| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/24/2011 05:00:01 PM · #526 |
Originally posted by Flash:
So again I ask ...
Originally posted by scalvert:
A useless exercise when you won't even acknowledge the issue. |
|
Oh, what the heck ...
How big of a house do you live in? 1002 sq ft
How many vehicles do you own or your family have? 1
What is their mpg by vehicle? 44.9 (model year 2001; approx. 112,000 total miles; commute to work = 2.1 miles one-way)
Do you have a lawn? No
A garden? Native/drought-resistant plants
Farmland? No
Any recreational vehicles? No
Any family members use gasoline engines for their transportation or yard work or recreational activities? No
What job do you have to provide for your family? Physician Assiatant (1/2-time) at a local non-profit drug-treatment program
Any investments in companies that use fossil fuel burning engines? No way to tell. My only "investments" are some IRA's at a "socially-responsible" mutual fund
Do you eat beef? Maybe once, occasionally twice a week -- I usually check out the near pull-date "clearance" specials ...
Any of your family eat beef? See above
FWIW my last combined gas/electricity bill was about $32, all from the grid (PG&E) -- I do not have solar (yet?)
OK Professor, what's my grade? |
|
|
|
10/24/2011 06:17:03 PM · #527 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
A useless exercise when you won't even acknowledge the issue. |
Well, I may be wrong but it seems to me it hasn't been proven humans have had anything at all to do with the cause of global warming. Many of us naysayers don't deny global warming, only what the cause is, being it has been cycloidal for eons long before man came on the scene. |
|
|
|
10/24/2011 07:50:11 PM · #528 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
Well, I may be wrong but it seems to me it hasn't been proven humans have had anything at all to do with the cause of global warming. |
You are, and it has. This is just one of many such proofs.
Message edited by author 2011-10-24 20:06:31. |
|
|
|
10/24/2011 10:21:48 PM · #529 |
| Well, these are impressive bits of documentation but it only covers a small speck of time. How would one explain the tropical plants found deep under the polar ice which makes it appear the region was once much warmer? Did man cause that too or is it possible the warming trend you refer to is just a natural cycle? |
|
|
|
10/24/2011 10:26:31 PM · #530 |
is this thread going in circles?
|
|
|
|
10/24/2011 11:04:32 PM · #531 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
How would one explain the tropical plants found deep under the polar ice which makes it appear the region was once much warmer? |
Assuming a basic knowledge of plate tectonics, one would know that 65 million years ago Antarctica was located in the tropics, not the pole.
Originally posted by David Ey:
Did man cause that too or is it possible the warming trend you refer to is just a natural cycle? |
In natural cycles, the earth warms first (primarily due to Milankovitch cycles) and THEN CO2 levels rise and hold that heat. In this case, CO2 levels are leading the warming, and at the current state of the Milankovitch cycle, the earth should be slightly cooler than thermal equilibrium. There's only one place all that CO2 could have come from in the past 150 years, and it most certainly isn't natural.
Message edited by author 2011-10-25 00:07:45. |
|
|
|
10/25/2011 07:14:39 AM · #532 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
So again I ask ...
Originally posted by scalvert:
A useless exercise when you won't even acknowledge the issue. |
|
Oh, what the heck ...
How big of a house do you live in? 1002 sq ft
How many vehicles do you own or your family have? 1
What is their mpg by vehicle? 44.9 (model year 2001; approx. 112,000 total miles; commute to work = 2.1 miles one-way)
Do you have a lawn? No
A garden? Native/drought-resistant plants
Farmland? No
Any recreational vehicles? No
Any family members use gasoline engines for their transportation or yard work or recreational activities? No
What job do you have to provide for your family? Physician Assiatant (1/2-time) at a local non-profit drug-treatment program
Any investments in companies that use fossil fuel burning engines? No way to tell. My only "investments" are some IRA's at a "socially-responsible" mutual fund
Do you eat beef? Maybe once, occasionally twice a week -- I usually check out the near pull-date "clearance" specials ...
Any of your family eat beef? See above
FWIW my last combined gas/electricity bill was about $32, all from the grid (PG&E) -- I do not have solar (yet?)
OK Professor, what's my grade? |
There is no way to know as there has not been any definitions defined. On the surface to a "reasonable" person it would read as though you take your individual responsibility very seriously and live by example what you try to encourage others to do. But until the definitions of "good stewardship" are defined, then the questions will always arise regarding couldn't you do more? Sure you could. But that is is the point. How much is enough? If one is to be a judge of anothers vehicle choice or energy usage, then they need to be prepared to be scrutinized in the same way by another who lives in an even smaller house, has no car, and does not promote Beef flatulence by avoiding the protein. It seems a zero impact footprint would be quite a challenge. So what is the goal? My 50 mpg motorcycle has a smaller footprint than your 44.9 mpg car. Yet someone riding a bicycle has an even smaller footprint than my 50 mpg motorcycle. My neighbor mows his lawn with a reel push mower and has a smaller footprint than another neighbor who uses a gas powered mower, but he has an SUV that his wife drives to the store daily (about 1 mile) to get fixings for dinner. Does he get credit for his use of a reel mower but gigs for his ownership of an SUV?
