| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/15/2007 11:46:01 AM · #276 |
|
|
|
02/16/2007 01:42:09 PM · #277 |
|
|
|
02/18/2007 10:55:50 AM · #278 |
Originally posted by RonB:
New York's governor declared a disaster in Oswego County, where five straight days of lake-effect squalls have dumped nearly 100 inches of snow, and even more snow was forecast through the weekend.
More than a week of bitter cold and slippery roads have contributed to at least 20 deaths across the northern quarter of the nation ΓΆ€” five in Ohio, four in Illinois, four in Indiana, two in Kentucky, two in Michigan, and one each in Wisconsin, New York and Maryland, authorities said.
Just a couple of additional anecdotes to add to the mix. |
Why add them?
What relevance does local weather have to climate change? ( Answer - none at all)
By adding multiple posts about local weather, you demonstrate, to me, either a misunderstanding of the entire debate, an intent to obfuscate the issue with deception, or just a warped sense of humor manifesting itself to no educational benefit.
Am I in error here? Why post such things?
Message edited by author 2007-02-18 10:56:55. |
|
|
|
02/18/2007 01:33:07 PM · #279 |
Originally posted by gingerbaker:
Originally posted by RonB:
New York's governor declared a disaster in Oswego County, where five straight days of lake-effect squalls have dumped nearly 100 inches of snow, and even more snow was forecast through the weekend.
More than a week of bitter cold and slippery roads have contributed to at least 20 deaths across the northern quarter of the nation ΓΆ€” five in Ohio, four in Illinois, four in Indiana, two in Kentucky, two in Michigan, and one each in Wisconsin, New York and Maryland, authorities said.
Just a couple of additional anecdotes to add to the mix. |
Why add them?
What relevance does local weather have to climate change? ( Answer - none at all)
By adding multiple posts about local weather, you demonstrate, to me, either a misunderstanding of the entire debate, an intent to obfuscate the issue with deception, or just a warped sense of humor manifesting itself to no educational benefit.
Am I in error here? Why post such things? |
You OBVIOUSLY did not note that my post was a direct response to Matthew's post ( the one just above mine ) in which he spoke of bare patches on the ski slopes of Chamonix ( France alps ) as "ancedotal evidence" and a "sad indicator of what may be to come". I merely countered his "anecdotal evidence" with its opposite as a way to point out exactly what you opined - namely, what relevance does local weather have to climate change.
I don't misunderstand the debate at all, nor do I intend to obfuscate the issue with deception, nor do I have a warped sense of humor manifesting itself to no educational benefit. But, if you insist on accusing me of such, then surely I can expect a follow-up post from you accusing Matthew of those very things. I'll be waiting ( though I won't be holding my breath ). |
|
|
|
02/20/2007 06:45:07 PM · #280 |
Originally posted by RonB:
I merely countered his "anecdotal evidence" with its opposite as a way to point out exactly what you opined - namely, what relevance does local weather have to climate change.
I don't misunderstand the debate at all, nor do I intend to obfuscate the issue with deception, nor do I have a warped sense of humor manifesting itself to no educational benefit. But, if you insist on accusing me of such, then surely I can expect a follow-up post from you accusing Matthew of those very things. I'll be waiting ( though I won't be holding my breath ). |
I suppose that the point is that admittedly anecdotal evidence is not usually worth countering - especially when the issue is climate change, and unusual weather patterns (rather than instances of unusal warming) are the subject being illustrated (to which your anecdote was additional evidence). This is all the more so when no-one appears to be arguing that climate change is not happening - merely its causes and our response to it.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2007 07:00:28 AM · #281 |
Gore's monthly power (utility) bill = $2439.
|
|
|
|
02/28/2007 07:10:36 AM · #282 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Gore's monthly power (utility) bill = $2439. |
I heard that on the radio this morning! Apparently he buys carbon credits so as to be carbon neutral, but that is quite a shocker!
|
|
|
|
03/04/2007 10:22:13 PM · #283 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Greenhouse BS
More greenhouse BS from Gore. Do folks actually believe this stuff? |
Wow it's amazing how many think global warming is BS. Considering that all scientists (except the ones who are being funded by oil companies) say that global warming exists and is/will be a huge problem. But since you are getting your news from Fox but probably don't listen to reason or facts. |
|
|
|
03/04/2007 10:24:13 PM · #284 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Gore's monthly power (utility) bill = $2439. |
I posted this in another thread but I thought I'd share it again.
