View Full Version : Global warming
I'm with Michael Crichton - global warming has been greatly exaggerated. It is important to be environmentally friendly and to continue in the green direction that we're going. It is also important to move forward without unwarrented fear.
Check this out: Michael Crichton Takes on Global Warming in Latest Work by John Stossel (http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=316580&page=2)
Paige
02-13-2006, 09:30 AM
One of my favorite quotes from the article:
"My view of this is that the media is like the guy going down the street with a sign that says 'The End of the World is Near,' and he picks a date and the day comes and goes, and the world doesn't end. So he doesn't stop with the sign. He goes home, makes another sign, puts a new date on it, and starts marching again. That's the way the media is," Crichton said.
LOL! This is also a perfect description of Hal Lindsay disciples.
On another forum someone made a great point that none of us really know what a little global warming might do for the planet. The doomsday scenario is just a story (anyone remember what Byron Katie says about our stories?). What if the reality is that global warming makes it possible to grow food on new parts of the globe where it was never possible to do so before? Could that be a positive?
I think this article is another perfect example of what can happen when we 'pause', and then take time to examine our stories.
"I don't know what it is. We seem to be very ready to think it's all coming to an end. At least take in the possibility that actually everything might be going to be OK," he said.
Another great thought!
Paige
Amie, Paige,
Back in the middle ages, grapes grew in England and Greenland exported sheep to Iceland. Our current temperatures world wide are thought to be about 10 degrees F lower than what they were then.
Man burned a lot of wood and coal over those centuries while the temperatures dropped. It was to no avail. Now they are coming back up. If so, not as fast as they went down.
As long as people joke that the weatherman can't get tomorrow's weather right, any predictions about weather beyond next year are completely without merit.
I was one of the scientists asked to sign the Oregon Petition http://www.oism.org/pproject/ back when it had just a few hundred signatures on it. I think we've now got 10 times as many signatures as the Kyoto endorsement, and almost 20 times as many scientists.
One of the things I do is essentially measuring "micro-weather" over observatories and trying to predict the changes over the next few seconds. I have detailed data that weathermen can't imagine getting for the full atmosphere, and it's still mostly for naught. Give me a thousand times more computer power, and I can get a small advantage out of that data, but not enough for those who pay the bills to think it's worth it.
JL
Paige
02-13-2006, 01:23 PM
JL,
Will any of the higher ups take the petition into consideration? I hope so, especially with the scientists weight behind it. That petition might be an interesting topic for John Stossel to take up (assuming he has not already done so).
Paige
Infinite Grace
02-13-2006, 02:26 PM
Paige,
As long as the major media keeps the BS story that "scientists are warning of global warming" and that the President has "a couple" of scientists who claim that there is no global warming, nothing but trouble lies ahead.
In addition, as Christians jump on this "environmentalist-whacko" bandwagon, it can only get worse. Christians need to be smart and scientific. The science says no global warming. Propanda says global warming. Whom should we believe?
I am with Amie that it is not necessarily wrong to be good stewards of God's earth. We should punish polluters, encouraging them to clean up the mess they made, and not make any more. We should practice things that improve our earth, since we are in it for the long haul. But the socialist agenda of the enviro-left will only worsen things - look at the environmental disasters that are a way of life in socialist countries.
Intelligent capitalism is the best answer to the world's environmental problems. It's time for Christians to admit that and stop signing on to the nonsense of the Left (cf. the article at PP about the evangelical "leaders" who have signed an anti-global warming petition).
Global warming was on the News again last night. Here is an article on the lastest taken from here (http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060216143509990004&ncid=NWS00010000000001) (it is an aol article and I don't think folks who don't have the aol browser can view it - that's why I'm posting it):
Greenland's Glaciers are Melting Faster
By Maggie Fox, Reuters
ST. LOUIS (Feb. 17) - Greenland's glaciers are dumping twice as much ice into the Atlantic Ocean now as five years ago because glaciers are moving and melting more quickly, researchers said on Thursday.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Watch Video: Greenland's Glaciers Are Melting
Resources: Calculate Your Impact on Climate Change
Talk About It: Post Thoughts
This could mean oceans will rise even faster than forecast, and rising surface air temperatures appear to be to blame, the researchers report in Friday's issue of the journal Science.
"This change, combined with increased melting, suggests that existing estimates of future sea level rise are too low," Julian Dowdeswell of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Britain's Cambridge University wrote in a commentary.
"At 1.7 million square km [656,000 square miles], up to 3 km [nearly two miles] thick and a little smaller than Mexico, the Greenland Ice Sheet would raise global sea level by about 7 meters [22 feet] if it melted completely."
The study did not explore what is causing the rising air temperatures in Greenland, but most scientists agree that human activity, notably the burning of fossil fuels, is playing an important role in global warming.
Eric Rignot of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory at the California Institute of Technology and Pannir Kanagaratnam of the University of Kansas used satellite data to track the movement of Greenland's glaciers, which slide slowly down to the sea and deposit ice.
They calculated that Greenland contributes about 0.02 inch to the annual 0.1 inch rise in global sea levels.
Since 1996, southeast Greenland's outlet glaciers have been flowing more quickly and since 2000 glaciers farther north have also sped up.
Rignot and Kanagaratnam found that ice loss due to glacier flow has increased from 12 cubic miles of ice loss per year in 1996 to 36 cubic miles of ice loss per year in 2005.
"It takes a long time to build and melt an ice sheet, but glaciers can react quickly to temperature changes," Rignot said in a statement.
He said the models now used to predict how much ice Greenland will lose, and what effect that will have on sea levels, may underestimate the outcome.
Rising air temperatures are clearly a factor, the researchers told a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which publishes Science.
Over the last 20 years, the air temperature in southeast Greenland has risen by 5.4 degrees F.
Warmer air lubricates the bottoms of glaciers, helping them slide faster.
"Climate warming can work in different ways, but generally speaking, if you warm up the ice sheet, the glacier will flow faster," said Rignot.
And it may melt even more quickly in years to come, he added.
"The southern half of Greenland is reacting to what we think is climate warming. The northern half is waiting, but I don't think it's going to take long," Rignot said.
02-17-06 04:37 EST
Copyright 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon. All active hyperlinks have been inserted by AOL.
Ya know, my hubby pointed out that ice in the water would mean colder water. Colder water might even mean - cooler climate temps. Am I mistaken or does this mean things are going to work out?
Amie
Paige
02-17-2006, 10:19 AM
I think the "things may just work out" is every bit as valid as "things may get bad" mindset.
I can't help but see the same type of thing being played out over and over again that Byron Katie (from now on known as BK in my posts) has pointed out. We observe things happening and then create a "story" about it that we believe. The story could be false, but we don't examine it, we just broadcast it all over the world!
JL pointed out that our temperatures are about 10 degrees lower now than in the middle ages. If this was widely known, would the masses be panicking? Another thought is the old saying, "necessity is the mother of invention." Could it be that whatever we are going to experience on this globe, God has already provided the knowledge and the resources to survive and prosper?
Paige
Amie,
While you're putting ice in water, try this. Fill a glass 1/2 full with water. Add ice. Add water until the water comes to the brim and the ice is sticking up above the brim.
Let it sit there until the ice melts. The water level will stay the same. Some of Greenland's ice is underwater. So a complete melting of Greenland's ice would not raise the water level 7 meters like the article claimed.
The article said the run-off from Greenland had increased. But what about snowfall? Warmer weather means more evaporation, means greater snowfall, means greater run-off. We usually call this "the water cycle."
And it's interesting how "global warming" is causing Greenland to warm while from Chicago to New York (where the people are) is having record cold.
JL
Amie,
While you're putting ice in water, try this. Fill a glass 1/2 full with water. Add ice. Add water until the water comes to the brim and the ice is sticking up above the brim.
Let it sit there until the ice melts. The water level will stay the same. Some of Greenland's ice is underwater. So a complete melting of Greenland's ice would not raise the water level 7 meters like the article claimed.
<snip>
JL
HA! That hadn't even crossed my mind! That's Elementary School science!
Amie
JL,
I am curious as to how the water temperature change affects air temperature - if at all. Would you be the man to ask?
Amie
Paige
02-20-2006, 09:15 AM
I don't want to detract from your question Amie, but as long as we are on this subject I wanted to share the article that our local climatologist, Cliff Harris, wrote in today's paper:
Say 'no' to climate initiative
Just this past week, a group of more than 80 evangelical church leaders released a statement conveying what they describe as "a biblically-driven pledge" to address the myriad issues of global warming.
The group, which includes The Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren, has called on our government to "ratify legislation aimed at reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which allegedly contribute to significant climate changes."
The statement goes on to say, "the consequences of global warming will hit the poorest people the hardest. These countries will be seriously affected before richer nations."
