U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-28-2009, 03:27 PM
 
4,984 posts, read 5,048,273 times
Reputation: 6322

Advertisements

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

The Marshall Institute co-sponsored with the OISM a deceptive campaign -- known as the Petition Project -- to undermine and discredit the scientific authority of the IPCC and to oppose the Kyoto Protocol. Early in the spring of 1998, thousands of scientists around the country received a mass mailing urging them to sign a petition calling on the government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was accompanied by other pieces including an article formatted to mimic the journal of the National Academy of Sciences. Subsequent research revealed that the article had not been peer-reviewed, nor published, nor even accepted for publication in that journal and the Academy released a strong statement disclaiming any connection to this effort and reaffirming the reality of climate change. The Petition resurfaced in 2001.

You see, names are either imaginary, in the base case those who signed (if any) were duped.

George Marshall Institute

This conservative think tank shifted its focus from Star Wars to climate change in the late 1980s. In 1989, the Marshall Institute released a report claiming that "cyclical variations in the intensity of the sun would offset any climate change associated with elevated greenhouse gases." Though refuted by the IPCC, the report was very influential in influencing the Bush Sr. Administration s climate change policy. The Marshall Institute has since published numerous reports downplaying the severity of global climate change.

Spin: Blame the Sun. The Kyoto Protocol is fatally flawed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-28-2009, 06:10 PM
 
Location: 125 Years Too Late...
10,861 posts, read 10,532,858 times
Reputation: 9518
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
First, I don't think green capitalism will cut it, non green or green capitalism requires endless growth (or it collapses), Earth is finite.



I don't think we can have any meaningful discussion since you refuse to think at all, I doubt you can read. Church styled discussions among faithfuls would suit you better.

[b]

First Earh is about 5 billions years old. It took billions of years more for that hot ball to cool down and form atmosphere, it took billions years more for atmosphere to become something you can live in (20% oxygen, 78% nitrogen).



You concoct fundamentally wrong question, and ask me to write true or false on it? No, I already wrote about it.Climate is NOT a thing in itself. To write "climate of this planet has been evolving, cycling, and changing" implies that climate is an independent agent following hidden instructions. In fact, it takes CAUSES to to trigger EFFECTS. Climate was changing BECAUSE there was a CAUSE, an individual cause for each and every change. Humans became MAJOR CAUSE recently, it's irrelevant what causes were 1 billions years ago.

If one is being sued for forest arson, it's irrelevant that 10 millions years there were devastating fires in So Cal.



We can't focus on reinforcing BS of "natural climate cycles" (whatever that gibberish means) you've heard on talk radio, there are plenty like minded people you can reinforce that BS with. There are NO preprogrammed climate cycles, there are NO devils in the center of the Earth pulling climate strings according to a secret programs. If there is a CHANGE, there is a CAUSE, each own for each change. Humans are major cause today, 1 billions years ago causes were different. You points are absurd.



You just don't read and don't think, I enumerated major causes for climate change. Nothing changes much except green house gases concentration and Earth reflectivity.
Just as I suspected: another deflection. Change everything I said to five billion and grab your calculator to change the ratios. Then answer the question because the question really doesn't change whether it's 30 years to 5 billion or 30 years to 8 billion. Besides, you are contradicting the very science that you show such faith in. You are now telling me the climate of the earth does not change in the absence of man--at least you've implied it (you haven't really committed to anything). You seem obsessed with talk radio. I don't listen to talk radio. If you want to see the best guess we have of climate history, check out some geophysical or paleo/geologic summaries. If nothing else, start with wikipedia and follow the links. Hell, watch the Weather Channel special on ice core drilling.

So in your eyes, the earth's climate did not change until man came along. Before that it was smooth as a baby's butt. Does that sum it up?

And I'm still waiting to hear how green you are. Real change starts with YOU, not a government scheme to make you feel better and pawn the responsibilities off to your chosen demons of the day.




Again--two questions for you to decisively answer:

1) Does the climatic geophysical record indicate, as best as we can determine, oft dramatic climate change before the era of man or has it not?

2) How green are you? Let's here about it.