"Wow I'm so shocked that the ex vice president of the most powerful nation on the planet uses more energy than the average joe. I mean give me a break!
He buys green energy which may not directly go to his house but it gets put into the grid so someone is using it. He's improved his house to make it more energy efficient. He invests heavily in green technology to make footprint carbon neutral. On top of that he inspires millions to do a better job with their usage. Criticizing him is like criticizing someone who donates to charity but doesn't donate 100% of their income after expenses." |
|
|
|
03/04/2007 10:33:18 PM · #285 |
I actually just watched An Inconvenient Truth this afternoon, and I found it powerful and heartbreaking. I've been interested in Earthship technology since I discovered it a couple years ago, and it just strengthens that desire to someday do it.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2007 10:54:52 PM · #286 |
Originally posted by poonaka:
Originally posted by Flash:
Gore's monthly power (utility) bill = $2439. |
"Wow I'm so shocked that the ex vice president of the most powerful nation on the planet uses more energy than the average joe. I mean give me a break! |
It's not clear to me why the "ex vice president of the most powerful nation on the planet" should use 20 times more energy than the average joe. Granted, his house supposedly has a home office for himself and his wife, but still, why should his energy consumption be 20 times the national average?
I have yet to hear a rational explanation for this. If there is one, I'd love to hear it, because I'd like to believe that Gore is sincere in his convictions. Seriously. I believe that global warming is a serious issue, and if our "poster boy" is being hypocritical, it would be bad.
Message edited by author 2007-03-04 23:11:47. |
|
|
|
03/04/2007 11:34:14 PM · #287 |
Originally posted by Keith Maniac:
why should his energy consumption be 20 times the national average? |
Powering all the lamps to grow more bud for Bill. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 12:40:23 PM · #288 |
"Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie.
"With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank."
From This Article in The National Post
Message edited by author 2007-03-05 12:41:05. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 12:52:06 PM · #289 |
So you have one scientist out of thousands... that's still quite a large consensus amongst the people who do the research. And then there's this: Despite all of the doubts planted in the mass media (note that they're not planted in scientific publications), isn't it still better to err on the side of caution?
Message edited by author 2007-03-05 12:53:25.
|
|
|
|
03/05/2007 01:34:41 PM · #290 |
ummm, i think his point wasn't that it was just *one* scientist, but that it was one of the original dudes to sound the alarm about global warming.
and the argument, despite how this thread seems to read, isn't about global warming existing, but whether or not man is the one who caused it or if it is occurring naturally. |
|
|
|
03/05/2007 03:01:05 PM · #291 |
Originally posted by karmat:
ummm, i think his point wasn't that it was just *one* scientist, but that it was one of the original dudes to sound the alarm about global warming.
and the argument, despite how this thread seems to read, isn't about global warming existing, but whether or not man is the one who caused it or if it is occurring naturally. |
Well if you look at the evidence: //www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf I can't see how a reasonable person could conclude that it's not man made.
It's also interesting how the article doesn't provide any evidence from Dr. Allegre. It would be interesting to see it and to see what other scientists have to say about it, that is if it even exists. But since it is only one scientist out of thousands, I'm going to say he was probably paid off (had a new project funded) by big oil. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 02:40:36 PM · #292 |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 04:52:05 PM · #293 |
Originally posted by poonaka:
I'm going to say he was probably paid off (had a new project funded) by big oil. |
This is how I feel about these Carbon Credits! "I'm paying more, so I can use more," BS. Same concept as the above quote.
When did all these words pop up....carbon neutral? According to the "experts" if you drive a gas burning car, you cannot be "carbon neutral." Gore flies in private jets, has THREE LARGE homes, etc., etc., etc.
By the way...more man made catastrophe on Mars. We put a vehicle up there, must be our fault that that Mars is warming.