Although I respect these religious leaders, I personally would NOT sign this Evangelical Climate Initiative. It remains my firm climatological opinion that the present period of warming, mostly ocean-related, is merely a CYCLICAL EVENT. These periods of warming alternate with frequent cooler eras like the last so-called "Little Ice Age," which occurred between 1350 and 1850 A.D., not that long ago in the scheme of things.
It actually was much warmer 1000 years ago than it is today. The Vikings, in fact, successfully farmed Greenland for more than 300 years. Try that now!
Only 30 years ago, in the mid 1970's, many scientists were predicting "GLOBAL COOLING BY THE YEAR 2000." They were only partly right.
It is my belief that we are in a period of WIDE WEATHER "EXTREMES," pure and simple. There is NO "NORMAL," it seems, weatherwise or otherwise. And besides, economically booming China, India, and other nations in Asia, Africa, and South America, have stated that they won't participate in any environmental agreement concerning global warming.
Thats more than half the world's population. I rest my case. Happy President's Day.
Infinite Grace
02-20-2006, 09:38 AM
The global warming (and previous global cooling) is an agenda that is politically, not scientifically, motivated. It is very difficult for folks like me to pick apart the scientific arguments, not because they have any soundness to them, but because they are so fallaciously constructed that it is impossible to answer each and every nuance of the "argument."
E.g., the so-called emissions that are allegedly "causing" global warming is produced by a variety of sources, the largest producer being VOLCANOES, not man-made products. When this is pointed out, the enviro-left makes the claim that something that we are doing is "causing" the volcanoes to erupt, even though volcanoes have been erupting since the beginning of time. It is the same senseless argument made as to why American capitalism, and more specifically, Bush's economic policy, is causing hurricanes, tidal waves, tsunamis, and earthquakes. Now, dispensationalists have joined the ranks of the enviro-left and the religio-left to attempt to undo the wonders of a capitalist society.
I too believe that "God is not a Republican, or Democrat" but I do know for a fact that he is NOT anti-human, environmentalist-whacko. God is the Sovereign of the Universe. He controls all things. Ultimately, although we are stewards of his earth, he is responsible for its existence. The scriptures tell us that "he holds all things together..." If this does not mean that he can prevent the world from destruction, then he is no longer the Sovereign. He becomes a mere do-nothing, know-nothing deity, or a weak, wimpy deity, or, worse yet, a god who can do something about it, but chooses not to.
As you can see Amie and Paige, I can't keep my mouth shut when it comes to politics...since our evangelico-enviro-leftists are trying to take away my hope for a better life. I love myself, and my family too much to allow them to do that.
It seems to me that the world itself is a living thing, always moving and changing.
If I believed that the end of the world was going to happen within my personal generation, I might be frightened by every tsunami and temperature change as well. If I saw everyone who didn't believe the way I believe as the enemy, I would fear them as well and would probably assign a great deal of perceived world chaos responsibility on their shoulders because of that fear. That said, if I believed that these things were signs of Christ's coming, why in the world would I work to better the environment as they are doing? It might be that they care about the planet just in case there is a future generation, I'm lacking understanding of any other motivation. Because of religious fears, they will buy into the media's scare tactics (which is imo all in the name of good ratings) easier.
I'm not on the left or the right, I'm in the middle. From here I see nothing wrong with the left working to "save the whales" or better the environment. If the beef is that by claiming global warming, they are somehow pushing a greener world based on a lie, then I understand. It seems to me that just like some of the very religious, they are thoroughly convinced that it's true and are not pushing a lie.
I don't understand how electric cars are a threat to capitalism. I don't find any wrong in not driving '72 Lincolns in favor of cars with better emissions and better gas mileage (better gas mileage is better for my wallet).
I do not think that by my picking up trash in the park that I am negating the Sovereignty of God, nor do I think that protecting endangered species, creating protected areas of land, or inventing environmentally friendly air conditioning chemical does. Nothing can. My picking up the can in the park could be His working through me to hold all things together. I wouldn't call my being for preventing folks from pumping chemical waste (as they used to) into the world's oceans my qualifying as an "environmental whacko" - maybe it's so though.
I am FOR a greener earth; that just doesn't mean that I am FOR the fear that the media pumps into the air waves on a daily basis.
Am I mistaken for thinking that water temp affects air temp? I don't think that "the sky is falling" if that is right mind you.
Amie
Paige
02-20-2006, 11:38 AM
I agree that stewardship of the earth is within our realm of responsibility. So, I don't want to leave my garbage for someone else to deal with.
I don't understand how electric cars are a threat to capitalism. I don't find any wrong in not driving '72 Lincolns in favor of cars with better emissions and better gas mileage (better gas mileage is better for my wallet).
Neither do I. I do know that it seems that w/all new technology, some see it as positive and some see it as negative. Will that ever change?
I do not think that by my picking up trash in the park that I am negating the Sovereignty of God, nor do I think that protecting endangered species, creating protected areas of land, or inventing environmentally friendly air conditioning chemical does. Nothing can. My picking up the can in the park could be His working through me to hold all things together. I wouldn't call my being for preventing folks from pumping chemical waste (as they used to) into the world's oceans my qualifying as an "environmental whacko" - maybe it's so though.
That might make me a wacko too. Does it make one a wacko if one believes there might be a smarter way of getting things done? Then again, I also think that some of the complaints of how things get done right now might not be so valid. Example:
The community that I live in was for its early years (and lots of 'em) predominantly a farming community. We are on a prairie that sits on top of an aquifer. The farmers have grown crops, wheat, but for most predominantly grass. As long as I can remember, the fields were burned every year at the end of the growing season (a practice the native americans used and continue to use on the reservation next to us). In the last 20 or so years, we have experienced a huge population gain. With that, came complaints about the burning. To try to chemically do what the burning was able to do is a no go, because it would pollute the water underneath the prairie. So, now we have more and more of the farmers selling off the their land, so it can be filled with houses. The grass which actually helped us to have cleaner air (except for those few weeks of burning) is going bye-bye. The houses are creating their own and new pollution problems. Change happens, but I feel something important has been lost w/the loss of the farming. And I also think the burning was a hot button issue (and still is) that might not have been dealt with in the right way. The farmers were here first, and they've been forced out. (Shades of what happened to the Native Americans, I suppose).'
I am FOR a greener earth; that just doesn't mean that I am FOR the fear that the media pumps into the air waves on a daily basis.
Same here. I think my biggest beef is that it is hard to find the middle ground. It seems you have to either make an enemy out of conservatives and hate all things conservative, or do the same with liberals. My question would be what is the creative way? Do all conservatives really want to turn the planet into a toxic waste dump? Do all liberals really want to wipe humans off the planet?
Paige
Then again, I also think that some of the complaints of how things get done right now might not be so valid.
That story was sad Paige.
We are all questioning the validaty of Global warming as well, I just wonder if the solutions discovered in its name are so bad. Maybe we're neglecting other improvements on its behalf?
I feel that the large part of world issues will find solutions through objectivity and self-honesty. It more than likely is that my middle ground bias is just another doggon bias though, and it will take all of us to make this thing work.
Amie
Paige
02-20-2006, 12:40 PM
and it will take all of us to make this thing work.
The one thing I wanted to point out and forgot to was that in the article I shared above, I felt there was one flawed point. Cliff Harris basically said that since half the worlds population wasn't going to agree to the initiative, it wouldn't do any good for us to either. If the initiative is flawed (and I think it is) then it is valid to oppose it. However, waiting around for others to act before I am willing to is directly opposite to the principles that Christ taught us. I've heard Dr. Phil say this time and time again, and I think he echoes what Christ has called us to..."Somebody has got to be willing to step up and be the hero."
There have been many occasions where the US has been willing to go "first" and even go it alone if it has to. If it is the right thing to do, it is the right thing to do, period. Improvement can only happen in an environment that acknowledges what the right and responsible thing to do is, and then does it no matter who else is not.
Infinite Grace
02-20-2006, 02:11 PM
Amie and Paige,
IF you think that the environmentalist movement in this country (and around the world) is about a "greener earth" you have been fooled by the propaganda. If they were for that, then they would be doing what CONSERVATIONISTS (please don't let your mind play tricks on you here, I did not write conservative) have suggested for years (and doing for that matter).
Capitalism has created the cleanest environment in the world. Have you ever studied the backward countries of the world (pardon the non-PC)? Contaminated water not fit to drink, or to bathe in. Disease, physical maladies, etc. without the medical care (except when AMERICANS send a medical mission team). These are everyday occurrences.
In the socialist world (EU), high unemployment, pollution (except for France which has NUCLEAR power, you know the kind that the environmentalist-whackos have been protesting against for years, which would produce cleaner electrical power for those electric cars that you want). Former communist and socialist countries, like Russia, have environmental problems galore, with no money to clean it up.
