| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/19/2007 12:35:13 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
08/17/2007 09:22:42 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 12:55:06 PM · #3 |
I couldn't agree more about the future w/ a democratic admin. As for congress being democratic, that is a pretty recent event. Besides, nothing gets done because bush just vetos anything he doesn't like and we are left w/ stalemates and standoffs.
As for Bush being powerful and cannot move against it, thats not entirely false. Bush's power runs pretty deep, his father is no push over and his business associates are heavy into oil. He is a force. I have nothing but distain for the man, but he is a politician. He has moved his own agenda for a long time w/ strong opposition.
You nailed it square on teh head. I am a 2003 grad of St. Michaels College in Colchester and I am to the left. Funny thing about VT is that the majority of the state is very very right wing republican. What gets us the liberal stamp is that Burlington is heavy heavy liberal and thats where the most people are. If you leave the city and go out towards the more rural areas, its all republican. |
|
|
|
04/12/2007 12:30:48 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
I think the real problem stems from our president and his administration being heavily involved in oil. There is no support from the highest government official so its a slow process. There is no personal gain for Bush if we use alternative energy sources so its low on his agenda, actually not on his agenda at all. he may visit an ethenol plant or two, but he has no real plan for it, he visits so someone can take a picture and say he is environmentally consious. If Bush could make all his friends and family rich w/ ethenol, we would all be driving an ethenol or bio diesle vehicle by now. |
I do not think that Bush is the problem. From your commentary above, your state of residence, and your posted age (meaning likely a recent college garduate) I highly suspect you to be a left leaning liberal in your politics. The very group that now control congress. Therefore, there should be no excuses and no blame for Bush - unless you are claiming that his lame duck administration is so powerful that you cannot move against it. Therefore, in a couple of years when you control both houses and the White House, then there should be NO Excuses.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2007 12:19:49 PM · #5 |
I know these fuels are available and people are protesting to urge more useage and create availablity. I think the real problem stems from our president and his administration being heavily involved in oil. There is no support from the highest government official so its a slow process. There is no personal gain for Bush if we use alternative energy sources so its low on his agenda, actually not on his agenda at all. he may visit an ethenol plant or two, but he has no real plan for it, he visits so someone can take a picture and say he is environmentally consious. If Bush could make all his friends and family rich w/ ethenol, we would all be driving an ethenol or bio diesle vehicle by now.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2007 11:51:14 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
Bickering about whether global warming does or does not exist is just prolonging the problem. We could be spending all this energy and money to create new forms of energy.
How long do you really think it would take for us to create an affordable, clean, readily available fuel? The only hang ups are the oil companies, and the fact that they are in bed w/ all the most powerful politicians. If our current administration wasn't so ignorant and self indulgent than we probably would be half way to having a solution already. |
1. There is no bickering on whether Global Warming exists. The only contention is the cause/effect relationship.
2. As posted earlier, GM currently has over 2 million E85 vehicles on the road. That is 2 million vehicles capable of operating on 85% ethanol which equates to an 85% reduction in gasoline burning for those 2 million vehicles. Unfortunately, there are not enough station offereing E85 fuel to realize this savings. Are you contacting your area representatives and urging others to do the same, to get more stations offereing this fuel?
3. Bio-deisel is a proven fuel source (from vegetable waste). Where are the throngs of protesters demanding more of this product being produced. Literally all deisel powered vehicles on the planet could switch to this fuel, IF it was available in mass.
Either those on your side of this debate are missing this news or this is not the agenda. If burning alternative fuels is the root to containing Global Warming, then please expend all your energy and those of your supporters to realize these gains already available. Petition your representatives to demand these fuels be available for the masses.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2007 09:37:47 AM · #7 |
why would you assume that an industry to create cleaner burning fuel wouldn't also be utilized in sports. Anything that has a motor or burns fuel could be revamped to be cleaner and less harmful. It would be the birth of an entire new industry. that was my point before, people are not going to give up any of there toys, whether its an ATV or Stock car or NASCAR. Therefore there is a market to create clean burning fuels so people can continue doing what they love. I don't want to take anything away, I want us to change how we operate.
Bickering about whether global warming does or does not exist is just prolonging the problem. We could be spending all this energy and money to create new forms of energy.
people on earth can build amazing structures, send people to the moon, split an atom and numerous more amazing feats. How long do you really think it would take for us to create an affordable, clean, readily available fuel? The only hang ups are the oil companies, and the fact that they are in bed w/ all the most powerful politicians. If our current administration wasn't so ignorant and self indulgent than we probably would be half way to having a solution already.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2007 08:26:42 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by Flash:
For instance? What are the mandates that would rectify the current "consensus" of scientific opinion regarding Global Warming?