The man made rover on Mars is also causing global warming!!
//news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
|
|
|
|
03/06/2007 05:12:06 PM · #294 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by poonaka:
I'm going to say he was probably paid off (had a new project funded) by big oil. |
This is how I feel about these Carbon Credits! "I'm paying more, so I can use more," BS. Same concept as the above quote.
When did all these words pop up....carbon neutral? According to the "experts" if you drive a gas burning car, you cannot be "carbon neutral." Gore flies in private jets, has THREE LARGE homes, etc., etc., etc.
By the way...more man made catastrophe on Mars. We put a vehicle up there, must be our fault that that Mars is warming.
The man made rover on Mars is also causing global warming!!
//news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html |
Wow you need to do more reading. You can be carbon neutral if you drive a gas burning car. //www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/What_You_Can_Do/carbon_neutral.asp
The article you provided actually debunks Abdussamatov's theory and explains why we have man made global warming on the earth and why mars is experiencing warmth as well. |
|
|
|
03/06/2007 05:13:36 PM · #295 |
So a right-wing news agency with a well-documented agenda to trash Democrats like Al Gore is calling it a sham based on what? Did anyone see who these scientists really work for? The scientist at MIT has funding provided by a corporation or a grant with private interests, not by the university, because the universities much never fund projects themselves. The scientist from NASA might have been one of those who asked the government to keep quiet about this or that as it was proving inconvenient to their programs. I love how the media goes to such great lengths to dig up so-called experts who say they disagree and who then point to absolutely nothing at all to back it up.
The "killing people in Africa" bit is especially weak, a very obvious, thinly veiled attempt to imply that environmentalists are murderers. Here's another situation applying the same logic - you tell me if it makes any logical sense at all. Deer run out in front of cars, are struck and are killed, and therefore the CEO of Chrysler is an animal killer and cars should no longer be made, anywhere, ever, and existing cars should be banned. Not even PETA would go that far.
It's actually a really terrible piece of so-called "journalism".
I will grant the probability that some of the science of "An Inconvenient Truth" was dumbed down to be presented in an easily digestible common man format with serious time constraints - the actual science would likely sound like Martian to average joe and take years to explain. But to use that as ammunition to defend a gas-guzzling right-wing agenda is unconscionable.
Message edited by author 2007-03-06 17:15:55.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 03:28:30 PM · #296 |
Rebecca,
Gore's "An Inconvient Truth", for which he received an Oscar, leaves the viewer with the impression that man's burning of fossil fuels is a significant contributor to the current earth warming cycle. If this is true, then at what point do we inhibit man from burning fossil fuels? Do we limit the size of a yard that a person can own, as larger lawns require more mowing time and thus more fossil fuel consumption. Do we limit the size of a vehicle a person can own, as larger/heavier vehicles typically get a lower mpg, thus consume more fossil fuels. Do we limit the size house a person can own, as larger homes require more energy to both heat and cool.
If as the movie claims, man is a significant impactor to the current warming cycle, and if the "greenies" were successful in eliminating those evil SUV's due to their unconscionable waste of fossil fuels, then why does MR. Gore get a pass? He has LARGE estates, LARGE houses, and likely does not walk to work.
Not a good poster child in my opinion. To me this is simply another case of the liberal left telling everyone else to do one thing (restrict our choices), while they themselves do the opposite. Please see it for what it is. More Gore BS.
Message edited by author 2007-03-07 15:30:00.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 04:32:16 PM · #297 |
What would you like as a poster child? Someone who lives in a grass hut off the grid and walks everywhere? Gore does live in a large house (multiple homes) and he drives a car what would you prefer.
The fact that people are disputing that burning fossil fuels hurt the environment is pretty much disgusting. Its like not believing in gravity. The evidence is all around us and it may not have a dramatic effect on us, but it will effect our kids and grandkids.
The "greenies" don't want people to stop driving or living in heated homes w/ electricity, that would be crazy. What they want is people to recognize that there is a problem that we are causing that can have deadly effects to the entire planet. Recognizing this fact and realizing that there is a need for cleaner burning fuels. there are many necessities that we cannot live without that guzzle gasoline. Some examples are, cars, planes, tanks or any military vehicle. Why would people not be open to finding alternatives?