You see, capitalism has a vested interest in private property and its maintenance. It is true that in the past SOME capitalists, who were all about fast profits, polluted their surroundings, or raped the land. But they soon found out that scarcity is very, very real. The foresters who cut down all the trees found themselves without trees to cut down. These examples abound, but...
Here is where I leave the libertarian position. I believe that having an EPA is a wise decision, as long as they use science, good science, to make decisions. Problem is, for the most part, for the last 20 years or so, most of the positions of the EPA have been formulated by environmentalist notions, based on nothing but emotion. Wetlands, a breeding ground for mosquitos, are "protected" in today's America. These mosquitos have the potential for carrying disease. Do the environmentalists care? No, all they care about is "the wetlands." In addition, those wetlands are private property.
You see, in our country, if you want to maintain a wetland, you buy it. Then you leave it the way it is. That's what you do in a capitalist society. But what environmentalists want to do is have gov't take away the property owner's right to do with his land what he wills (it is becoming a crime to build homes).
Oh, and the sad story about the farmers...Do you realize that in spite of us losing so much farm land over the last few decades, our gov't still pays farmers not to grow crops because they have the capability of growing enough crops to feed the whole world, three times over. IOW, we could lose another 2/3 of our current farmland, and still produce enough food to feed the world. Why? Because of technology, increased production, better chemicals, etc. All things that environmentalists are against.
Let me give one more example of how the environmentalists have caused more problems than they solve. When I was young, our trash was taken to a local incinerator, where it was burned. The trash became ash and floated in the air until the particles cooled, and then they fell to the earth. These ashes, being hydrocarbons, helped to make the soil healthy (a form of composting).
Then along came the environmentalists. They protested that trash burning was polluting the environment. They got burning banned in most of the country (including the burning of leaves and grass here in Michigan). In its place, we got DUMPS, or what is now called LANDFILLS (a far nicer name for this environment destroying area). The trash is emitting solvents, liquids, etc. that are seeping into the water supply (Michigan has a very shallow water table). This is polluting thousands of wells all over Michigan. We now spend a whole bunch of money on testing water to make sure that it can be consumed. A lot of it cannot be, thanks to the folks who claim to care about the environment.
But you see, not many people think for themselves these days. That's the problem.
Ed,
You make a lot of sense and I totally agree that capitalism has created a clean environment. I understand that you are saying that "environmentalist" does not equal "conservationist" and I agree. I don't understand what you are saying that the environmentalists are doing that constitutes "whacko". If the movement is not about a greener earth, then what is it about?
I agree that ashes create a richer earth. I don't agree that it's okay to burn trash and send the toxins that accompany the ash into the air.
Speaking of mosquitos - One clear overreaction by environmentalists was the DEET scare. I realize that they are not perfect. Maybe they'll change their minds when they visit their wetlands? (haha, just bein' silly)
I'm glad that you aren't taking this interaction as an attack on you. Though I don't walk away from discussions like this agreeing on all things with ya, I sure do learn a lot.
Amie
Infinite Grace
02-20-2006, 09:37 PM
You make a lot of sense and I totally agree that capitalism has created a clean environment. I understand that you are saying that "environmentalist" does not equal "conservationist" and I agree. I don't understand what you are saying that the environmentalists are doing that constitutes "whacko". If the movement is not about a greener earth, then what is it about?
Well, I believe I answered that. They are about implementing a socialist agenda. Read the Party Platform of the Green Party. That is the political arm of the "green movement" in America. That should give everyone pause, I think. Also, the implication is always that "conservatives want to wreck the planet." Nothing could be further from the truth. I teach my kids that it is wrong to litter, it is wrong to pollute. I teach my children that animals should only be hunted for food, not for sport. I teach my children that we need clean water (and the Great Lakes are sooooo much cleaner than when I was a kid). I recycle. I support selective foresting. I am a conservative. I am NOT green.
I agree that ashes create a richer earth. I don't agree that it's okay to burn trash and send the toxins that accompany the ash into the air.
What toxins? How much per billion? Are you aware that we have the technology to filter these so-called toxins out of the smoke coming out of incinerators so that they never reach the atmosphere? But, with that said, what about the toxins thrown into the air by volcanoes?
And speaking of air, let's take on example of "whacko." OZONE. We are told by the global warming crowd that ozone is a greenhouse gas, which presumably causes global warming. However, the next night on the news, we are told that there is an ozone hole in our atmosphere. Doesn't "ozone hole" mean that there is a shortage in that "hole" of ozone? If so, how is it that we are putting too much ozone into our atmosphere?
Let's look at another. Carbon dioxide. Ooooooo...greenhouse gas. But plants need it to live, and to make the oxygen that we live on.
And one last one. The recent movie about global warming, what was it called? It ended with the world in a new ice age. Well, which is it? Warming to drown us all? Or freezing us all out in the new ice age?
Speaking of mosquitos - One clear overreaction by environmentalists was the DEET scare. I realize that they are not perfect. Maybe they'll change their minds when they visit their wetlands? (haha, just bein' silly)
Well of course no one is perfect. However, some of these crazy ideas that these folks have are destroying more than they are saving. DDT is another example. There was no scientific evidence that I know of that DDT was dangerous, and yet the environmentalists got it banned. A harmless chemical, used to kill plant destroying insects, in order to increase crop production so that millions more people could be fed around the world - AND THEY GET IT BANNED, for no good reason. However, if you think organic gardening is superior, I'll put up any crop raised with pesticides over organic produce for flavor, quality, looks, etc. Pesticide produce outperforms organic every time.
I'm glad that you aren't taking this interaction as an attack on you. Though I don't walk away from discussions like this agreeing on all things with ya, I sure do learn a lot.
I don't see it as an attack. I see it as an opportunity to set the record straight. We can all be good stewards of "my Father's world" without resorting to the extremism of anti-capitalist vegans. God gave us animals to eat as well as plants. And even if one believes in evolution, then one should recognize "survival of the fittest" and stop worrying about extinct species - they are just the weaker, less fit, being killed off.
However, when one embraces godly animal-politics, one recognizes that we have a responsiblity to not wipe entire species off the planet, especially when that species is not a food-source for humans.
Well, I believe I answered that.
You probably did - there is no guarantee on my personal processer, lol.
They are about implementing a socialist agenda. Read the Party Platform of the Green Party.
Will do.
Are you aware that we have the technology to filter these so-called toxins out of the smoke coming out of incinerators so that they never reach the atmosphere?
Perhaps these solutions were unavailable back then and this is an out of date law. Trash burning from a single home could release more dioxin into the air than an industrial incinerator.
I hadn't considered the filters that are on present day industrial incinerators, no.
Amie
I am so glad for this conversation. Whereas before I believed that the difference between "environmentalist" and "conservationist" is that conservationists are specific while environmentalists are general. Lo and behold they (environmentalists) do have a common political point of view and it really is socialism (thanks Ed).
So how does convincing the world of global warming promote socialism?
Amie
I am curious as to how the water temperature change affects air temperature - if at all. Would you be the man to ask?
Only in contrived, closed little experiments. Beyond that, it's probably too complicated even for the experts. From what I gather, the experts have a longer list of complicating factors than I can imagine.
If you add heat to water. Some of the water evaporates, cooling the water and warming the air at the water's surface but cooling the air farther away. Got that. Warming the water causes cooling of the water and warming and cooling of the air.
If that makes any sense to you, it should also be clear why the experts have difficulty getting the specifics right.
JL
PS. In referrence to another post, Freon is actually the most environmentally-friendly refrigerant known to man.
JL,
In your view, does ice (cooling the waters) affect the oceanic current?
I got what you said, and it sound predictable. Have their been no experiments on cooling water down?
Just fyi, I do not see the temp changes as an eschatological event, or hairy bad guy. I understand it to be natural changes as the earth moves and 'lives'.
Interested :)
Amie
I teach my children that animals should only be hunted for food, not for sport.
I teach my son to hunt for sport. If he wants food, he can go to the butcher and get it a lot cheaper. If he wants to eat what he hunts, that's fine also.
If you hunt for sport, the flying rats in the neighborhood are not a nuisance, they are practice. More squirrels and rabbits survive the winter and they do less damage, if you kill some either for fun or food. Coyotes are quite a challenge.
JL
In your view, does ice (cooling the waters) affect the oceanic current?
It robs energy from that current, so it must. Specifically how? I can't say.
I got what you said, and it sound predictable. Have their been no experiments on cooling water down?
Yes there have, but they are small and controlled. You may have done it in Jr. High chemistry. Try doing such an experiment on an ocean.
