| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/26/2004 11:29:55 PM · #26 |
I'm originally from the Northeast. You almost used to be able to walk across the Hudson River on the carpet of crud that was dumped into it. Lake Erie caught on fire in the 70's!!
I'm not crying chicken little over the natural disasters - I said, and will say again, that they put more particulate matter into the atmosphere in one event than YEARS of human bungling, and not a one of them has caused glaciers to melt and therefore result in cities being permanently inundated.
Forests - have you ever left the confines of the 'burbs or the city? Have you ever flown over the USA? Lots and lots of forests, not as many as when the Native Americans had control of the joint, but you could get seriously lost out there!
What are the "majority of nations" doing about the alleged crisis of the rain forests being removed from the earth? Do you think that sending a portion of every child's milk money will save the rain forest? (I have to admit, I haven't seen them, and their reported disappearance is scary, but who's verifying this stuff, and how are going to bribe the corrupt governments who are supposedly allowing this to happen?)
So you're worried about the acid rain problem - that in the 3 years that Bush has been president, you haven't observed an improvement. How many coal fired plants are there in the midwest? Is that more or fewer than 30 years ago? 50 years ago? 80 years ago? Are we burning a lot more coal now than anytime in the past 100 years, or a lot less? Did all the plant operators rush out and tear down their electrostatic precipitators when the minor changes to the Clean Air Act were enacted? (That wouldn't even make sense, because the next administration could just change it back.)
Here's what I've got a problem with:
"a majority of nations"
"as far as I know"
"I don't believe things have improved"
Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but then again, just because a teacher or a professor or a reporteer or a scientist says it, that doesn't mean it's true. And forget about politicians and truth! When I was in grade school, in the 60's, the big scientific worry was the mounting evidence of a coming ice age.
I hate to sound any more cynical than I already have, but the research shows what the researchers determine will get them more grants and contracts in the future, for the most part.
Message edited by author 2004-02-26 23:32:41.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 12:53:40 AM · #27 |
| Well, I say "as far as I know" because I'm not a scientist, and I go by what I've heard other "experts" say. The IPCC of the UN, a panel of scientists from all over the world that review global climate science, has concluded that the issue is a very real threat and has called for significant reductions of green house gasses. And if big business is worried about it, like the World Bank then I think we can conclude that it is a very real problem that has to be dealt with. Do you know of any statistics that attribute global warming to naturally occurring events? Are you a scientist too, Wyatt, or do you listen to the so called "experts" as well? |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 09:28:15 AM · #28 |
The problem with the "Clean Air Act" was that it required that if ANY change was made to an existing coal-fired plant, then the entire plant had to be upgraded to meet the newer emission standards. SO, if a relatively inexpensive technological improvement could be made to an existing plant that would DOUBLE it's output while burning the same, exact, amount of coal, and without increasing emissions one iota, then the entire plant had to be upgraded at a tremendous cost. Bush said, in effect, if you can double output, and not INCREASE emissions, then do it - BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE.
Say you had a ten year old car that got 20 miles to the gallon and someone said that for 39 dollars you could double your milage, without causing any more pollution than you already do - BUT, if you applied that thing-a-ma-jig to your car, then you had to pay 2,000 dollars to upgrade your engine with the newest catalytic converter. What would YOU do? That's the Clean Air Act at work.
I think that common sense should prevail. If it improves efficiency without increasing pollution - DO IT.
Ron |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 10:05:33 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
As far as natural disasters that we have no control over, well, we had a lot more forests in the past than we do now to help do the necessary biochemical air purification. In addition, those events are episodic and occur sporadically so that the biosphere has time to adapt and do it's work to make this a liveable planet. |
True, we DID have a lot more forests in the past. And do you know what? They burned freely every time lightning struck. And no one put the fires out. The result? Lots of smoke pollution. BUT. . .Not a whole lot of underbrush that fed the kind of fires that swept Southern California last year. Which is worse - letting fires burn ( not environmentally friendly, but it does keep the underbrush low ) or preventing them only to get hammered when fire DOES break out? Not to mention the mudslides that occurred after the hillsides were denuded by the fires.
Fire is one of nature's ways to keep the environment robust. Most Environmentalists have good intentions but their positions are actually in opposition to the natural scheme - which took good care of the earth for thousands of years without their interventions.
