| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/20/2006 10:13:12 PM · #76 |
Response posted in the other thread.
From a couple of years ago ...
Message edited by author 2006-12-20 22:31:41. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 10:37:43 PM · #77 |
"I never cease to be amazed at the sheer number of scientific experts we have in our photography community."
Sorry, I spent 4 yrs at a special high school focused on environmental studies. While all of you guys were taking freshman bio and Lord know's what else. I was taking Oceanography and Environmental Studies. I spent a couple more years in college studying environmental science.
Yes, it was a little bit before all the global warming alarmism began to heat up. It also allowed for a lot more discussion with regards to what has really been screwing the environment.
Actually, it was only a few decades ago that we were all heading to a global ice age.
"Deforestation and "cementification" probably are contributing factors (deforestation, incidentally, reduces the planet's capacity for CO2 processing)."
Yes it does. So the mere reducing of CO2 may not alone be sufficient to reduce CO2 levels.
"The point is continuously being missed or ignored, there is factual data showing a correlation to CO2 levels and global average temperature."
Actually, the point is there is a strong correlation. The truth is, no one has proof of cause and effect. We know that CO2 levels were high(er) during several other warm periods. But we do not know whether the CO2 levels are higher because of the temp or the temp is higher because of the CO2 levels.
***
People like to talk about scientific fact, the truth is 90% of what we hear is a "convenient truth". By that, it's not scientific, it's just convenient to present it as an argument. Many made the claim after the 4 Florida hurricanes and Katrina that it's clear we're having an excessive amount of storms. And 2006 would be only worse. Hmmm...2006 had no major hurricanes. That said, much of the real studies showed that hurricane levels were not drastically above past levels.
ALL SAID...WE SHOULD STOP POLLUTING AND BEING WASTEFUL....REGARDLESS OF THE GW SCARE
****
So called 4 types of people:
People in denial
People who agree with the facts but think we can't do anything about it.
People who agree with the facts but don't want to give up anything.
and those that accept the the facts, know we we are the ones causing it and we are the ones who can do something about it, we only have to decide to.
Well I disagree, there are other types. I do not fall into any of those. I fall into a 5th:
People who believe the facts are mis-represented at the cost of ignoring other facts. And believe that things need to be done. In fact, more things need to be done. But all the focus on one questionable issue to the exclusion of all others will doom mankind to die.
We could eliminate CO2 emissions by 100% and discover that:
a) it did not good because it was really the loss of bio-mass causing the issue
b) that it was a solar issue and we should have paid more attention to the fact that the ice caps and glaciers on Mars were also retreating as well as other evidence that Pluto might be warming up as well. Oops too late...we have zero CO2 emissions but our sun just got warmer and we're stuck on this rock with no options.
c) that CO2 may be but one emission at issue, and that replacement gases for freon and other industrial gases may be much worse.
d) we were right, the U.S. reduced a 100% of it's emissions but the earth died because Kyoto allowed China, India, the rest of Asia, Russia, and most of Europe to keep producing equivalent or higher emissions.
Not saying don't reduce emissions but let's keep all the issues open as well.
|
|
|
|
12/20/2006 11:57:13 PM · #78 |
yeah so back to my original post:
lets have a challenge based on what you are doing for your environment where you live.. I'm interested in seeing (visually) what people are seeing / doing around the world.
Obviously its a subject many are passionate about or the thread would have died.
and Saj.. agreed.. focusing on one subject/ issue to the exclusion of all others.. is counter productive.. thanks for the post. |
|
|
|
12/20/2006 11:59:40 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by krafty1:
Over 17,000 noted scientists have signed a petition debunking the so-called global warming theory. It's headed up by a past president of the National Academy of Sciences. Click HERE
|
I hardly think that the following petition "debunks" global warming.
The first sentence of the petition states that its purpose is to urge the U.S. to reject the Kyoto protocol.
It has nothing to do with the CO2 correlation to warming or to the measured rise in CO2 markedly rising in step with the industrial revolution.
In case you care this is what 17,000 "noted" scientists (whatever that means) signed.
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
Originally posted by krafty1:
In my view your "facts" are erroneous, I hold those people who swallow the half-truth laden propaganda like "The Inconvenient Truth" to be in denial of the facts. The theory that humans are the cause of global warming is just that, a theory...not a fact. |
"My" so-called facts are the following:
1) Unprecedented levels and rate of CO2 increases.
2) Correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.
3) Exponential CO2 level growth coinciding with industrial revolution.
Do you see any claim that humankind is causing this climate change?
Where is the propoganda?
And Saj, no offense, really. I'm not sure if you took my comment in the facetious way I intended or not.
But really, a high school focused on environmental studies and some undergraduate coursework may make one well-informed but hardly an expert.
And I am by no means claiming to be one myself, just someone that takes expert opinions more seriously than those who go off on tangents tying climate change discussion to some whacko xenophobic ideas about invading Mexicans.
I do like your openmindedness about all possibilities, and that you seem to have admitted that there is something happening here.