JL
PS. Electric cars have several advantages over gas driven cars. The primary one is torque. Look at a diesel-electric locomotive. It uses electricity to get moving. Gasoline won't do it. But for general purpose cars, electricity can't cut it. And making laws requiring such things is really making laws to repeal the "laws of nature." Us guys generally refer to such foolishness as "'spitting' into the wind."
JL,
I don't agree with hunting for sport myself, but I disagree more with their being a law against your doing it. I am all for regulations that protect species.
That said, I would disagree with laws against gasoline cars :) but I am all for emissions controls (lol)
Amie
I don't agree with hunting for sport myself, but I disagree more with their being a law against your doing it. I am all for regulations that protect species.
That said, I would disagree with laws against gasoline cars :) but I am all for emissions controls (lol)
One time, I and a buddy were walking into the woods, wearing camo, shotguns slung over our shoulders. A woman was being dragged the opposite direction by a giant red puppy. She greeted us disparagingly, "Uh, hunters."
Maybe realizing how stupid that was, she came back a minute later asking what we were hunting. We told her, "coyotes."
"Coyotes? Kill them all! This is my third dog this year!"
That was a useful piece of info. Ten minutes later we were whelping like a litter of hungry puppies. A pack of 10 to 12 coyotes came running past then charged straight in at us, going for our throats. We got the first two, literally at the ends of our barrels. The rest vanished as quick as they came.
The woman heard the gun shots and came running back. She was overjoyed to see two dead coyotes.
I suspect if you lost a beloved pet or two, you'd think better of sport hunting also.
JL
JL,
If I defined that as 'sport', I might. There again, I lived up Wyoming way for a while and hunters justified shooting wolves because their territory was intermingling with people territory. Cattle were being killed, probably pets.. They were almost hunted to extinction and are being protected out in Yellowstone now.
I know that there are problems up and down the rockies that go along with growth. The mountain lions and people are mixing territories - and people are dying.
I agree with their decission to down mountain lions who have tasted human blood. I think that a solution needs to be found that won't cost the species their place on the planet, and won't continue to cost human lives.
The same goes for coyotes. A solution was found for the wolves.
That is just my view on hunting things to extinction.
I knew more than a few that shot prairie dogs in WY just for the sake of shooting them. That's not for me. This doesn't mean that I think I'm righter than you, it's my conscience. I value the lives of prairie dogs whereas the folks I knew saw them as nothing. Okay, so my heart feels for the little guys, sue me :).
Heck, if killing coyotes is justified because they killed dogs, what does that mean for humanity? hahaha..
Amie
Amie,
Yes those prairie dogs are cute and cuddly. They also multiply like crazy and most of them starve to death in the winter. Shooting a few of them, or a few thousand, won't change that fact. But surprisingly, it will increase the number that survive the winter. If people are willing to do it for sport, think of the service they are doing for mankind that no one has to pay for.
Farmers hunting "to extinction" isn't sport hunting. That's a different issue.
As for Yellowstone, it has always been the model of mismanagement. Go look at the new Michael Crichton post on PP. http://planetpreterist.com/news-2801.html
I don't justify killing coyotes because they kill dogs. But if that's what made that woman come to her senses, who am I to argue? The coyote population needs to be controlled. It has been controlled for thousands of years by hunting. Now it is out of control. I don't mind spending my time and money to do my part. I rather enjoy it.
Call it division of labor. You enjoy picking up cans and killing weeds. I enjoy blasting critters. We both do our part to make this a better world.
Maybe you just need to change the way you look at this. :)
JL
Paige
02-21-2006, 04:36 PM
BTW,
The link that JL put up to Michael Crichton's speech is fantastic! I encourage all who may not have read it, to give it a read.
I feel the most important point made is about fear. Fear immobilizes us, it is not the way to get things done! Now, if we could just get this through our hard heads concerning the Gospel, and the relationship we have with our Loving Father! :) Oh, excuse me, was this a science thread? ;)
From that article:
Is this really the end of the world? Earthquakes, hurricanes, floods?
No, we simply live on an active planet. Earthquakes are continuous, a million and a half of them every year, or three every minute. A Richter 5 quake every six hours, a major quake every 3 weeks. A quake as destructive as the one in Pakistan every 8 months. It’s nothing new, it’s right on schedule.
At any moment there are 1,500 electrical storms on the planet. A tornado touches down every six hours. We have ninety hurricanes a year, or one every four days. Again, right on schedule. Violent, disruptive, chaotic activity is a constant feature of our globe.
Is this the end of the world? No: this is the world.
It’s time we knew it.
Thank you very much.
HA!
And eh, okay, maybe some other areas should start helping the wolves also? hahaha
Steve Zodiac
04-12-2006, 07:00 PM
I can only hope that some of the things I read in this thread were hastily prepared, thus not well thought-out.
Paige
04-12-2006, 07:57 PM
Steve,
Let me be the first to tell you that science has never been my strong point. So, if you were referring to anything I posted here, keep that in mind :o
Paige
Infinite Grace
04-12-2006, 09:06 PM
Steve, I hope that your comment here is not intended to be some sort of "proof" of global warming. I would think that if you have something to add to the discussion, you would do it, rather than attack comments made by others.
If you disagree with me or anyone else who thinks that "global warming" is a fabricated myth promoting world socialism, please tell me why. If you were referring to someone else's comment, feel free to jump in.
I read this on another site and thought it would be good to share here: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
Paige
06-14-2006, 06:12 PM
An interesting read. I appreciated hearing from the side that is not often heard from today :) Thanks for the link, Amie.
Paige
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/
JL,
Thanks so much for that link! The article is very clearly written!
Amie
The problem with if there is or not global warming is that both sides go to extremes to promote their view. The “chicken little” scream the end is coming while the other side says no matter what we do it has no effect says eat drink and be merry for there will be no end.
I believe that the US as the tall hog at the trough in energy consumption needs to put long term plans/policies in place and stick with them. History shows that poor choices have caused harm to resources and the environment.
The problem with if there is or not global warming is that both sides go to extremes to promote their view. The “chicken little” scream the end is coming while the other side says no matter what we do it has no effect says eat drink and be merry for there will be no end.
I believe that the US as the tall hog at the trough in energy consumption needs to put long term plans/policies in place and stick with them. History shows that poor choices have caused harm to resources and the environment.
Eggggss-actly :)
Amie
Okay,
Question for JL! A buildup of CO2 is creating the "greenhouse effect" which warms the planet's surface. Wouldn't that increase the goings on in the water cycle, which would increase the O2 in the air and cool things back down???
Thanks,
Amie
kevinbeck
08-01-2006, 08:58 AM
I am not an eco-scientist and I do not play one on the internet.
The EPA has a site on Global Warming. Remember, it is run by the Bush Administration, which is not considered to be especially friendly to the concept of global warming. Here is the main link to the site and on particularly on the question of climate.
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html
Lou makes a good point about the passion on all sides. Why do you think it is that this issue raises people's temperatures? (ugh, sorry for the pun)
Lou makes a good point about the passion on all sides. Why do you think it is that this issue raises people's temperatures? (ugh, sorry for the pun)
Too much air-conditioning and too few front porches.
Too much air-conditioning and too few front porches.
haHAAA! THAT is great!
It seems like if the "global warmers" are right, they feel assured that folks will work harder and faster to find cleaner burning fuels - basically to make choices that will improve the planet. They seem to see the planet as in need of help, and don't seem to believe that folks will rally around making good choices without that motivation (fear motivation).
If the "no global warmers" are right, then they feel that they have succeeded in disabling those who will and do scavange off of the anxieties fed to the public.
Neither side can truthfully say that global warming is a reality. Those who are "pro" continue to preach the "danger" of it. The "greenhouse effect" is happening (...the rise in temperature that the Earth experiences because certain gases in the atmosphere (water vapor, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane, for example) trap energy from the sun.), though it is not synonymous with global warming.
From another article:
Meehl co-authored one of the Science studies. He and his colleagues found that even if no more greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere, globally averaged air surface temperatures will rise about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.5 degree Celsius) and global sea levels will rise at least 4.3 inches (11 centimeters) by 2100.
The sea level rise estimate is conservative, because the models Meehl and colleagues used only account for thermal expansion—water expands as it warms, causing sea levels to rise. Melting glaciers and ice sheets will likely at least double the sea level rise.
Okay, so the last part reminds me again of the elementary school science experiment: Put ice in a cup and fill it to the brim with water. Allow ice to melt. Does it overflow? (Answer: no - the water level is unchanged) What I don't understand is how supposed advanced scientists claim otherwise. Perhaps they know something about the ocean that I don't know, lol.
The big deal about the temp difference is supposed to be because during the Ice Age the world was only 7 degrees colder than now -- they say. How can they know that, I ask?
