Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 12-10-2009, 08:32 PM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,958 posts, read 45,264,919 times
Reputation: 24738

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill View Post
To be clear, I'm not a denier, so much as a person who says the jury is still out, and there is strong economic and political motives for people to pretend the issue settled.
Exactly. And when that enters the realm of science, we lose the ability to find out the truth either way.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-11-2009, 11:36 AM
 
1,360 posts, read 1,938,293 times
Reputation: 500
Ray Weiss looks at the chanting protesters, harried delegates and the 20,000 other people gathered here for a global warming summit and wonders: What's the fuss all about?

Weiss, a geochemist who studies atmospheric pollution at San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography, says the numbers at the core of the debate in Copenhagen are flawed.

After climate talks, scientists worry about enforcement - USATODAY.com

Dirty little secret... this is not about climate...its about power grab and distribution of wealth by the left...Global Warming/Climate Change is a "TOTAL FRAUD"!!!!

Last edited by tonyandclaire89; 12-11-2009 at 12:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,288 posts, read 8,846,662 times
Reputation: 2459
You all seriously think that this some sort of plot cooked up by 1st world scientists in order to...give money to the 3rd world countries most likely to be suffering from climate change problems?

so you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds? Al Gore was a vice president - he can get paid $100K a speech without blinking an eye, and he was talking about global warming 2 decades ago. To quote Bob Dole when he retired, "Well, now it's time to get rich."

I have no problem showing politicians and the wealthy to be the hypocrites that they usually are. But all of the complaints made above have been answered, in excruciating detail, by (yes) the scientific communities in various locations.



none of the complaints given above have any merit. I will repeat myself as often as you all like - the emails in question show that two scientists discussed - informally - disregarding some data that is questionable for the purpose of assessing global temperatures.

what that has to do with the thousands of other independently-conducted research studies that do show global warming (among other horrible environmental problems like acidifying oceans & dead zones off of the Gulf of Mexico) is exactly nothing. zip. zilch.

if you want to talk about power grabs, go take a look at today's news:

Oil Bonanza as Companies Vie for Iraqi Fields - Iraq | War | Map - FOXNews.com

Suppose this had anything to do with invading a country that had nothing to do with planning and carrying out the attacks on NYC?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2009, 07:44 PM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,487,724 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
You all seriously think that this some sort of plot cooked up by 1st world scientists in order to...give money to the 3rd world countries most likely to be suffering from climate change problems?

so you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds? Al Gore was a vice president - he can get paid $100K a speech without blinking an eye, and he was talking about global warming 2 decades ago. To quote Bob Dole when he retired, "Well, now it's time to get rich."

I have no problem showing politicians and the wealthy to be the hypocrites that they usually are. But all of the complaints made above have been answered, in excruciating detail, by (yes) the scientific communities in various locations.



none of the complaints given above have any merit. I will repeat myself as often as you all like - the emails in question show that two scientists discussed - informally - disregarding some data that is questionable for the purpose of assessing global temperatures.

what that has to do with the thousands of other independently-conducted research studies that do show global warming (among other horrible environmental problems like acidifying oceans & dead zones off of the Gulf of Mexico) is exactly nothing. zip. zilch.

if you want to talk about power grabs, go take a look at today's news:

Oil Bonanza as Companies Vie for Iraqi Fields - Iraq | War | Map - FOXNews.com

Suppose this had anything to do with invading a country that had nothing to do with planning and carrying out the attacks on NYC?


Before I respond, I would like to know if you have any background in doing funded research. Because the straw man you proposed isn't exactly what's being claimed, and I want to know what level of explaination I need to go into to describe how a scientific movement like this could exist.

I did note that your fox news story was a non-sequitar, and has nothing to do with politicization of research. It does make you look a bit like a left wing conspiracy nut when you imply that was the cause of invading Iraq. But otherwise, it's irrelevant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2009, 07:46 AM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,919,403 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
You all seriously think that this some sort of plot cooked up by 1st world scientists in order to...give money to the 3rd world countries most likely to be suffering from climate change problems?

so you have any idea how ridiculous this sounds? Al Gore was a vice president - he can get paid $100K a speech without blinking an eye, and he was talking about global warming 2 decades ago. To quote Bob Dole when he retired, "Well, now it's time to get rich."