Check out  GeneralE's post in the rant thread that this "debate" belongs.
 Southern Gentleman you may be especially interested in what he says about human CO2 production vs. CO2 contribution from emissions.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2006 12:02:53 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by Shecoya:
Originally posted by rswank:
Bad challenge idea. |
Why's that? |
I change my mind, it could work. (does that make me a flip-flopper? dammit)
It would just need a tidy description and not use the title "An Inconvenient Truth".
Maybe narrow it to just be environmental disgraces and/or pollution etc.
Message edited by author 2006-12-21 00:03:18. |
|
|
|
12/21/2006 12:13:31 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by rswank:
Originally posted by Shecoya:
Originally posted by rswank:
Bad challenge idea. |
Why's that? |
I change my mind, it could work. (does that make me a flip-flopper? dammit)
It would just need a tidy description and not use the title "An Inconvenient Truth".
Maybe narrow it to just be environmental disgraces and/or pollution etc. |
~winx~ I wasnt wanting an inconvenient truth challenge... was just making reference to the movie because its what prompted/inspired me to think about the issue of our planet in relation to a challenge ;) Someone else would have to come up with a title lol I'm a little wordy it seems :P |
|
|
|
12/21/2006 12:22:31 AM · #82 |
This has become a most interesting AND entertaining thread!
Always consider the source of information you are fed since most of it these days is slanted and spun. Long gone are the days of flat out facts in most news reports..
and yes an enviornmental challenge could be pretty cool..... hopefully there will include images of restored areas as well as envoirnmental offenses in the resulting images.
edit due to the bad typing plague
Message edited by author 2006-12-21 00:23:51. |
|
|
|
12/21/2006 12:32:59 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by Ristyz:
Long gone are the days of flat out facts in most news reports... |
Not sure if this is entirely the case... in the past there was never a way for individuals to verify information and seek out alternate sources as easily as can be done today. In the past, we took the news as fact and that was that. Now people are held to a higher standard. A local newspaper used to be able to print almost anything and people may not have been able to know any other side of things. Today people in a small town can get access to the local writer and also many other sources from around the world. Additionally, people around the world will see and scrutinize things from random small town newspapers/websites.
Things aren't perfect, but I think there's more accountability today. |
|
|
|
12/21/2006 12:54:39 AM · #84 |
I just rented the movie tonight, so I'll post what I think after I watch it, and I'll watch it knowing that you can't swallow everything that is fed to you. That being said, this is what I think right now...
-I live in California and even over the the last 5 years, the weather has been very erratic. We had snow last march at sea level, the year before it was 80 in December, it rained in July, then didn't rain in the spring. Maybe it's just coincidence, but it is weird.
-I went to Mexico in the summer, where I had heard the water tempuratures were significanlty rising. I went in the water to cool off and had to run right back out because it was so hot! There were also a bunch of dead fish on the beach. Keep in mind that this is the Pacific ocean.
-I do however think that the earth has cycles of cold, hot, cold, hot, cold, hot. I think we just happen to be in transition of going from cold to hot.
-Animals die out, that's what happens. "99.9 percent of all Earth's species living at one time or another have become extinct." It's sad, but animals like pandas and California Condors are going to die out. Whether we help or hinder them is a matter of ethics.
-If we can slow the process of pollution, we should. I think the biggest project should be finding alternative energy sources, even if the corporations want us not to by scaring us. |
|
|
|
12/21/2006 04:43:15 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by asimchoudhri:
Originally posted by Ristyz:
Long gone are the days of flat out facts in most news reports... |
Not sure if this is entirely the case... in the past there was never a way for individuals to verify information and seek out alternate sources as easily as can be done today. In the past, we took the news as fact and that was that. Now people are held to a higher standard. A local newspaper used to be able to print almost anything and people may not have been able to know any other side of things. Today people in a small town can get access to the local writer and also many other sources from around the world. Additionally, people around the world will see and scrutinize things from random small town newspapers/websites.
Things aren't perfect, but I think there's more accountability today. |
You make good points. I think I let my emotion about the emotional sway of the news reporting tint my opinion. Thanks for the check! |
|
|
|
12/21/2006 04:48:26 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by asimchoudhri:
[
Not sure if this is entirely the case... in the past there was never a way for individuals to verify information and seek out alternate sources as easily as can be done today.....
. Today people in a small town can get access to the local writer and also many other sources from around the world. Additionally, people around the world will see and scrutinize things from random small town newspapers/websites.
Things aren't perfect, but I think there's more accountability today. |
Yet majority of americans at one point believed that saddam et al was behind 911 attacks.
So there is a difference between what people can and what they actually do.
Just a thought. |
|
|
|
12/21/2006 06:55:39 AM · #87 |
Originally posted by persimon:
How many of you live in a houshold with more than one car - try carpooling?
How many of you drive SUV's or other vehicles with high fuel consumption - try a smaller more efficient vehicle?
How many of you not only by organic (buying organic beef from New Zealand does more damage to our earth and bodies then buying grain fed beef from the Hudson Valley if you live in say NY/PA/NJ) but try to buy local food and groceries?