I wonder why they don't build themselves a porch and work on the best interest of the planet, whether global warming is true or not?
Amie
What I meant relates to my past. Growing up in rural south Alabama there was almost no air-conditioning and a lot of front porches. People could come by and see someone out they would stop by for a visit or even to get to know someone they hadn’t met before.
Even in the towns there was no a-c and they had canopies that made porches. I can remember driving through town with my granddaddy and there would be some men gathered in front of a store and he would stop to talk or sometimes they would play dominoes.
People would talk and get to know others in a relaxed setting. Today we are more isolated; we have dozen news talk shows with “experts” telling that their extreme view is fact. Then as we are in our fortress of an automobile and the “news talk” radio guys are almost screaming all their extremism and if anyone doesn’t fully agree they have to be an idiot.
As for the global warming that started before the industrial revolution and is caused by natural events. But I do believe we need to better manage our resources and energy consumption. We also need to enforce the emission laws we have and move to make them stronger.
What I meant relates to my past...
I recognized it from my experiences in the country and how folks used to decide whether or not to buy a house based on how big the porch was, lol. A "wrap around porch" was always best.
Some of my country family and friends with porches had a/c, some didn't. Either way, swinging and rocking on the big porch - everyone knew what everyone was up to, lol.
I'm sure that my memories are even less relevant, since you're describing the days of general stores and other means of spending time together.
Hey, do ya think porches are less common because of global warming? haha! ;)
Amie
I recognized it from my experiences in the country and how folks used to decide whether or not to buy a house based on how big the porch was, lol. A "wrap around porch" was always best.
The wrap around porch is the best. Almost every morning and evening my wife and I have coffee and enjoy the fresh air. Though in the winter it is usually only one cup. But it is rare for anyone to stop in.
Hey, do ya think porches are less common because of global warming? haha!
I thing global warming is more common because of the lack of porches. If we talked with one another instead of listening to all the naysayers it would just be hot in the summer, cold in the winter, fresh in spring and beautiful in autumn.
The scientist that discovered the hole in the ozone that lead to the ban on the refrigerants used then is now saying the new refrigerants are contributing to “Global Warming.”
That is what happens when the sympton is treated instead of solving the problem.
kevinbeck
09-26-2006, 10:17 AM
You may have already seen, but here is a link to a story about global warming.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/15003895/
The earth's surface temperature has risen steadily for most of the past 10000 years. The temperature mostly dropped from 1200 to 1750. The temperature mostly rose from 1750 to 1944. It dropped from 1944 to 1976. Air temperatures have mostly risen from 1976 on, but some years they've dropped. The ocean temperatures have dropped the last three years.
Not once have the models people use to predict global warming gotten things right. They predict warming of the air every year. They predict warming of the ocean every year.
No matter what NASA says, it is still cooler than when the Vikings raised sheep on Greenland for export. Greenland is still too cold to raise sheep.
Last year they were predicting record breaking numbers of huricanes every year due to global warming. This year, are we even up to an average number?
If I predict that the American League will win the World Series every year, so what? The global warming predictions are more like, the AL will shut-out the National League in 4 games in every World Series. Then when the AL wins, the press loudly proclaims that I was right. They never trumpet the details of the prediction and they soft-pedal when the NL wins.
We are in a warming trend due to a small flucuation in the sun's output. There is nothing we can do about it except enjoy it or fret about it. When someone predicts a drop in temperature and the temperature drops, we might actually be able to demonstrate that we know what's going on. Until then, enjoy it. The world is not coming to an end.
JL
Question for JL! A buildup of CO2 is creating the "greenhouse effect" which warms the planet's surface. Wouldn't that increase the goings on in the water cycle, which would increase the O2 in the air and cool things back down???
It would increase the amount of H2O in the air. This would mean warmer nights and warmer winters but no significant increase in summer daytime highs.
JL
I am not an eco-scientist and I do not play one on the internet.
The EPA has a site on Global Warming. Remember, it is run by the Bush Administration, which is not considered to be especially friendly to the concept of global warming.
The EPA is in it for power and money. They are a government organization. Remember all the disasters that we were told would happen if they didn't get money to clean up the "Superfund Sites?" Most of them are still unfunded and still no disaster. Global warming is the new Superfund Site.
JL
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys. PJ O'Rouke
The scientist that discovered the hole in the ozone that lead to the ban on the refrigerants used then is now saying the new refrigerants are contributing to “Global Warming.”
That is what happens when the sympton is treated instead of solving the problem.
Lou,
CFCs never endangered the ozone layer nor caused a hole in it. Volcanos caused the holes. Sherwood Rowland wants more grant money and more power and prestige. We can't do anything about volcanos, but we can out-law refrigerants and cause disease and death. What better way to demonstrate your power. Kill people and make them pay you for the priviledge.
JL
Lou,
CFCs never endangered the ozone layer nor caused a hole in it. Volcanos caused the holes. Sherwood Rowland wants more grant money and more power and prestige. We can't do anything about volcanos, but we can out-law refrigerants and cause disease and death. What better way to demonstrate your power. Kill people and make them pay you for the priviledge.
JL
It was never about the ozone it was about money. DuPont’s patent on refrigerant ran out, them and the government was in cahoots to relive us of money. The new refrigerants are much more dangerous and don’t work as well.
Today’s New Reason To Believe-Saturday, September 16, 2006
Timing of Humanity Fine-tuned
New understanding of tiny airborne particles’ effects on cloud cover buttresses the prediction of RTB’s cosmic creation model for an optimal timing of humanity on Earth. The sun’s luminosity (energy output) has increased significantly since life’s introduction on Earth, and it will continue to increase in the future. (emphasis mine) Changes in the atmosphere have historically mediated an increase in Earth’s surface temperature by reducing greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide. However, the carbon dioxide content cannot decrease much further without dramatically affecting the quantity of biological life. Aerosols mitigate greenhouse warming by reflecting sunlight back into space, but they also produce much greater cloud cover. The past and future 100,000 years-humanity’s likely duration on Earth-correspond to the time of maximum biodiversity and atmospheric clarity. These findings support the idea of a super-caring Creator preparing an optimal habitat for humanity to fulfill its purposes on Earth.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/313/5787/623
François-Marie Bréon, "How Do Aerosols Affect Cloudiness and Climate?" Science 313 (2006): 623-24.
Related Resource
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/200406_fine_tuning_for_life_on_earth.shtml Fine-Tuning for Life On Earth by Hugh Ross, compiled June 2004
Here is an interesting movie on global warming. I believe there is eight clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk
Paige
04-01-2007, 10:36 AM
I finally watched all 8 clips. Very informative and eye-opening. I hope this film is out in the mainstream for more exposure than just you-tube viewing.
Paige
Barry
04-01-2007, 12:55 PM
Here is an interesting movie on global warming. I believe there is eight clips.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk
That was truly interesting Lou.
Thank you very much.
Particularly enjoyed number 8.
Barry
christyG
04-02-2007, 08:34 PM
I watched most of the segments...clips from each of them and all of 1,2,7, and 8. I debate this topic with my husband in fun, who describes himself as a neo-conservative.
I do see that global warming has become political. I also see that it has become some what of a religious debate. From my small vantage point it seems that some people feel that anyone who does not believe in an apocolyptic end of the world should not believe in global warming. There is a small group of people in my community who have taken ahold of the preterist movement and they are also very passionate about the "lies" of global warming. I am not saying that this video was politically or religiously motivated at all, just want to through that out there.
I actually love diverse opinions and believe that in all matters all views should be heard and considered. But, here is what I see from the video....I see people who are very deeply rooted in a modern world view. So much so that they seem to almost worship industry and industrialization.
I know from my perspective here in West Virginia, a state that has been raped of it's natural resources, that I might have a different opinion about industry. The timber industry came in and stripped all virgin timber from our state and permanently scared our environment in the name of industry, and WV saw none of the benefits.....Then the coal industry came in and further raped our already scared and battered environment, enslaved our men and families again in the name of industry. And again WV saw no benefit from this still powerful industry. It is ironic that the coal that helps fuel our nation is right under our feet and yet there are still people in WV without reliable electricity or running water. You know, if someone from some far away country had shown us in WV the true costs and benefits I wonder if we would have made other choices? It is hard to say, like one of the men in the video from Africa seemed to believe that industry is essential to development.....it is hard to resist the inviting seductions of the glitz and glamour that industry clothes itself in. WV bought the whole "better life" deal hook-line and sinker, and I wonder if we are better off. Our commmunities are more fractured, less self-supporting, commpletely reliant on others for our basic needs. We have lost the skills it takes to support ourselves, and we have lost the community connections it takes to help support oursleves as a collective group. Can you see that we are actually poorer than we were before industry came in? At least before they came in we had the network in place and the skills to support ourselves.