The position of "do what you can to favorably impact..." has been discussed numerous times in this thread - but that is not really what is acceptable. |
|
|
|
10/25/2011 07:50:05 AM · #533 |
Originally posted by Flash:
There is no way to know as there has not been any definitions defined. |
So why ask a question if you don't have the wherewithal to evaluate the answer?
Just for fun though, why don't you answer the same questions yourself -- perhaps we can learn something from comparing the answers, even without "objective" criteria. |
|
|
|
10/25/2011 09:30:12 AM · #534 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Flash:
There is no way to know as there has not been any definitions defined. |
So why ask a question if you don't have the wherewithal to evaluate the answer?
Just for fun though, why don't you answer the same questions yourself -- perhaps we can learn something from comparing the answers, even without "objective" criteria. |
I did evaluate the answers with my sentence "On the surface to a "reasonable" person it would read as though you take your individual responsibility very seriously and live by example what you try to encourage others to do". The reason to ask the question is to show that without definitions, the answers are ultimately meaningless - as there is no criteria by which to judge them. A criteria (which to me) requires a totality of footprint, not individual comparisons. If you are asking for my anwers to compare them to yours personal footprint then you must be using your footprint as the scale - which has already been shown to be lacking as my motorcycle gets better mpg than your car. My vehicle uses 1/2 tank of gas per week and my wifes uses 1/2 tank per month. However there are other areas where we are not as "green" as some comparitives. We are greener than some and not as green as others. We close off rooms not in use, we turn the thermostat to 66 degrees in winter and 80 in the summer. Does that make us good stewards? Not necessarily. Better than those who don't but not better than those who do even more. Regardless - I am not convinced that man is the root cause. Being considerate of the enviornment is not about global warming to me. It is about repsonsibility as a total package. Not whether someone drives an SUV or eats beef. |
|
|
|
10/25/2011 04:12:45 PM · #535 |
There you go again...."past 150 years".
And for the rest of it, speculation, not proven science. |
|
|
|
10/25/2011 04:14:01 PM · #536 |
Originally posted by David Ey:
There you go again...."past 150 years".
And for the rest of it, speculation, not proven science. |
Really? From a professed believer in the supernatural? |
|
|
|
10/31/2011 06:48:04 PM · #537 |
I find it interesting after the media storm of "climategate" where an e=mail was headline news for weeks, that last week a prominent global warming skeptic finished a two year study funded by the Koch brothers and determined that climate change was real. Yet this surprising finding from a researcher and a funder who were opposed to the theory were won over by the findings of the study, has garnered almost no media attention, certainly not in comparison to the attention paid to "climategate".
Is it surprising that fewer Americans believe in global warming than they did a few years ago, while more and more evidence accumulates, when that mounting pile of evidence is ignored by the popular press, and anyone who denies the evidence gets massive media attention? |
|
|
|
10/31/2011 11:42:59 PM · #538 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Is it surprising that fewer Americans believe in global warming than they did a few years ago, while more and more evidence accumulates, when that mounting pile of evidence is ignored by the popular press, and anyone who denies the evidence gets massive media attention? |
Kind of like, despite all the "Occupy" news, almost no one has reported on the Pope's recent statement by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace concluding that unfettered greed Capitalism is essentially anti-Christian, and calling for an immediate "redistribution of the wealth" -- words no "liberal" dare utter?
Remember who owns (most of) the media, and they they are ultimately run for profit ...
Message edited by author 2011-11-01 00:15:06. |
|
|
|
11/04/2011 10:45:26 AM · #539 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Is it surprising that fewer Americans believe in global warming ... while more and more evidence accumulates ... |
Please include the words "man made" when refrencing the term "Global Warming" if you wish to accurately portray mine and others viewpoints. As noted earlier, within the first 10 posts of this thread, Global warming was not the argument - but "man made" was. Even your link professing the conclusion stated...
"How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that."
In the earths history - has there ever been a 1.6 degrees rise in temperature in a century? A time when perhaps man was not present? Did not drive SUV's? Did not eat beef? These are the questions that beg review and a comparison. Not whether the earths temperature is changing, but is it man's fault? If it is man's fault, then what are the definitions of "appropriate responsibility" that are to be used to judge a family's impact? How large of a house is acceptable? How many helpings of beef/person (from those methane producing cows)? How many vehicles and more specifically how much fuel usage is allowed per person? Shall we outlaw recreational vehicles that use gasoline? What about the jobs associated with those industries? Manufacturing, sales, repair? Boats? Motorcylces? ATV's? Model airplanes? How about racing? Just to name a few items for consideration.
