the planet. We are supposed to be stewards. We haven't been very good ones. We need to change that, one person at a time.

[sonoranfans]

I think overpopulation is one of the biggest causes of problems on this planet. More people means more of everything else - food, water, and garbage! We have to find a way to control population and to feed people with a smaller footprint. We are lving longer and having more children - both of which contribute to overpopulation.

We can all do small things that have a big impact. Cutting our consumption of meat by 10-20% would be a great start. Industrial farming is one of the biggest polluters on this planet. I don't eat beef raised and fattened in feed lots any more. I won't eat farmed fish or shrimp. I try to buy only seasonal and organic produce from local farmers. I don't use any pesticides on my yard. If you have weeds in your lawn, just mow over them. I actually overseeded my hated St. Augustine with a pasture mix this year. This will create a healthier lawn in the small area of lawn I still have.

Permanent water restrictions are a must - even for golf courses. Most plants can adapt to 2 days a week.

Recycling is a must. We don't need any more junk in our landfills. All paper, plastic, aluminum, and glass can be recycled. Use cloth napkins and rags instead of paper towels. Buy recyled paper products. Reuse things. Repurpose things. We used to do all of the things we should be doing today as a matter of necessity. We now live in a disposable society and it is costing us.

Don't use chemicals to clean with. Good old white vinegar will kill almost anything. Baking soda is a great cleaner. We used it for toothpaste when I was growing up. Use soap instead of detergent. I don't use chlorine bleach for anything. I keep a very small bottle around in my hurricane supply kit to purify water if needed. Don't use plastic cups, eating utensils, or plates.

Change your light bulbs and turn them off when not in use. Open your windows and turn off the air conditioning unless it is unbearable - above 82. Fresh air is wonderful. Turn on the fans. Plant trees around your house to shade it.

None of these things are big items but all make a good impact on the planet. We are supposed to be stewards. We haven't been very good ones. We need to change that, one person at a time.

Good suggestions kitty, many of these used to be spread around before all the energy went into global warming hysteria with algor the bore. Being consciously green takes intelligent thought, not ethanol in gasoline which just makes the footprint larger. Alternate energy technologies that do not use carbon are almost forgotten in our society. Intelligent citizens that think for themselves and resist being herded by politicians will be the "salt of the earth". In my house, we recycle, use drip irrigation, try to avoid plastics(they pollute upon chemical breakdown), use vinegar regularly to kill bacteria, and dont wash ourselves to discourage pro creation(just kidding on that one). I even bunch my palms together so 2 sets of drippers waters 3 palms. I also use tough, drought resistant desert trees to keep the hottest sun off my palms so they dont need as much water. Americans are having less than 2 kids per couple(1.7) so the population should drop here. Many other countries have problems there, and you just have to look at their population density to figure out where the problems are.

I do believe that "survival of the fittest" will limit human population, as we continue to pollute our environment, our DNA will degrade and we will die off faster and become less fertile. Food limitations(nutrition and quantity) will also work to control the population, like it or not. Just keep eating that nasty fast food, it'll take care of itself, another example of "survival of the fittest".

[koolthing78]

Scott

Amtrak is different than your local commuter train.

Nobody does/will ride Amrak NYC-LA like they would ride the equivalent London-Edinburgh.

Much better we spend our $ on "clean coal" and nukes.

I just want to see Algore caned for being a lyin' POS.  Is that too much to ask???

Steve

Regardless of how much inaccurate information he may have presented, causing people to take a serious look at conservation is hardly the worst consequence ever suffered due to the lies of a politician, either past or present.

[steve 9atx]

Not so. Algore isn't interested in "serious looks", instead, he wants you and me (as everyone living in the third world BTW) to lower our standard of living for the sake of the planet he worships while not showin' up for "church" himself! He needs the "devil" beat out of him!

Some more "inconveniences": http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print...8943824973.html

Steve

On another subject, computer animation is gettin' soooooo good these days........

http://newsbusters.org/node/20680?q=blogs/...onvenient-truth

Edited April 24, 2008 by steve 9atx

[_Keith]

Well, personally I can't wait for another 2 weeks till I can get to the beach for a little personal level Global Warming. Florida here I come.

[palmmermaid]

Tom,

I agree with your last paragraph about our DNA degrading. I think some of it is caused by all the anti-biotics and growth hormones in our food. Tack that to the pesticides and herbicides is our plant food and you have a real chemical soup!

In decades past, only the strong survived to pass along the genes. That ain't necessaily so anymore. I ask questions like Why is autism at an all time high and on the rise? Something environmental or genetic is causing this. I am not a big fan of all the artificial ways to have babies either. But I'll stop. I may be getting in to deep water here!

Anway, all of us have to do our part to help the environment - even if it is "inconvenient".