What is it that those who are concerned about global warming are asking us to do?
-Drive less? Why is that bad? What could a possible benefit of this be?
-Use cleaner fuels, or at least make the use of fuels cleaner? Why is that bad? What could a possible benefit of this be?
-Experiment with alternative fuels and power sources? Why is that bad and what could the possible benefits of this be?
-Not use unrenewable resources? Why is that bad and what are the benefits?
-Think about sustainability? The whole 7th generation thing of the Native Americans. Again what is wrong with this?
Basically shouldn't we always be thinking about the possible future effects of our behavior today? That is what I see as the main theme of Global Warming. I do see that as with all things there are some who try to use an issue to benefit them, but those people miss the point. IMHO.
Christy
Christy,
Mars is experiencing global warming. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Please tell me what we can do to stop it.
If we didn't cause global warming on Mars, could it possibly mean that we didn't cause it here?
What is it that those who are concerned about global warming are asking us to do?
-Drive less? Why is that bad? What could a possible benefit of this be?
-Use cleaner fuels, or at least make the use of fuels cleaner? Why is that bad? What could a possible benefit of this be?
-Experiment with alternative fuels and power sources? Why is that bad and what could the possible benefits of this be?
-Not use unrenewable resources? Why is that bad and what are the benefits?
-Think about sustainability? The whole 7th generation thing of the Native Americans. Again what is wrong with this?
The issue is not whether driving less is good. The issue is political power and the ability to force us to drive less. Do you really want someone in Washington deciding you drive too much.
In California, we have the cleanest fuels in the world. We pay more for them and a gallon does not go as far. These cleaner fuels cost a lot of extra resources. Are they worth it? They increase ground water contamination and they increase the production of so-called greenhouse gases. What trade-offs should we make and which are you willing to pay what amounts to a dollar a gallon for?
Most alternative energy sources are a net loss in energy, not a net gain. They just move the problem somewhere else. This is rarely considered in press releases. The only real source for clean alternative energy, nuclear, is being shut down by the same people who hollar about global warming.
Renewable resources mostly means recycling. Where it makes sense, people were already doing it. They did it because they could make money at it. Where we have mandatory recycling, most private recycling is now illegal. The mandatory recycling is wasteful of all sorts of resources.
The so-called Native Americans were never into sustainability. They were into survival. Sustainability is a modern myth.
All of these issues are complicated and involve trade-offs. What some people want is the power to force their favorite trade-off on you. This trade-off is usually not well thought out and is one size fits all.
Consider this. They passed laws requiring cars to get a certain gas mileage. Cars got smaller and smaller. But people wanted vehicles the same size. The car companies invented SUVs. SUVs have worse mpg and comfort than similar sized cars, but people need the room. Get rid of the mpg standards for cars and the number of SUVs on the road will drop.
This will save lots of gas.
JL
christyG
04-04-2007, 07:27 PM
The issue for me is not if we are causing global warming or not. The issue for me is, are we doing the best we can to sustain all life on our planet?
I can see that Washington has regulated many things just as a part of the game of politics. I am not sure how I feel about that. That is issue is much bigger than global warming. It seems that Washington has gotten into our personal lives in many ways.
On the other hand, systems like the National Park system seem to be good. I like that Washington decided for me that I cannot build a factory in Yosemite valley for example.
As for the Native Americans, I can see that the main objective was survival, but it seems that it was survival of the "clan", not survival of the individual. It seems they needed their collective group to increase their chances of survival. It was to their benefit to not overhunt an area for example.
I agree that one size fits all is not good in any arena. Seeking out others and opening to their beliefs is good and by others I mean all citizens of the world. What a vast range of global citizens we have. If we can learn to act with our neighbors around the world in mind and put their needs ahead of our own, then I believe we will be on the right track. It seems that to behave as if our actions have no consequences or only considering the consequences that directly affect us is a very narrow view.
It seems that many of the regulations such as cleaner emmissions and alternative energies are a step in the right direction. As we grow and learn more it seems that we could change what is not working.
So many people have a limited view and only seek an outcome that benfits them, even those who seem to be looking out for the interests of the global community. But there seem to be some that truly have a heart for creating a global community that lives in peace and health together.
It seems that whether or not we humans are causing the climate to warm, shouldn't we still be studying the effects that our lifestyle may be having on our world? These effects seem to be environmental as well as societal.
Global warming politics is diverting the attention away from the real problem. No matter how many green points we buy it want solve the problem.
There is an energy crisis that is ready to explode. Not allowing undeveloped nations access to electricity and putting corn in the gas tank will not solve this.
The government and the auto industry has made a joke of the CAFE standards. Technology we have needs to be refined and new needs to be developed.
Is it necessary to have 350 HP to drive three blocks to the store to get a coke or could 100 Hp be enough?
Electricity power plants are going have to be built and upgraded. I am a fan of nuclear.
It sounds like everyone is pretty much in agreement in that the political argument which threatens to cut away at liberty, is truly a side issue and one which is distracting us from really focusing on solutions... am I hearing that right? If so, I agree! :)
Amie
Last year the bird flu pandemic was the big cause. Only about a dozen people a year world wide have died from from this since it came on the scene. If all the effort and money put into that had been put into medical care in undeveloped places of the world there may of been thousands of lives saved.
Global warming cause will make bird flu look like a speck. While there is jocking for position and finger pointing the real problems will be ignored.
The technology to solve the energy crisis is within reach but egos and greed stand in the way.
I am frustrated with those that are more concerned with getting the credit than a solution.
Lou,
Is it necessary to have 350 HP to drive three blocks to the store to get a coke or could 100 Hp be enough?
The CAFE standards were a joke before they were made law.
Who are you to decide if I need 350 horses? My grandfather used to go to the store with one. He replaced it with a car as soon as he was able.
Since I need 350 horses, who are you to decide if it's appropriate for going a half mile to Stater Brothers? Why should I buy a Honda Civic and have two cars?
The problem is not the greed of the auto industry. The problem is envy, covetousness, and a judgmental attitude like the one expressed in your question above. My answer to your question (and to every lawmaker in Washington and Sacramento) is another question. What qualifies you to claim you can run my life better than I do? Who put you in place of God to judge my actions? If I say I need 350 hourses and I pay for it with my own money and my own work, who are you to say different? (Or worse, for those guys in Washington, who are they to take it away from me?)
Christy thinks that the National Parks are well run and the laws are necessary. She likes the law that won't allow factories to be built in Yosemite Valley. Why do we need such a law? Has anyone ever seriously suggested putting a factory there? Yosemite NP is one of the worst run places in the US. The smog is some of the worst in the US. They claim that the smog is killing trees. What smog? The only things generating smog are trees and the thousands of fuel-efficient, low-emmission cars that sit idling for hours in a traffic jam. This is something a properly run park should address. But they can't.
Let's have a new crisis and pass a new law. We get to feel good about lording over those other people and telling them what they can and can't do. But it will only make things worse.
Everything is a trade-off. We don't need strangers interferring with our decisions in these trade-offs.
JL
christyG
04-06-2007, 09:58 AM
Christy thinks that the National Parks are well run and the laws are necessary. She likes the law that won't allow factories to be built in Yosemite Valley. Why do we need such a law? Has anyone ever seriously suggested putting a factory there? I truly belive that someone might try. Without the laws in place, that in their essence are good IMO, people with the same spirit I hear being expressed would try anyway, just to prove a point. I can see what the greed and ingorance of outsiders has done to my home state. Laws could have prevented the raping of my natural resources and not left WV scared and battered and permenantly changed forever. The promise and the allure of money and power can convice people to give up almost anything unfortunately.
I did not say that the National Parks are well run. I said that the law to protect the land was a good move IMO. It seems a mistake to throw out the baby with the bath water. I do not have such an all or nothing view, but seem to see mostly in grays. We can make a move in the right direction, such as first protecting the land and then make more changes as knowledge is gained and further needs must be met. Again, the pollution problem rampant in many of the NP's is caused by greed. Wanting to pack as many people as possible into the parks in a season to get more money. I do belive that the NP system is addressing this issue in many of the parks.
In my view, I do not envy your 350 horse power, you can have it if you want, but it should not be pushed on all. It seems that the auto industry has a great deal of money and political power. They decide for me what cars I can drive becuase they decide what cars they will build and then push on me with advertisments and alluring offers and promises. They convice me I must have the 350 horse power. Again, it is amazing what people will give up for the promise of money and power.
It seems to me that those in Washington that are pushing for laws such as corn in the gas tanks, for example, are doing so for political and money reasons and are for the most part not on the side of the environment. They want to pretend to be involved in the issue and to find alternatives that will create power and money in a different arena, because they since the shift away from old ways that is occurring.