Moderator cut: No personal attacks or insults

Last edited by vec101; 12-03-2009 at 03:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2009, 07:12 PM
 
4,984 posts, read 5,048,273 times
Reputation: 6322
Quote:
So in your eyes, the earth's climate did not change until man came along. Before that it was smooth as a baby's butt. Does that sum it up?
I answered this INSANE proposition several times. If there were forest fires 10 millions years ago, it doesn't mean that forest fires cannot be started by humans today. If 10 millions years ago different set of factors triggered climate change, it doesn't mean that human activity did not become a major climate changing factor today, we live in Anthropocene now, remember? If 12,000 years ago a few dozens thousands of hunter gatherers could adjust to gradual climate change and survive, it doesn't mean that 7 billions + can do the same today.

If you continue to shiit in your home with doors closed you cannot expect "business as usual". Yet, despite humongous changes mankind imposed on its environment, despite well studied mechanism of green house effect (200+ years prior to "envirowackos") you choose to ignore common sense and pretend that humans have nothing to do with anything because 100 millions years climate was changing too. That's remarkable fit of logic. Unfortunately, you live probably in the most critical times humanity ever faced, at the time when environmental, energy, food, water, climate, resource, economic and social challenges converge. At the times where there are no new continents to escape. Despite your best efforts you will not be able to keep your head deep down your arse much longer. If you'd ignore climate component of the coming crisis, the rest will get through your skin. And doing nothing because 100 millions years ago climate was changing will not be an option.

Moderator cut: No personal attacks or insults

Last edited by vec101; 12-03-2009 at 03:18 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2009, 09:59 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,715,106 times
Reputation: 1770
Eventually, all life on earth will end anyway. The Sun will go out, or a comet will crash into us, or something.

So what's the point? So long as we another 100 years or so, we should be thankful our little planet had such a good run.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2009, 11:39 PM
 
4,984 posts, read 5,048,273 times
Reputation: 6322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
Eventually, all life on earth will end anyway. The Sun will go out, or a comet will crash into us, or something.

So what's the point? So long as we another 100 years or so, we should be thankful our little planet had such a good run.
I don't know your age, by my guess would be that you'll be "lucky" to be alive in the times when a good run will hit the wall (of our making). You may be lucky not to see climate change in full swing, but resource, energy, environment, food, water, economic changes are either waiting round the corner or are already here. Mankind climbed on the steep portion of an exponential curve to the mega collapse, I greatly doubt it can be avoided considering our mentality, social&economic systems, & life priorities. Essentially, we behave like a cross bred of locust with ostrich, oh well, with any luck a swamp slime may evolve into something better millions years from now (of course, if we'll trigger runaway global worming by burning hundreds of millions years worth of fossils in such a short time, tough love slime.)

It took nature roughly 400 millions of years to build up fossils we use. The most abundant fossil - coal will be finished off in mere 400 years. 300 years since industrial revolution + 400 years = 700; Human locust will manage (if it will be alive in 400 y., not a fact) to compress 400 millions years of natural history in 700 years of locust civilization max, I really don't know what human parts deniers think with if they assume that such enormous emission of CO2, unparalleled in Earth history, would be overshadowed by some unknown "cyclical" changes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2009, 11:43 PM
 
Location: southern california
55,552 posts, read 74,425,183 times
Reputation: 47954
re OP
strong emotions but i am not sure of the direction.
you feel people too worked up about green energy?
everytime i see a post like this i think of chevron and OPEC.
dept of energy told us that gas price was not sensitive to auto fuel consumption.
they lied like a rug.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 01:36 PM
 
3,530 posts, read 7,664,985 times
Reputation: 4390
Re - read the post. Maybe read it a third time.

I talk about the stupidity of abandoning EXISTING forms of energy that are currently ABUNDANT. I specifically mention that we should, indeed seek new forms of energy, but hydrocarbons do not need to be turned off immediately, prior to sufficient development of newer energy that is similarly affordable.

I think that people embrace "green" energy, often times, as an adjunct to economic political sympathies. It's window dressing, it gets attention, and its urgency is completely off base.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCHi4...eature=popular
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 01:48 PM
 
3,283 posts, read 4,662,833 times
Reputation: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pfhtex View Post
The notion that ignoring existing resources that would surely reduce domestic reliance on foreign oil is complete stupidity.