The indigenous peoples of most continents understood the natural way and worked in harmony with it. They were the true environmentalists.
And yes those events are episodic - as is the current "global warming" event - it is an episode. Why can't some folks accept that?
Ron |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 10:12:35 AM · #30 |
Ron...I'm not sure where you get the figure that coal-fired plants could double their output but I would like to see that. I highly doubt it because if that were so we'd have a big push in this country to be building these plants all over the place with the pollution reducing technology installed. That would significantly reduce our energy needs in this country and would go along way to reducing our need for oil. But that hasn't happened.
Regardless, these plants are still highly polluting. Our most precious resources in this country, and the world, are that natural ones. Once they are changed or gone, they will be very hard to get back.
Originally posted by RonB:
The problem with the "Clean Air Act" was that it required that if ANY change was made to an existing coal-fired plant, then the entire plant had to be upgraded to meet the newer emission standards. SO, if a relatively inexpensive technological improvement could be made to an existing plant that would DOUBLE it's output while burning the same, exact, amount of coal, and without increasing emissions one iota, then the entire plant had to be upgraded at a tremendous cost. Bush said, in effect, if you can double output, and not INCREASE emissions, then do it - BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE.
Say you had a ten year old car that got 20 miles to the gallon and someone said that for 39 dollars you could double your milage, without causing any more pollution than you already do - BUT, if you applied that thing-a-ma-jig to your car, then you had to pay 2,000 dollars to upgrade your engine with the newest catalytic converter. What would YOU do? That's the Clean Air Act at work.
I think that common sense should prevail. If it improves efficiency without increasing pollution - DO IT.
Ron |
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 10:32:25 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by MadMordegon:
just watch this |
You put a link up to a 351mb avi file. hahahhahahahahahahah
*Warning* -- this might take a day to load on dial-up.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 11:12:20 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Ron...I'm not sure where you get the figure that coal-fired plants could double their output but I would like to see that. I highly doubt it because if that were so we'd have a big push in this country to be building these plants all over the place with the pollution reducing technology installed. That would significantly reduce our energy needs in this country and would go along way to reducing our need for oil. But that hasn't happened.
Regardless, these plants are still highly polluting. Our most precious resources in this country, and the world, are that natural ones. Once they are changed or gone, they will be very hard to get back. |
Olyuzi, I didn't say that they COULD actually double their output. That was just "poetic" license for effect. The actuality is that they might be able to achieve a modest ( 2-5 percent ) improvement by upgrading their turbines. But it certainily wouldn't be worth upgrading if they had to retrofit the entire plant to meet the newer emision standards. Even so, to me it would make a great deal of sense to permit the turbine upgrade without forcing the plants to meet the higher emission standards. We lose NOTHING and gain a lot.
I absolutely agree that they are highly polluting and we absolutely should be looking at cleaner ways ( wind turbines? ) to use resources. For example: Nuclear power plants have a real problem getting rid of the excess heat. Usually, they get rid of it by circulating water that they "recycle" through a large nearby water supply ( e.g. Millstone uses Long Island Sound ). Wouldn't it make sense for those plants, especially those operating in the colder climes, to get rid of that heat by piping it to government buildings? That would serve a double purpose: get rid of excess heat where it is NOT wanted; and save money buying heat ( and the associated generation of it ) in buildings where it IS wanted. Schools could be heated FOR FREE.
For another: Why don't we build schools that are TWO or THREE stories tall and put government offices on the upper floors? Wouldn't the student population be safer and better behaved if the police department was located in the same building? And wouldn't it be cheaper to heat/cool and use less land? Of course, but it's all about the money, power, politics, and such.
Keep the faith, Olyuzi. I'm with you. Let's just use a little common sense about it.