This reminds me of how people back in the 50s "didn't know" that smoking was bad for you. Its called denial. |
|
|
|
03/07/2007 04:54:51 PM · #298 |
So you're saying we should shoot the messenger? Nice.
I do think Gore does what he can. A former vice president pretty much can't walk to work or take public transit. It's a national security risk to expose him to that degree. The green energy credits is controversial, but it's something. It's not just about emissions.
But then, what are YOU doing? Are you looking to use Gore as a scapegoat to justify your own inaction?
For my part:
- I drive the most fuel efficient vehicle I can afford, a 2001 Subaru Forester which, last I checked, gets about 29 mpg
- My commute is a whole ten minutes, so my car isn't spending an hour each way in traffic jams
- I take canvas bags to go grocery shopping. Then I buy organic and local foods when I can. Organic because it's healthier, and local because if it didn't have to travel far to get here, then its impact is that much lower
- I haven't bought a plastic trash bag in six months, because I recycle plastic bags I get from other sources. Most plastic grocery bags are the perfect size for my bathroom trash can. Others that come in the cases of materials for my side business are good sturdy bags for the kitchen.
- I recycle plastic and aluminum. I don't get a newspaper.
- I keep my heat low in the winter, lower when I'm not home, and in between seasons I keep it off altogether, just running it for an hour in the morning to take the chill off. In the summer, air conditioning is a last resort. I prefer working on the balcony (where it's cooler anyway) and using a fan for circulation.
Last I checked, none of that was killing African villagers.
Am I perfect? No. Is anyone? NO. But at least I'm doing what I can. Buying green energy credits that sponsor the production of clean energy is better than buying none at all. Driving a hybrid SUV is better than driving an H2. Neither of these things necessitate a visible change of lifestyle, and yet they demonstrate some level of environmental concern. Maybe Gore's most valuable environmental contribution is simply putting it all together and getting people to listen. It's sad that people are so willing to tear down people who stick their necks out to do some good.
Message edited by author 2007-03-07 16:55:48.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 06:19:58 PM · #299 |
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
What would you like as a poster child? Someone who lives in a grass hut off the grid and walks everywhere? |
.
Ed Begley, Jr.!! He at least PRACTICES what he PREACHES.
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Driving a hybrid SUV is better than driving an H2. Neither of these things necessitate a visible change of lifestyle, and yet they demonstrate some level of environmental concern. |
I wonder if the Hollywierds got that message when Gore was out there to pick up his trophy. Alot of them sure seem to be on the wagon and on the Left side of the isle. Wait, what am I thinking...just buy the credits, instead. Then you can go every where in a limo. "nobody walks in LA."
Message edited by author 2007-03-07 18:25:36.
|
|
|
|
03/07/2007 06:45:18 PM · #300 |
Originally posted by dacrazyrn:
Originally posted by Jmnuggy:
What would you like as a poster child? Someone who lives in a grass hut off the grid and walks everywhere? |
.
Ed Begley, Jr.!! He at least PRACTICES what he PREACHES.
Originally posted by Rebecca:
Driving a hybrid SUV is better than driving an H2. Neither of these things necessitate a visible change of lifestyle, and yet they demonstrate some level of environmental concern. |
I wonder if the Hollywierds got that message when Gore was out there to pick up his trophy. Alot of them sure seem to be on the wagon and on the Left side of the isle. Wait, what am I thinking...just buy the credits, instead. Then you can go every where in a limo. "nobody walks in LA." |
Well, the Oscars make a huge point of delivering the stars to the red carpet in cars using green technology. The ceremony itself made a big deal about going green. I agree there's a difference between public image and private truth, but I think the tide is turning there.
FWIW, I've driven my co-worker's luxury hybrid SUV, something Toyota, and it was quite swanky. I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of those zipping around in California or parked in high profile driveways.
And the problem with most of the visibly "green" celebrities out there is that they are perceived as too weird to be taken seriously.
Message edited by author 2007-03-07 18:47:23.
|
|