In other words, what are your proposals to impact/limit man made global warming? Complain about SUV drivers? or something much more substantial like limiting all families to 600 square feet housing or less. Maximum gasoline consumption of 50 gallons per month per household? Maximum beef consumption of one meal per person per month? With tax credits for the families that come in under the monthly allowed maximums? These are the specifics I'm waiting for...
Message edited by author 2011-11-04 10:48:11. |
|
|
|
11/04/2011 11:50:46 AM · #540 |
| i think global warming has less to do with carbon emissions and more to do with the fact that we have replaced so much cooling green fields and forests with concrete and asphalt. |
|
|
|
11/04/2011 12:06:32 PM · #541 |
Can`t we just build HUGE air conditioning units (think 20 storeys high) and set them to cold - that would sort out this global warming nonsense quick sharp.
Job done - world saved - now back to work.
Message edited by author 2011-11-04 12:06:40. |
|
|
|
11/04/2011 12:48:37 PM · #542 |
Originally posted by Simms:
Can`t we just build HUGE air conditioning units (think 20 storeys high) and set them to cold - that would sort out this global warming nonsense quick sharp.
Job done - world saved - now back to work. |
air conditioning removes the humidity from the air so they may cause its own problems, like droughts, of course we'd have plenty of drinking where the units are located :)
nuclear winter maybe cheaper and more efficient plus we could remove our enemies from the equation at the same time.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2011 03:32:03 PM · #543 |
"Corrected" your projection ... ;-)
Originally posted by mike_311:
nuclear winter maybe cheaper and more efficient plus we could remove both our enemies and ourselves from the equation at the same time. |
Speaking of winter, I just heard about this new book of the previously-lost photos taken by Robert Falcon Scott on his ill-fated polar expedition 100 years ago. |
|
|
|
11/04/2011 04:26:50 PM · #544 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Corrected" your projection ... ;-)
Originally posted by mike_311:
nuclear winter maybe cheaper and more efficient plus we could remove both our enemies and ourselves from the equation at the same time. |
Speaking of winter, I just heard about this new book of the previously-lost photos taken by Robert Falcon Scott on his ill-fated polar expedition 100 years ago. |
Blown highlights! ;-)
|
|
|
|
11/04/2011 09:49:26 PM · #545 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
"Corrected" your projection ... ;-)
Originally posted by mike_311:
nuclear winter maybe cheaper and more efficient plus we could remove both our enemies and ourselves from the equation at the same time. |
Speaking of winter, I just heard about this new book of the previously-lost photos taken by Robert Falcon Scott on his ill-fated polar expedition 100 years ago. |
always amazed that he and his predecessors were able to fairly accurately map the world by trekking it. could you imagine exploring a country like the US for the first time? it getting more majestic and scenic as you headed west?
|
|
|
|
11/23/2011 06:06:13 PM · #546 |
| New release of purloined emails should derail the upcoming global warming conference (thankfully). Give it up warmists. //www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/ |
|
|
|
11/23/2011 06:21:40 PM · #547 |
Mr Taylor is your idea of journalism? Look at the "fair and balanced" other articles he writes. Obama bad, global warming wrong.....anything else? He is paid by the Heartland Institute which define themselves as "Database of published research, primarily against environmentalist regulation."
Climate gate part one resulted in "Six committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.[14] The Muir Russell report stated, however, "We do find that there has been a consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness, both on the part of CRU scientists and on the part of the UEA."
The old scandal was kicked off just before the last climate conference in Copenhagen in an attempt to de-rail progress or at least muddy the waters. Now two years almost to the day after it first happened – and six days before this year's UN climate talks kick off in Durban, South Africa. Seems like a tactic.
If you want to hear something that isn't a political attack piece try New Scientist BBC or the Christian Science Monitor who said "For researchers directly involved in the email exchanges, such emails really present a picture of the lengths scientists go to ensure the high quality of the science."
Of course to those who have no understanding of how science is done, and see all things as a question of faith and ideology, it all looks like dark magic.
Message edited by author 2011-11-23 18:26:35. |
|
|
|
11/23/2011 08:18:01 PM · #548 |
|
|
|
01/27/2012 01:02:18 PM · #549 |
|
|
|
01/27/2012 07:12:44 PM · #550 |
Woohoo... physicists and aviation engineers with well known climate denial backgrounds are scientists, therefore they must be just as authoritative as climatologists. Do you also equate the opinion of a lawyer with that of a neurosurgeon when discussing brain cancer? I love this comedic gem: "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now" when 9 of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2000. Priceless. Whacking 16 moles â€Â¦
Message edited by author 2012-01-27 19:27:17. |
|
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: 08/14/2025 04:56:07 PM EDT.