The sports and recreation industries will be surely impacted. Travel trailers, Pick up Trucks, Four wheelers, snow mobiles, jet skis, pleasure watercraft - boats, marinas, hotel loging, retail outlets, etc. The tax revenues will be lost as sales tax and licenses will not be purchased. Wildlife management as you currently know it, won't exist as the sportsmen/women who pay for it today, will be outlawed. Please think through your scenario to its logical conclusions and truly give me a thoughtful answer on the "global" impact of your proposals. Look at the macrocosm. |
But what about the major economic advantage for the alternative energy businesses, the exotic metal and catalyst industries, the health industry, the reduced expenses of the healthcare business, the preservation of long term assets for nature tourism, the strengthening of local markets, the sail industry, new carbon trapping industries, the growth in sales tax and licenses, the better quality of life....
Maybe the difference is that those young industries don't have the historically derived wealth of the oil industries to pay for their own to be appointed to the highest offices of state. |
I'm not sure I understand your point. If your are merely stating the opposite of my "sportsmen" example then you misunderstood my example. It was not to illustrate that because revenues would be lost, then we should ignore global warming, rather it was intended to illustrate that if global warming corrections are needed - due to the REAL threat posed by burning gasoline, then this is an industry that affects many people - even ones who sing the "save the world" song and if they are sincere about addressing this problem, then they should be willing to implement bans on all form of recreational gasoline use. If they are not willing to do that, then maybe they threat is not what they claim.
|
|
|
|
04/12/2007 06:57:26 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
no one is going to ban rec vehicles. There is a market for them so they will be around. Realistically what will happen is regulations would be put on emisions and the manufactures will adjust accordingly. People are going to want to buy a boat still so manufactures are going to produce boats that run cleaner. Its still supply and demand.
This isn't the first time that regulations were made to reduce pollution. There was leaded gasoline, now its unleaded, now there are emisions standards for cars.
Global warming is not political mumbo jumbo. We are damaging the planet. How could all the smoke and fumes from industry not be hurting the environment? Maybe the icecaps won't melt by next December, but it is happening. What happens in 50, 100, 1000 years from now is a reflection of us and what we are doing now and how we treat the environment.
this argument is futile. Don't refute the fact that global warming is happening just so you don't need to give up your SUV. Refusing to change is not a reason to disregard what most prominent scientists are saying. |
This is the logic that I don't understand. "Gas guzzling" SUV's are an evil sin but recreationally burning gasoline for no purpose other than sport is OK. Come on. Can't you see why this is irritating to me? If it is bad, then it is bad for everyone.
Consider that in one weekend of NASCAR racing, more fossil fuels are burned than an entire year of the same number of SUV's driven. And this is OK because it is a sport.
Again, if it is bad to burn gasoline, then critique all forms of gasoline use and sanction each accordingly.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2007 06:31:27 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Flash:
For instance? What are the mandates that would rectify the current "consensus" of scientific opinion regarding Global Warming?
The sports and recreation industries will be surely impacted. Travel trailers, Pick up Trucks, Four wheelers, snow mobiles, jet skis, pleasure watercraft - boats, marinas, hotel loging, retail outlets, etc. The tax revenues will be lost as sales tax and licenses will not be purchased. Wildlife management as you currently know it, won't exist as the sportsmen/women who pay for it today, will be outlawed. Please think through your scenario to its logical conclusions and truly give me a thoughtful answer on the "global" impact of your proposals. Look at the macrocosm. |
But what about the major economic advantage for the alternative energy businesses, the exotic metal and catalyst industries, the health industry, the reduced expenses of the healthcare business, the preservation of long term assets for nature tourism, the strengthening of local markets, the sail industry, new carbon trapping industries, the growth in sales tax and licenses, the better quality of life....
Maybe the difference is that those young industries don't have the historically derived wealth of the oil industries to pay for their own to be appointed to the highest offices of state.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2007 06:22:38 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by Matthew:
I would add that it is of course far more than common sense that suggests that we are causing climate change. RonB talks of more and more scientists bucking the trend - but forgets that they are remarkable largely for their scarcity. |
It is interesting to note that some who hold that the opinions of the minority who do NOT believe that global warming has a significant anthropogenic factor should be dismissed in favor of the "consensus" merely because it IS a "consensus", but that the "consensus" that believed that Saddam Hussein harbored Weapons of Mass Destruction should conversely have been dismissed in favor of the minority who believed otherwise, regardless of the fact that there was a "consensus".