The earth is cooling. At least for the last few, tiny tiny tiny measurements of time.

Please review George Carlin's thoughts on Militant Environmentalism. All these years later, dead-on accurate and hilarious.

We're all going to look back on this era and think, "wow, what arrogance."

Sure new and exciting forms of energy are needed, but we don't have to stop everything that turns our existing wheel.

God. Grow up. Find your importance elsewhere.


i agree with you that global warming is a hoax, but that doesn't make it wise to wantonly squander energy resources. just because global warming is a scam, it doesn't mean that we don't have energy and environmental challenges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 01:53 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,426 posts, read 5,715,106 times
Reputation: 1770
Quote:
Originally Posted by RememberMee View Post
I don't know your age, by my guess would be that you'll be "lucky" to be alive in the times when a good run will hit the wall (of our making). You may be lucky not to see climate change in full swing, but resource, energy, environment, food, water, economic changes are either waiting round the corner or are already here. Mankind climbed on the steep portion of an exponential curve to the mega collapse, I greatly doubt it can be avoided considering our mentality, social&economic systems, & life priorities. Essentially, we behave like a cross bred of locust with ostrich, oh well, with any luck a swamp slime may evolve into something better millions years from now (of course, if we'll trigger runaway global worming by burning hundreds of millions years worth of fossils in such a short time, tough love slime.)

It took nature roughly 400 millions of years to build up fossils we use. The most abundant fossil - coal will be finished off in mere 400 years. 300 years since industrial revolution + 400 years = 700; Human locust will manage (if it will be alive in 400 y., not a fact) to compress 400 millions years of natural history in 700 years of locust civilization max, I really don't know what human parts deniers think with if they assume that such enormous emission of CO2, unparalleled in Earth history, would be overshadowed by some unknown "cyclical" changes.
The U.S. is well positioned (relative to other countries) for a global food crises. It would probably work to our advantage if food became the new oil. It sucks though for a country like Palau, that lives on fish. When the Chinese and Indian middle class swell, they're going to start demanding more protein in the diet, and illegally out-fish the ocean.

Anyway, I really would like to see us turn to Atomic energy, electric cars, etc. And I don't like pollution. So maybe I'm getting greener as I grow older.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2009, 01:54 PM
 
3,283 posts, read 4,662,833 times
Reputation: 753
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal View Post
Some of what people are proclaiming as "green' has been around for a very long time. It was what our grandparents who lived through the depression would have called "being thrifty". To me being thrifty just makes sense when it comes to things like not wasting electricity, not wasting natural resources, etc... .

However, when it comes to the current "green movement" I think it is the biggest scam ever to be perpetuated upon people at the global level. We have groups of people who stand to secure huge amounts of power, control, and money if they can effectively force their agenda through on everyone via legislation and world treaties. The "science" they have based their assumptions on is faulty at best.

If individuals want to harvest their energy through PVC & wind generators, more power to them! However, it should not be a requirement to do so nor should I have to pay for subsidizing your rooftop solar collectors when I cannot afford to put in my own array!

If and when these "renewable energy" systems become efficient enough to be cost effect the free market will prevail and they will become more affordable. Until that time why should all of us be forced (via legislation) to "invest" in products that still leave much to be desired?

The ethanol bubble is a perfect example. It was a boon to farmers initially but proved to cause more pollution and cost more energy than it produced or "saved". It has been a huge net loss at the taxpayer expense. Tell me what sanity there is in burning the food that feeds billions of people worldwide?

I recall when the government forced lead to be removed from gasoline. Now the government is pushing everyone to use CFL light bulbs which contain mercury and will further poison our landfills and the run-off water from them. Trading one toxic heavy metal for another by the government as they pander to the special interest groups that benefit, while the average tax paying citizen is footing the bill, is sheer corruption, in my opinion.

Whew! rant -off.
good rant! i will add that it also about time that govt stops subsidizing oil exploration and production. in much the same way as people don't want renewables to be subsidized, it is also immoral to expect the taxpayer to foot the bill for gasoline.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Green Living
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top