Should we all work together to find ways to improve our life and the life of generations to come? Can we come together as strangers and learn from each other? IMO policy making is not the only answer, but just one piece of the puzzle. Education is fundamental and key.
Christy
JL,
Do you think it possible that Lou was expressing his opinion? Just because it may differ from yours, or even mine (I like the old muscle cars), does not mean that he would agree to imposing his opinion on us as law. Our like for high horse power just may not be logical to him. That's what I got out of his question anway and I think that there's room here for diversity :).
Amie
Amie,
I actually considered that and held back some. But the statement before that was a real problem. The auto industry makes cars to sell. We have a choice. The government CAFE standards are an artificial restriction on that choice. That is what makes the CAFE standards a joke. Yet Lou seems to approve of them.
I'm tall. I have a large family. In a sane world, I could buy a big family car. Because of the CAFE standards, there are none. For a while, I had the choice of an SUV or a luxury car with a hefty CAFE violation tax. A car would get 18 mpg. My SUV gets 12 mpg. Now I can't even find that car.
CAFE has made it impossible for the auto industry to make a car that fills my needs. It required me to buy a vehicle that uses more resources, creates more pollution, and costs more to operate, than the car I really need.
Whether Lou meant it or not, his question expresses the sentiment, "I don't need it, therefore you don't." Well, my grandfather never had 100 horses. Lou's question implies that 100 horses is good but 350 is evil. On what basis can he make such a determination?
JL
JL,
Do you agree with any standards being set via government?
Amie
Paige
04-06-2007, 11:27 AM
JL,
Never mind that you are driving an SUV. As long as it is isn't two-toned and ostentatious, you'll be fine :biglaugha: . (Hoping you remember a conversation from wayyyy back, lol!)
Paige
Lou,
The CAFE standards were a joke before they were made law.
Who are you to decide if I need 350 horses? My grandfather used to go to the store with one. He replaced it with a car as soon as he was able.
Since I need 350 horses, who are you to decide if it's appropriate for going a half mile to Stater Brothers? Why should I buy a Honda Civic and have two cars?
JL
JL you should be able to drive what you need and want.
But why should a family that buys a 30mpg mini van have to subsidize you?
When auto makers don't reach the Corporate Average Fuel Economy that is set they pay penalties the cost are spread through all models of their vehicles.
Also auto makers produce thousands of their highest milage vehicles that they know will never be sold to offset the low milage vehicles. That drives up the price for all. It is about the Corporate Average.
Lou,
A family that drives a 30 mpg mini-van should not be forced to subsidize me. But that forcing is not my doing. It is the Federal Government's doing.
And actually, the family that drives that mini-van doesn't incur a penalty for my doings. There are separate standards for light-duty trucks (including small SUVs and some real vans) and for cars (including mini-vans). And there's a 3rd, no standard, for heavy-duty trucks. The CAFE penalties are paid separately on each segment. Since mine is heavy-duty, it incurred no CAFE penalty for anybody.
Pretty preverse isn't it. I wanted a big car like my parents had. Not available, so I had to choose from a large SUV or full-size van. Because of light-duty CAFE, the heavy-duty with the small engine was actually cheaper and better constructed than the light-duty. But it was also heavier and got worse gas mileage.
How much worse? I don't know because the same federal government that requires mpg estimates on all light-duty trucks will not allow them to be posted on heavy-duty trucks.
After they drive us to heavy-duty vehicles with their perverse standards, we can't even use gas mileage for our comparison.
Paige,
I'm too cheap to pay the extra money for a two-tone paint job. But if that's what Lou wants, ...
I am willing to pay a bit extra for the horses. The extra horses typically mean a longer lasting vehicle and don't reduce mpg much.
Amie,
Standards like, a foot is precisely so long and a dollar is such-and-such a weight of gold are the proper realm of the federal government.
Restrictions on emissions should be the realm of the state and local governments. Our air quality problems in Los Angeles are very different from yours in Houston or Dallas and require a different solution.
Most other standards are poorly designed attempts at making us do something we'd rather not do. They modify our behavior alright. Generally towards something that outright defies the stated goals of the legislation.
JL
christyG
04-06-2007, 02:37 PM
I hope I am not going over the edge with my next few statements, but I would like to throw the other extreme in here a little further just for a second for everyone to chew on. Let me predicate and say that my intent is by no means to anger or upset anyone. As I believe I have stated before, I appreciate differences of opinion. My only attempt is to see as many sides of a picture as we can. I believe that is healthy and helpful.
It seems that many believe that traditional auto motive vehicles do have an adverse affect on their surroundings in many ways. Noise for one, consumption of non renewable fossil fuels, and what is produced when the vehicle consumes fuel. It seems that many would agree that certain substances are produced as your car filters oil through it's system and consumes gas for energy. These substance seem to be harmful to life when concentrated in high quantities. These substances may or may not be causing significant climate change, but they can cause death in humans. I cannot sit in my garage with the garage door down and my car running for very long without it killing me.
If you like the government setting policies on crimes against people such as murder, then it seems that setting limits on potentially deadly pollution would fall under this category. I like that the government tries it's best to keep potentially dangerous people away from me and my children. That is not to say that I agree with every policy currently in place in reguards to this issue. I also like that the government tries it's best to keep potentially dangerous chemicals away from me and my children.
There is no certainty that a convicted murderer will kill again, but most would agree that keeping them away from society at large is the best precaution until such a time as they may be deemed less harmful. Just as there may not be a certainty that high concentrations of vehicles with high emmissions and high consumption of fuel would kill, but it may be safer to err on the side of caution.
What is best for me may or may not be best for you. But when what is best for me causes pentential harm to you, then it is time that we must reach some sort of compromise. Compromise means that I may not get all that I fully want, but you may not either. We reach a middle ground that we can both live with. That is what I see that policies on emmissions and gas mileage are trying to do, create a compromise.
Christy
What is best for me may or may not be best for you. But when what is best for me causes pentential harm to you, then it is time that we must reach some sort of compromise. Compromise means that I may not get all that I fully want, but you may not either. We reach a middle ground that we can both live with. That is what I see that policies on emmissions and gas mileage are trying to do, create a compromise.
..so very well put Christy.. :clap2: :clap2:
JL said:
I am willing to pay a bit extra for the horses. The extra horses typically mean a longer lasting vehicle and don't reduce mpg much.
JL in the late 60's and early 70's the the horse power went through the roof and it was rare fo an engine to last 70,000 miles and other components did worse than that. By the late 80's it was not unusual for an engine to last 250,000 miles or more with only normal care and most were below 200hp.
In 1976 the Pinto got the top gas mileage of cars in the Ford corporation, in 1996 the Lincoln Town Car got the least mpg for cars for Ford corporation. The large Town Car got better gas mileage than the small Pinto.
These things would not of happened if it was not for mandated environmental regulations. We have better autos and a cleaner environment because of these regulations.
There are benefits from developing new technology, energy sources and conservation that are far greater than being going 0 to 60 a couple seconds faster.
btw there regulations on heavy trucks and the big dog in the industry (Cat) is facing some serious problems.
Christy your lawn mower is more deadly than your car there are almost no regulation on them yet. But don't run any internal combustion engine were it is not well ventilated.
The US has not got serious about energy since 1974 mostly because the problems could be solved by reaching deeper into our pockets. Back then we imported about 20% of oil needed today we import 60% and for gasoline it's 90%. That is a time bomb waiting to happen.
The EPA has done things that were only for political reasons but when all is considered we are far better of because of environmental regulations.
I'm not sure why but some sectors don't seem to be subjected to evaluation. Take the railways, most use diesel to power electric generators to feed electric motors. Why don't we do like much of the rest of the world and string electric cables to feed the motors. A diesel powered generator on the locomotive consumes more fuel and produces more emissions than a electric power plant to produce the same power. Just this week in France a speed record was set and the locomotive was powered from a power line not an on board diesel engine. There would be a huge up front cost but long term it could pay off in many ways.
Lou,
Try legitimate comparisons. Bigger engines of the same vintage do last longer. The method for determing horsepower was standardized in the middle '70s. Horsepower "through the roof" before that time was false.
My '78 Pinto lasted longer than my '92 Escort. The aluminum block engine had to be scraped at 90,000 miles. My '93 Ford with the 350 V8 is barely broken in.
There have been real improvements in technology. It's debatable how much of it is due to regulations and how much is due to the desire to make a better product.
Regardless, There's very little smog in the Mojave desert and all the smog regulations are irrelevant. In contrast, I'm told that the Indian name for Los Angeles translates to "Valley of Smoke." Smog was bad here before the car was invented. Smog is a local problem and should be dealt with locally.