[amazondk]

Steve,

Thanks for the links to the articles. As pointed out in the WSJ article, who says that a warmer planet is bad? The truth is from what I can see a colder planet is a lot worse. As mentioned in posts above mankind flourished when the planet became warmer. And, during the past few millenium suffered when the climate cooled. There is no reason to believe anything different will happen when the planet slides into another ice age. There is already a lot of stress on food supplies around the world. A colder drier world will only make this more accute. And, that may be a real population control mechanism. I hope that we can find a way around this and continue to raise peoples living standards in the process. But, that is a real tough task to do.

dk

[sonoranfans]

Scott

Amtrak is different than your local commuter train.

Nobody does/will ride Amrak NYC-LA like they would ride the equivalent London-Edinburgh.

Much better we spend our $ on "clean coal" and nukes.

I just want to see Algore caned for being a lyin' POS.  Is that too much to ask???

Steve

Regardless of how much inaccurate information he may have presented, causing people to take a serious look at conservation is hardly the worst consequence ever suffered due to the lies of a politician, either past or present.

Politicians are professional liars and hypocrites, all they do is discredit their causes. When their lies come out, their causes are discredited. And algors(one word) 30,000 dollar a year energy footprint has already discredited him. Talking down to real scientists and scolding people in general while he personally pigs out on energy just renders him a pompous ass. I would prefer an honorable front man for the green movement, liars create a backlash that is counter productive to the long term goals of conservation. The only politician that I admired in my life was Jimmy carter, and he was a bad politician, but a very good man. The next time I hear a lawyer speak with authority on science issues will be the first, and I never expect an arrogant lawyer like algor to ever be an authority on any science issue.

[putu enjula]

Isn't anyone worried about this?? Pick your poison.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7431198

Do we really need more mercury around? Maybe it's not such a good trade off unless the whole world recycles them without fail.

In my opinion, mercury poisoning is not worth saving two thirds the wattage, we could try turning off the lights. (but I don't think that applies to florescent tube lights, I heard it takes more energy to switch those on and off than to leave them on all day... I'll have to google that)

Did anyone see Radiohead on Conan? GRRR!!

They were on via satellite because they said to fly to NY from the U.K., would cause too many greenhouse emissions. They said that one airline flight would equal one year of driving your car.

I'M SORRY, I do as much as I can for the environment by recycling but to feel GUILTY about taking a trip somewhere.... I just refuse!!!

That band is so arrogant. They had better not eat red meat because that causes a big "carbon footprint." And EVERY product that band buys better be made in the U.K. because any products that are imported are FLOWN by cargo at some point!

Oh well, I don't eat red meat so maybe I can trade it for long airline trips.

[amazondk]

Angela,

As if the plane would not fly because they were not on it? That reminds me of a story I saw a few years ago when an animal rights group was protesting the use of leather seats in Mercedes Benz cars because it killed cattle. As if leather is the goal of killing a cow. As far as I know the main reason to kill a cow is to eat it. The skin is only a left over to be taken advantage of. It is better to protest against killing cows to eat than for leather. Personally I don't see a difference in eating a chicken or a cow. Maybe the chicken is even smarter than the cow to begin with. And, sharks well could be smarter than cows.

As to the music group, I would imagine that lot of the components in their instruments also were flown on airplanes. The fact of the matter is that living can be harmful to the planet. Every thing has it's trade offs.

dk

[putu enjula]

I think the issue with cattle is that it takes so much land to support them. A lot of forests have been cleared for pastures... you can see it here on the big island... it's hard to imagine that all the grass-covered, rolling hills here used to be forest.

I wonder which uses more land pound for pound- chicken or beef? Aside from pastures, both of them use land to grow their feed... lol, maybe you can cram more chickens into less space but it takes a lot of chickens to match one cow's quantity of meat. But then again, chickens take less time to get to the choppin' block.

What's your take on this Don? Do you know which animal is more "green?" Which uses more resources?

It's great that the band Radiohead tries to do something for the environment... it just irks me that they are so pious about it when their rockstar lives probably pollute the earth ten times as much as us normal people.

I like this whole "green" movement/awareness but ugh, I'm already getting sick of these words: green, global, carbon footprint, warming, greenhouse, emissions

[amazondk]

Angela,

As a food source cattle are bad business environmentally. It is true that the main cause of deforestation in Amazonia is in one form or another related to cattle. Either the land is cleared to create pasture for grazing or used to plant soy beans which are used in a large degree to make feed for cattle in the USA and Europe. I would say that at some time in the future beef will not be sustainable as a large scale protein source. Chickens require very little space in comparison. Check out this pdf publication from Amazonia.org.br The cattle realm it is very interesting and outlines very well the state of cows and Amazonia. It is in English.

dk

[amazondk]

To stay on track with the thread I found this while looking around about climate change - Global Cooling.

There has been a lot of news lately on rising food costs. It seems more people are eating and some sources of bio fuels, like corn are also rising prices. Not to mention higher fuel prices for agriculture and transportation. There was spot on the Brazilian news about rice rationing by some bulk food outlets in the US which got a lot of play here. If the colder world scenario does happen soon, the consequences will not be pretty from what I can see. It should be good for the polar bears though.

dk