It seems that, no matter how you slice it, no one supports the notion that the "consensus" is ALWAYS right. But, of course, every one believes that the "consensus" IS right when it agrees with their own point of view. |
You are (deliberately?) confusing the comparison. The majority of climate experts believe that global warming is caused by man. The majority of weapons instructors believed that there was insufficient evidence to justify war. I am not suggesting that a public consensus should be the deciding factor in either example.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2007 05:38:12 PM · #12 |
I am just going to go back to this again
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Here is the best take on it I have ever seen.
//www.habitablezone.com/flame/messages/420992.html
--small excerpt---
""George Carlin's "The Planet Is Fine"
We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet. What? Are these f*&%ing people kidding me? Save the planet, we don't even know how to take care of ourselves yet. We haven't learned how to care for one another, we're gonna save the f*&%#ing planet?"
And here it is on YouTube
The Planet is Fine Part 1
Planet is Fine Part 2 |
|
|
|
|
04/11/2007 05:05:37 PM · #13 |
no one is going to ban rec vehicles. There is a market for them so they will be around. Realistically what will happen is regulations would be put on emisions and the manufactures will adjust accordingly. People are going to want to buy a boat still so manufactures are going to produce boats that run cleaner. Its still supply and demand.
This isn't the first time that regulations were made to reduce pollution. There was leaded gasoline, now its unleaded, now there are emisions standards for cars.
Global warming is not political mumbo jumbo. We are damaging the planet. How could all the smoke and fumes from industry not be hurting the environment? Maybe the icecaps won't melt by next December, but it is happening. What happens in 50, 100, 1000 years from now is a reflection of us and what we are doing now and how we treat the environment.
this argument is futile. Don't refute the fact that global warming is happening just so you don't need to give up your SUV. Refusing to change is not a reason to disregard what most prominent scientists are saying. |
|
|
|
04/11/2007 10:49:33 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
If certain mandates were to occur... |
For instance? What are the mandates that would rectify the current "consensus" of scientific opinion regarding Global Warming?
The sports and recreation industries will be surely impacted. Travel trailers, Pick up Trucks, Four wheelers, snow mobiles, jet skis, pleasure watercraft - boats, marinas, hotel loging, retail outlets, etc. The tax revenues will be lost as sales tax and licenses will not be purchased. Wildlife management as you currently know it, won't exist as the sportsmen/women who pay for it today, will be outlawed. Please think through your scenario to its logical conclusions and truly give me a thoughtful answer on the "global" impact of your proposals. Look at the macrocosm.
edit to add:
If as you say, that this is required to address the "real" threat, then make the hard choices. Tell the multitudes of recreational outdoorsmen that their sport is no longer a legal pursuit as it has been determined that the use of gasoline in any recreational activity is outlawed due to the consensus of scientists that it contributes to global warming. If on the other hand, it is merely blather, more political mumbo jumbo, the latest "in thing", then don't bother.
Message edited by author 2007-04-11 11:00:41.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2007 10:31:48 AM · #15 |
this country is built on innovation and adaptation. If certain mandates were to occur, people would find a way to make it work. Businesses would thrive in the new "clean energy" industry. An entire new group of industry would be created to make sure we can drive the big cars and have the big homes without leaving such a footprint on our environment.
|
|
|
|
04/11/2007 10:15:34 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
It seems like such a ridiculous thing to argue over and the correlation to WMD in Iraq is just not there. In that case the choices to remedy the situation were to got to war or not go to war. In the case of global warming, if we all assume it does exist and we decide to remedy the problem, what is the downside? We would live in a cleaner place, less emissions, cleaner fuel, less dependency on the mid east for oil, etc etc... Even if we are wrong and global warming turns out to be a hoax, at least we live in a cleaner environment. In iraq where our consensus was oh so wrong, we are left with soilders dying and no exit strategy.
If we all treat global warming like it exists, we would live in a much cleaner place. I said it before, but people won\'t stop this argument because it means drastic lifestyle changes.