Ron |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 11:42:41 AM · #33 |
| Outrage about environmental issues from anyone who drives a car, rides a bus, smokes a cigarette, uses a dishwasher, or takes full advantage of any other everyday civilties that ALL contribute to polluting and diminishing the same environment they're ranting about, is just pure hypocracy. There'd be no issue with the Bush Administration's take on environmental issues if the general populous wasn't so energy hungry. And we're all posting via the internet so we're all guilty on that front.. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 11:51:23 AM · #34 |
| ?? You have to abandon all civilization to comment on the environment? Surely you do not mean what you say. There would be nobody in this world who could then comment on the environment - a free for all would have to prevail since nobody could question anything. Sounds like fun. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 11:53:54 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
?? You have to abandon all civilization to comment on the environment? Surely you do not mean what you say. There would be nobody in this world who could then comment on the environment - a free for all would have to prevail since nobody could question anything. Sounds like fun. |
I don't believe that's what I said or implied. You misunderstanding makes my point no less valid. The same people upset over logging, acid rain, etc etc are just like the rest of us: we're all contributors. If everyone is so concerned for the environment, then throw away modern conventions and live in the woods. I wouldn't mind doing it myself, but I also like my convenient, cushy life as is. Bush's so called indignant attitude is reminiscent of 99% of the rest of the population, so why should he and his gov't take the blame? Ah, another scapegoat. Why on earth would we all change our lifestyles when it's just SO much more convenient to hound our gov't to spend billions on figuring out a solution themselves?
P.S. There's a HUGE difference between merely commenting on the environment and actually ranting.
Message edited by author 2004-02-27 11:57:50. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 12:25:25 PM · #36 |
I understood you to mean what you typed. Your post slammed people for voicing concern over environmental issues because they also contribute to the problem on at least some level. I've re-read the message I initially responded to, and my "misunderstanding" happened all over again.
I never commented on the issue, Bush's policies, or anything related. Just your post slamming people for having and voicing opinions on a topic. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 12:58:59 PM · #37 |
Posted on the internet, coming out of London. It must be 100% true! No need to worry though, I saw on a bugs bunny cartoon that marvin the martian has a solution to all our problems.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 01:01:25 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
I understood you to mean what you typed. Your post slammed people for voicing concern over environmental issues because they also contribute to the problem on at least some level. I've re-read the message I initially responded to, and my "misunderstanding" happened all over again.
I never commented on the issue, Bush's policies, or anything related. Just your post slamming people for having and voicing opinions on a topic. |
lol so you don't get it, that makes it a slam and by you posting and saying so, will just upset others who didn't interpret it the same as you? So what you're REALLY saying is that you know what's in my head and what I'm thinking? Oh my goodness, you're a MIND reader???!!!! Guess what I'm thinking RIGHT now...crap, you're GOOD! |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 02:03:50 PM · #39 |
The slam is in calling people hypocrits (and doing so on a very tenuous thread). Or, did I misunderstand your "pure hypocracy [sic]" statement? That's all I referred to, not your message that everyone in someway contributes to pollution/use of resources, etc.
No mind reading necessary. Don't get all bent out of shape. You call people hypocrits when they merely express opinions, and you should expect to be called on it IMO. Certainly true when you have absolutely no clue about the personal habits of any of the people you called hypocrits.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 02:10:27 PM · #40 |
So, back to the so-called coverup...
That article sounds more like the plot for the next Michael Crichton novel or Harrison Ford movie than real scientific analysis.
Or, more seriously, it sounds like one of probably hundreds of reports analyzing endless "what if" scenerios that government agencies like the pentagon, CIA, NSC, and many others generate on an ongoing basis. Its how they attempt to stay ahead of the curve. Of course, when the results say that Sadam Hussein is a threat to the US and peace in the middle east and should be removed from power, they are dismissed as faulty inteligence; when they predict the collapse of the environment, they are considered gospel, and any dismissal is automatically and evil government conspiracy.
I obviously can't comment on the report itself - I didn't notice any indication where it can be found - though I read most of the article, and it seems more sensationalistic than journalistic. "We found this report, and its been out for four months without anyone hearing about it. COVER-UP!" Or... could it be that it never made it up the the White House level, because it was dismissed much lower down the chain. Or... could it be that it was simply folded in with all the other issues the government has to deal with, and simply hadn't gained any visibility to date. The government generates thousands upon thousands of documents yearly, if not daily. Every one that simply gets filed away without every reaching public scrutiny is not automatically being covered up. NOTE: I'm not saying it is or isn't being covered up, simply that I don't see any concrete evidence in my admittedly quick reading of that article. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 02:15:11 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
The slam is in calling people hypocrits (and doing so on a very tenuous thread). Or, did I misunderstand your "pure hypocracy [sic]" statement? That's all I referred to, not your message that everyone in someway contributes to pollution/use of resources, etc.