JL
JL said:
Lou,
Try legitimate comparisons. Bigger engines of the same vintage do last longer. The method for determing horsepower was standardized in the middle '70s. Horsepower "through the roof" before that time was false.I can see you haven't been behind the wheel of a '67 Corvette with a 427 L88 engine.
JL said:
My '78 Pinto lasted longer than my '92 Escort. The aluminum block engine had to be scraped at 90,000 miles.The '92 Escort had(s) a extensive maintenance schedule and if not done on time and properly the will cause the head gasket to leak to cause overheating and sometimes antifreeze will even get into the engine oil. Either or bother of these can cause engine failure. Without firsthand knowledge there is no way of knowing if it was because of maintenance or just a lemon.
JL said:
My '93 Ford with the 350 V8 is barely broken in.As for your '93 ford with the 351 engine being barely broke in at 90,000 miles goes to show what environmental mandates can do. In 1974 I did a valve job on my fathers 351 engine that had about 50,000 miles on it, that was a common problem for all engines that used leaded gas.
The lead in gas was thought to coat the valves and protect them but it did just the opposite. When two different types of metal come into contact, such as lead and steel, corrosion occurs and the results was "burnt valves."
The EPA mandated that leaded motor fuel be taken of the market for motor vehicles and "burnt valves" today are extremely rare now matter how high the mileage is.
That solved other things such as exhaust problems. Exhaust systems had to be replaced every couple of years or so due to the corrosion the lead caused now unless damaged they will last many times that. Midas muffler became Midas car care in the 80's because the exhaust business was almost nothing.
A side benefit of environmental regulations that forced lead from our gas as the lead went through the engine and exhaust system it went into our environment.
JL said:
There have been real improvements in technology. It's debatable how much of it is due to regulations and how much is due to the desire to make a better product.The government forced split brake systems onto auto manufactures.
The government forced seat belts on auto manufactures.
The government forced fuel economy onto auto manufacturers.
The government forced emission standards onto the auto manufacturers.
If it wasn't for the government we would still be sticking our arm out the window for turn and brake signals.
It don't look to me that the auto manufacturers take the lead they have to be pushed.
JL said:
Regardless, There's very little smog in the Mojave desert and all the smog regulations are irrelevant. In contrast, I'm told that the Indian name for Los Angeles translates to "Valley of Smoke." Smog was bad here before the car was invented. Smog is a local problem and should be dealt with locally.
JL
Main Entry: smog
Pronunciation: 'smäg, 'smog
Function: noun
Etymology: smoke + fog
: a fog made heavier and darker by smoke and chemical fumes; also : a photochemical haze caused by the action of solar ultraviolet radiation on atmosphere polluted with hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen especially from automobile exhaust
Merriam-WebsterI think pollution is more than a local problem.
christyG
04-08-2007, 09:29 AM
Regardless, There's very little smog in the Mojave desert and all the smog regulations are irrelevant. In contrast, I'm told that the Indian name for Los Angeles translates to "Valley of Smoke." Smog was bad here before the car was invented. Smog is a local problem and should be dealt with locally.
I have read from many different sources that smog travels with the wind. So, smog that is produced in LA can travel and affect other areas of the country. Smog seems to cross borders. Thus, local regulations only would do little to help those in others areas. Again, when what is best for me causes harm to you, then we are forced to work together or continue hurting each other.
I believe your point, JL, that "smog" can be created by natural means, but it seems that people can increase the production of the chemicals in higher concentrations. IMO, just becuase something is produced by nature does not mean that it is "safe" and "natural" in all forms and in any quantity. Opium is also produced by nature, but I believe that using it in high quantities would have adverse affects on me.
Lou, you seem very knowledgable about cars. Is it a hobby or something more for you?
Christy
It's much more.
Pollution is all of our problem and it will take all of us to keep working toward goals.
Exhaust gas is measured "parts per million" all gas engines have the same fuel and air mixture so if one car goes 100 miles and takes 10 gallons of gas and another car goes the same 100 miles and uses 5 gallons of gas and both meet same EPA levels the car that used 10 gallons produced twice as much pollution.
That may be somewhat of a generalization but not much.
Though I am far from being convinced of global warming much good may come because of it's promotion. Reducing and elimination carbon producing forms of energy could have positive effects on more than our environment.
Owning and operating a automobile in the US is a privilege not a right. There are licenses and regulations that govern our owning and driving them so the government has a responsibility to regulate any aspect of autos for the befit of all. Breathing is a right.
This morning it looked almost like a blizzard outside so since there was little I could do outside I thought I might find something to watch on those 150 channels of satellite TV. It was snowing so hard that most of what I got was "searching for signal." I thought I might go to town and get a news paper to see how the trials of our state legislators is coming and see how many more got indicted this week, haven't had much time for news lately.
Because of the snow what I wanted to drive would not get out of the driveway so I had to take my 4X4 Bronco, with the 351 engine.
I can barely talk and my ribs are sore from coughing, I got out and cut the weeds Thursday with it about 45 degrees, grass don't grow much as cold as it has been and I didn't cut the weeds the week before the temp was in the 30's.
Today is April 15 which has always been the day we had absolute assurance of no more freeze or frost. I guess with this global warming that date needs to be rethought.
Paige
04-15-2007, 05:42 PM
Lou,
I always assumed that Tennessee was a warm place to live. Was I mistaken? Do you get snow there like we do up north?
Paige
It usually starts as rain, then sleet, then snow. Yesterday it came down in reverse order. Usually it is 1-4 inches and average about 2" but I have seen some 2' but those are rare and spotty. The problem here is that the roads have a coating of ice with the temp at 28-30 degrees and it makes the driving tricky.
I have lived in Michigan, Alaska and driven in NW Canada in a blizzard they were easy to what can happen here.
Paige
04-16-2007, 08:55 PM
Wow, that really surprises me! You really do learn something new everyday.
Paige
Barry
04-16-2007, 09:25 PM
Hey Lou, and everyone.
Well, it was a snow day for the kids today. The school buses were not running this morning.
Can't believe it!!!
Barry
Paige
04-16-2007, 09:41 PM
My goodness! My mom lives in Maine, and she called to tell me she was about to get hit by a huge nor'easter. We are pretty mild here. Cloudy, but temps in the mid 50's. About normal for April. We hit 70 a week ago, Saturday. That felt like heaven! :)
It's autum here, but it was still 84* today :biggrinbounce:
I had to scrape ice off the windshield this morning but by afternoon it was sunshine and 70.:shine: :shine: :shine:
It appears as though we will have global warming no mater what the facts are. If you don't get on-board severe chastisement waits for you.
btw Bart Gordon is my congressman, I think I will write him again. Don't know why he has refused to answer my calls and letters for over 20 years other than a form letter from a flunkie that works for him.
http://www.alalam.ir/english/en-NewsPage.asp?newsid=029060120070601200339
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,276722,00.html
Buzz :)
I agree with both sides in the second article:
"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown," he continued. "And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take."
"Griffin's comments seem surprisingly naive," Schmidt wrote in an e-mail to LiveScience.com. "We are not in a situation where we are shopping around for an ideal climate, but that we have adapted to the climate we have, and that therefore large changes to it are not likely to be beneficial."
As a reality, climate change is happening. I'm not sure that I would say that the changes are "not beneficial", but they are not what we are used to dealing with and without addressing the issues that arise because of change, we can be sent into crisis. It is a shock to the senses.
As you know, I am for making responsible choices for the planet that we live in. If responsible choices slow change that could be quick and shocking, that is great. We've got more time to adjust. Whether colder or hotter, it seems to me that change is inevitable. Earth has already experienced many different climatic ages - and life forms existing within those ages varied too.
Amie
London Telegraph:
The world has never seen such freezing heat
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 16/11/2008
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.
So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.
A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.
If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change. (He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)
Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.
Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.
Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.
Me Again
12-19-2008, 08:10 AM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHLOLOLOLOL OLOLOLOLOLOL
It snowed in VEGAS yesterday....
global warming my ass....
Paige
12-19-2008, 11:07 AM
We got a record shattering dump of snow here in North Idaho from Wednesday to Thursday this week. I've never seen so much snow fall at one time in my life...35 inches. Yikes!!! We spent all day trying to dig out, and most all the businesses were closed down due to no one being able to get there to open them. At least I know we will be having a white Christmas this year :)
Paige
Jotham
12-19-2008, 05:37 PM
Woe, 35" !!!! That's a Lotta snow!
We got a few inches here on the Oregon coast (6 to 8?? today) enough to bring our WET! coast to a stand still. We know what to do with the wind (70mph on Monday this week) and rain (~+60ish"yr), but not a clue about snow. I even skidded into a curb at about 5mph as i exited the post office. There were cars and trucks in ditches all over the place on the way to/from work today.
Thom
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.