All in all, treating global warming like it exists has only positive outcomes. |
Hmmmm. "Even if we are wrong and global warm..." "If we treat global warming like it exists..." "Treating global warming...only has positive outcomes\". At least you acknowledge the significant lifestyle changes required to treat it as it defined. Namely the limit on personal choice of how large a house one can own. Please define for me what a "good" enviornmental size houe would be? Limiting the kinds of recreation one can enjoy. Please define for me all the future "illegal" activities. Limiting the kinds of transportation one can use. Please define for me the future "legal" methods of transport.
What I keep reading form the alarmists, is that WE ALL should do something, which really means "you all" should do something. You all should stop driving those SUV's, etc. What I read the questioners of Gore's alarmism saying, is; we do our part. We conserve by embracing energy efficient lightbulbs. We recycle. We embrace alternative fuels (GM has over 2 million E85 vehicles on the road TODAY). WE drive responsibly and plan our routes to make our trips efficient. We practice low enviornment impact recreation activities like bicycling, hiking, canoeing, etc. However we are not prepared to MANDATE that you cannot own a 4000 sq ft home if you can afford one, simply because some enviormental agency decided that a family of 4 only needs 500 sq feet. Or that in order to qualify for owning a fishing boat, you must proove your livelihood depends on that activity.
It is one thing to say, "gee lets all do a little bit to help offset the impact that humans have on this planet" and I believe that there is universal agreement on that point. The contention comes, when some admonish others for their sincerity (because they drive SUV's), and those being admonished sense the future of big brother mandating what is permissable and allowable. I simply want those who are hiding behind the "gee lets all picth in" to state their real agenda and spell out what their vision of restrictions truly are.
So far, that has not happened.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 10:40:20 PM · #17 |
It seems like such a ridiculous thing to argue over and the correlation to WMD in Iraq is just not there. In that case the choices to remedy the situation were to got to war or not go to war. In the case of global warming, if we all assume it does exist and we decide to remedy the problem, what is the downside? We would live in a cleaner place, less emissions, cleaner fuel, less dependency on the mid east for oil, etc etc... Even if we are wrong and global warming turns out to be a hoax, at least we live in a cleaner environment. In iraq where our consensus was oh so wrong, we are left with soilders dying and no exit strategy.
If we all treat global warming like it exists, we would live in a much cleaner place. I said it before, but people won't stop this argument because it means drastic lifestyle changes.
All in all, treating global warming like it exists has only positive outcomes. |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 10:24:31 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
I would add that it is of course far more than common sense that suggests that we are causing climate change. RonB talks of more and more scientists bucking the trend - but forgets that they are remarkable largely for their scarcity. |
It is interesting to note that some who hold that the opinions of the minority who do NOT believe that global warming has a significant anthropogenic factor should be dismissed in favor of the "consensus" merely because it IS a "consensus", but that the "consensus" that believed that Saddam Hussein harbored Weapons of Mass Destruction should conversely have been dismissed in favor of the minority who believed otherwise, regardless of the fact that there was a "consensus".
It seems that, no matter how you slice it, no one supports the notion that the "consensus" is ALWAYS right. But, of course, every one believes that the "consensus" IS right when it agrees with their own point of view.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 07:37:44 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
the entire disproving global warming thing is very similar to the views of smoking and health back in the say 40's and 50's. People said they didn't know it was bad. Really? The coughing and hacking and dying and no one thought it could be the burning plant matter that they were inhaling on a daily basis. To me its similar because deep down people knew it was bad but that meant a change of life style. Ignorance is bliss. If people admit that global warming is occuring than that would mean a change in lifestyle that people are unwilling to make. Less gas guzzlers, less oil, less 35000sqft homes, less les less.
If people disprove it than we aren't ruining the environment, right?
Common sense says that we are hurting the environment even if there was no shred of evidence. It makes sense that all our vehicles and industry contribute negatively to the environment. I think deep down everyone really knows that we need to make changes otherwise someday this beautiful environment is going to be gone and so are we. Problem is that its so far in the future and everyone on earth right now will be dead by the time its truly noticeable so they tend not to care. |
Good post.
I would add that it is of course far more than common sense that suggests that we are causing climate change. RonB talks of more and more scientists bucking the trend - but forgets that they are remarkable largely for their scarcity.
|
|
|
|
04/10/2007 07:26:33 PM · #20 |
the entire disproving global warming thing is very similar to the views of smoking and health back in the say 40's and 50's. People said they didn't know it was bad. Really? The coughing and hacking and dying and no one thought it could be the burning plant matter that they were inhaling on a daily basis. To me its similar because deep down people knew it was bad but that meant a change of life style. Ignorance is bliss. If people admit that global warming is occuring than that would mean a change in lifestyle that people are unwilling to make. Less gas guzzlers, less oil, less 35000sqft homes, less les less.