How many of you use compact fluorescent bulbs instead of regular incandescent bulbs?
How many of you limit your water consumption by taking fewer shorter showers and baths or waiting longer to do laundry?
How many of you with children use cloth diapering rather than disposable?
|
Next time you start the washing machine to wash a single pair of jeans, think again.
Instead of using a drier every time, you can hang the clothes on a line from time to time. Electricity costs money, air is absolutely free.
Use energy saving lightbulbs, IKEA has them and the prize is good.
Walk, run or use a bike if you have one. Using a car for an errand that is a mile away, or less is a bad idea.
There is no beating around the bush. If you f**k with Mother Earth, Mother Earth will f**k with you, and she is so much better at it than we are - so let's keep her in a good mood.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2006 07:21:33 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Yet majority of americans at one point believed that saddam et al was behind 911 attacks.
So there is a difference between what people can and what they actually do.
Just a thought. |
That is a common misconception. Case in point.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2006 09:21:27 AM · #89 |
Originally posted by zxaar:
Yet majority of americans at one point believed that saddam et al was behind 911 attacks.
So there is a difference between what people can and what they actually do.
Just a thought. |
No, they didn't. And the circle of disinformation is complete.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2006 10:39:58 AM · #90 |
The biggest problem with all this is that it's going to be another brown Christmas. Where's the snow!!?? In Minnesota!!??
|
|
|
|
12/21/2006 11:42:44 AM · #91 |
"But really, a high school focused on environmental studies and some undergraduate coursework may make one well-informed but hardly an expert."
No it does not....but far beyond the average laymen. Besides having been well read. Furthermore, I have a good brain for piecing things together.
That said, I've seen a multitude of articles and reports and petitions by scientists who do not concur. I've read up on most of the "news bits" we get fed. As has been pointed out 17,000 scientists on one petition. The report on the study of climate documents put forth as nearly 100% of scientists agree. Which a) discounted 90% of climate articles on the matter and b) failed to point out that only a small percentage actually made the claim they were making.
The truth is, there are many questions on this matter, and the vast majority of scientists still state that it is inclusive, the relationships are inconclusive. The numerous computer models have been repeatedly shown to be inaccurate or not constructed properly. And many scientists believe other factors could be at issue in fact potentially even more at issue.
And in nearly every single one of these discussions I mention the observed warming of other solar bodies (Mars & Pluto) and simply state that it does NOT take an expert to conclude that if other planets are experiencing a present warming than the source of the problem may be outside of earth's influence and needs to be examined properly.
"just someone that takes expert opinions more seriously than those who"
Really? to me it sounds like you don't take the experts seriously at all. But take politics much more seriously. This has become a political issue more than an environmental issue. The scientists are simply being mis-quoted, and mis-represented for political benefit.
If you really took the expert opinions more seriously, you'd realize that most of the experts do not agree with the portrayal being put forth.
Originally posted by "Ristyz":
Long gone are the days of flat out facts in most news reports.. |
So true...
Originally posted by "GuGi":
Next time you start the washing machine to wash a single pair of jeans, think again. |
Well, never done that in my life. Don't think I know anyone who has either. *shrug*
Originally posted by "GuGi":
Walk, run or use a bike if you have one. Using a car for an errand that is a mile away, or less is a bad idea. |
If I walked to the bank, a little less than a mile. It would take me close to an hour to do that trip versus 10 minutes. Just don't have that time to waste. Hence it makes more sense to drive. When you live life with but a few hours in the day to eat, enjoys some entertainment, and be with loved ones it's just not efficient.
Besides, if you look at the math, cutting out that little jaunt has really next to no effect. In fact, even the hybrids have very minimal effect on long term scenarios. The truth is, we need to get away from the I.C.E (internal combustion engine) and go to a true hydrogen based system. Fuel cells output H2O as waste.
Even a 100 mpg vehicle is not going to make much difference in energy usage scale over the next 100 yrs. So we need to do better. And that mean no I.C.E....we need new technology.
BIGGEST PROBLEM IN CLEANING UP THE ENVIRONMENTS
"Patents" - which prevent new ideas and technologies from being implemented. Prevent new technologies from being improved in order to make them feasible and economical. Do away with patents and we could probably have many of these issues resolved within 50 yrs. I think the government should do away with patents and then offer reward money.
$1 billion dollars to the first company that produces x or y.
Lastly, I never understood the concept of embracing the "survival of the fittest" and "evolution" and then deriding extinction. If the concepts are true than we'll eventually be at the point where a single species is dominant. Just some food for thought.
That said, I don't believe that's the intent and I do believe every creature is precious and should be preseved and that we should be good stewards of the earth.
|
|
|
|
12/21/2006 07:11:20 PM · #92 |
| I actually thot this was a good title for a challenge, al gore didnt even come to mind. but another take. portray something true, but either annoying, or just plain upsetting. death. slugs. etc |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 06:28:03 PM EDT.