No mind reading necessary. Don't get all bent out of shape. You call people hypocrits when they merely express opinions, and you should expect to be called on it IMO. Certainly true when you have absolutely no clue about the personal habits of any of the people you called hypocrits. |
I don't recall naming anyone? Did I say "-insert name- are a hypocrit"? Why, I don't believe I did, huh, funny how that works. Perhaps you ARE a mind reader afterall! lol I wasn't specifically speaking of anyone, and ya know, strangely I DO know people outside of DPC and I DO know personal habits of people who do rant about environmental issues that I would certainly call hypocrits. Who's bent out of shape? LOL I'm not bendy at all, sarcasm and humor don't equate being upset. Well, not in my, sad, lonely, pathetic world of microwaving nachos and riding the bus anyways. [see, sarcasm and humor DO exist!] |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 02:16:47 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by ScottK:
So, back to the so-called coverup...
That article sounds more like the plot for the next Michael Crichton novel or Harrison Ford movie than real scientific analysis. |
You must be a good swimmer. You seem unafraid. I will reserve a spot on my boat for you just the same. You can thank me later. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 02:19:36 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
I don't recall naming anyone? Did I say "-insert name- are a hypocrit"? Why, I don't believe I did, huh, funny how that works. Perhaps you ARE a mind reader afterall! lol I wasn't specifically speaking of anyone, and ya know, strangely I DO know people outside of DPC and I DO know personal habits of people who do rant about environmental issues that I would certainly call hypocrits. Who's bent out of shape? LOL I'm not bendy at all, sarcasm and humor don't equate being upset. Well, not in my, sad, lonely, pathetic world of microwaving nachos and riding the bus anyways. [see, sarcasm and humor DO exist!] |
When you backpedal that quickly, you are likely to get hurt. Please take it easy. |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 02:40:54 PM · #44 |
A couple other thoughts:
Anyone remember Ted Danson's Doomsday Countdown Clock? Back in either the late 80's or early 90's, good ole Ted warned us that we had 10 years until the environment collapsed and we were plunged into an ecological catastrophy. Whenever it was (I'm pretty sure Bush 41 was in office at the time), it was well over 10 years ago. The sky's still up there, Chicken Little.
From the article:
'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
...So, when Bush listens to his own government about weapons of mass distruction, he's wrong. When Bush supposedly ignores his own government about global warming (and, really, an arm of the government that has little if anything to do with scientific or atmosphiric science), he's wrong. Do I see a pattern here?
Again, from the article:
As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
So, why not give it a year? We obviously can't fix this monumental damage in a single year, so if the flooding starts next spring, we'll know they were right. If not...
About 10 years ago I saw a show on PBS - I don't recall the name, but really wish I could find it again. Basically, it chronicled the history of climatic changes over several thousand years - from the most recent ice ages, even up to shifts discovered through research in biblical times, and recent shifts some time around 800 to 1000 AD. (This last one was credited with causing the rise of European dominance, due to the technological advances that had to be made because of drops in temperatures in northern Europe.) All of these shifts were caused by various natural conditions, and all led to adaptations by the human race to overcome them. And we did. And yet, they still reached the end of the show and brought out the same old line: the climate is shifting again, and it's mankind's fault.
It's all about an agenda... |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 02:42:09 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by Patents4u:
Originally posted by ScottK:
So, back to the so-called coverup...
That article sounds more like the plot for the next Michael Crichton novel or Harrison Ford movie than real scientific analysis. |
You must be a good swimmer. You seem unafraid. I will reserve a spot on my boat for you just the same. You can thank me later. |
So kind of you. I'll even let you say "I told you so!" :) |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 02:52:14 PM · #46 |
And if we worry about everything endlessly we will all end up looking like this.
 |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 04:05:03 PM · #47 |
ya ya jmritz, that's a very nice picture. Mumbling .
Ya ya that's very nice.
Any way.........end of the world. Hmmmm okay. I'm getting word that the end of the world is coming at about 10 pm tonight. Pictures at 11.
|
|
|
|
02/27/2004 04:12:49 PM · #48 |
Or then again we might just burn ourselfs out like this.
 |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 04:17:05 PM · #49 |
|
|
|
02/27/2004 04:18:55 PM · #50 |
|