If people disprove it than we aren't ruining the environment, right?
Common sense says that we are hurting the environment even if there was no shred of evidence. It makes sense that all our vehicles and industry contribute negatively to the environment. I think deep down everyone really knows that we need to make changes otherwise someday this beautiful environment is going to be gone and so are we. Problem is that its so far in the future and everyone on earth right now will be dead by the time its truly noticeable so they tend not to care. |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 04:41:21 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
By disproving the global warming theory are you advocating that we do nothing to be concious of our environment. Because some scientists say it has no effect do we keep consuming oil and manufacturing bigger and bigger vehicles?
Doesn't it just make sense to try and conserve a little or use cleaner fuels or ween ourselves off oil? Why would it be so bad to take what Gore said w/ a grain of salt and try to do your part to conserve our environment. We are so reliant on the environment yet we destroy the hell out of it...
There is no harm in trying to do your part. |
1) Am I advocating that we do nothing? Absolutely not. If you look back in this thread to 1/14/2007, you will find that I stated:
Originally posted by RonB:
I am, and have consistently been, all in favor of "changing our ways" to reduce our impact on the environment. Contrary to what I perceive is popular belief ( at least among those who debate me in this thread ) I am a staunch advocate of conservation. My approach to conservation is best summed up by the old maxim, "Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints". |
2) Doesn't it just make sense to try and conserve a little?
Absolutely, and better to conserve more than just a little.
3) Why would it be so bad to take what Gore said w/ a grain of salt and try to do your part to conserve our environment.
It wouldn't be bad at all.
But there are far too many who do NOT take what Gore said w/ a grain of salt - they take it as though what he says is the absolute truth. I'm just trying to show that his analyses may be based on SOME ( selective ) scientific truths, but that there are equally compelling views that are also based on scientific truths - and more and more, the scientific evidence for competing views are being "discovered" by the same sources that originally supported Gore's position. As more and more competing "facts" become known, many former supporters are now admitting that Gore may have been a bit too dire in his predictions. Some are even changing their minds altogether.
Not to say that we shouldn't do our best to be conservative ( pun intended ). |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 03:46:01 PM · #22 |
By disproving the global warming theory are you advocating that we do nothing to be concious of our environment. Because some scientists say it has no effect do we keep consuming oil and manufacturing bigger and bigger vehicles?
Doesn't it just make sense to try and conserve a little or use cleaner fuels or ween ourselves off oil? Why would it be so bad to take what Gore said w/ a grain of salt and try to do your part to conserve our environment. We are so reliant on the environment yet we destroy the hell out of it...
There is no harm in trying to do your part. |
|
|
|
04/10/2007 03:31:42 PM · #23 |
From the latest Science-mailer ( email alert from Science Magazine )
( emphasis mine ):
"The formation of cold, dense water in the North Atlantic Ocean today helps drive meridional overturning circulation, in which warm water flows north over cold water flowing south, but conditions may have differed during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) 21,000 years ago. Lynch-Stieglitz et al. (p. 66) review our understanding of this problem. The pace of deep Atlantic circulation during the LGM was nearly as vigorous as it is now, but patterns of sea surface temperatures and the distribution of water masses were different, indicating that different mechanisms drove circulation then. Furthermore, during the last interglacial, around 125,000 years ago, land and sea surface temperatures at high latitudes were higher than they are today, and sea level was 4 to 6 meters higher. Did deep ocean conditions contribute to melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets? Duplessy et al. (p. 89) analyzed cores from the Atlantic and Southern oceans and show that North Atlantic Deep Water was warmer during the last interglacial than it is today. Using two models, they infer that extra heat would have been transferred to Circumpolar Deep Water in the Southern Hemisphere, which would have melted more of the Antarctic Ice Sheet."
And not an SUV or oil-fired power plant in sight.
Message edited by author 2007-04-10 15:32:46. |
|
|
|
03/27/2007 11:33:08 AM · #24 |
|
|
|
03/23/2007 07:24:57 PM · #25 |
| "Most people are on the world, not in it; have no conscious sympathy or relationship to anything about them, undiffused, separate, and rigidly alone like marbles of polished stone, touching but separate." |
|