I have no problem showing politicians and the wealthy to be the hypocrites that they usually are. But all of the complaints made above have been answered, in excruciating detail, by (yes) the scientific communities in various locations.



none of the complaints given above have any merit. I will repeat myself as often as you all like - the emails in question show that two scientists discussed - informally - disregarding some data that is questionable for the purpose of assessing global temperatures.

what that has to do with the thousands of other independently-conducted research studies that do show global warming (among other horrible environmental problems like acidifying oceans & dead zones off of the Gulf of Mexico) is exactly nothing. zip. zilch.

if you want to talk about power grabs, go take a look at today's news:

Oil Bonanza as Companies Vie for Iraqi Fields - Iraq | War | Map - FOXNews.com

Suppose this had anything to do with invading a country that had nothing to do with planning and carrying out the attacks on NYC?
I noticed you did not respond to my correction to your last post. Do you not have any comments concerning your claim that CRU is simply a small part of the field and does not change the evidence of AGW?

Do you also have a response which directly contests your link that uses Jones defense that he deleted no e-mails, yet in the e-mails themselves he specifically points out that he did when discussing the FOI requests?

Please respond to this before you continue on with your claims. If you do not, it simply shows you to be pushing an agenda.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2009, 02:36 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,868,443 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
Unless you want to breathe smog and live in a world full of acid rain, diseases that thrive in warmer temperatures and landfills, I am talking about the big picture.
Hmmm the big picture....

Quote:
Unless you want to breathe smog
False, the US has some of the tightest regulations on the planet and has reduced air pollution by 54% since 1980.

Air Quality Trends | AirTrends | Air & Radiation | EPA




Quote:
live in a world full of acid rain
False, in addition to the reductions of pollutants that are suspected of causing acid rain it's not absolutely certain Air pollution is the source. You people always like throwin around the worldwide consensus so here's one for you. After a 10 year study that cost $600 million that was supposed to shape the language in the Clean Air Act it was thrown out because it didn't fit the politics of the day. What is really interesting here is this also provides a reason why many of these scientists may be afraid to speak out as this scientists career was apparently destroyed by speaking the truth, unfortunately for him the science didn't fit the politics.

Quote:
Some people don't like what Edward Krug has to say about acid rain. That was apparent when he spoke at a seminar on the subject last April in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Krug, a soil scientist who had helped conduct a 10-year federal study of acid rain, spoke with some expertise. He told his audience that he and his fellow researchers on the National Acid Rain Precipitation Assessment Project had determined that acid rain was an environmental nuisance, not a catastrophe.

It was a message that environmentalists didn't want to hear. One woman hissed at him, "You need to take a reality check."

Unfortunately for Krug, she isn't the only one who doesn't like his ideas. Congress ignored NAPAP's findings, and when Krug tried to point out that the federal government is forcing utilities to spend billions of dollars to solve a problem that doesn't exist, a federal agency did everything in its power to keep the media from listening to him. Krug's research has upset the plans of some of Washington's most powerful bureaucrats, and they aren't happy. Because of them, the 44-year-old Krug has experienced numerous reality checks.

Krug is respected in his field. His mentor, John Tedrow, a world-renowned soil scientist at Rutgers University, says that Krug borders "on genius." Krug has developed an internationally accepted theory on lake acidity. He has published in prestigious scientific journals. He organized the Acid Rain Symposium at an annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He has served as an adviser to two directors of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But today, because of politics, he cannot find work in his field.

After Krug appeared on 60 Minutes to talk about what his research for NAPAP revealed about the relationship between acid rain and acidic lakes, the EPA branded him a scientist of "limited credibility," called his statements "outlandish," and said he was "on the fringes of environmental science." The Agency, under pressure, later recanted those accusations.

After he published an internationally praised acid-rain assessment, the EPA organized a scathing secret review that other scientists called a "sham." The producer of the 60 Minutes broadcast says the EPA attempted to discredit Krug while CBS was preparing the story. The EPA denied the charges.

Why did this happen? "He was," a colleague says, "a bit immature in the area of political science."

Source: ACID TEST by William Anderson Published in Reason Magazine, January 1992 (http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/epavskrug.html - broken link)
Quote:
It doesn't take a lot of mercury
Mercury is global issue, the US only accounts for 3% of global pool with 1% originating from power plants. Most of that doesn't even get deposited in the US.

Quote:
  • Mercury emitted from coal-fired power plants comes from mercury in coal, which is released when the coal is burned. While coal-fired power plants are the largest remaining source of human-generated mercury emissions in the United States, they contribute very little to the global mercury pool. Recent estimates of annual total global mercury emissions from all sources -- both natural and human-generated -- range from roughly 4,400 to 7,500 tons per year. Human-caused U.S. mercury emissions are estimated to account for roughly 3 percent of the global total, and U.S. coal-fired power plants are estimated to account for only about 1 percent.
  • EPA has conducted extensive analyses on mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants and subsequent regional patterns of deposition to U.S. waters. Those analyses conclude that regional transport of mercury emission from coal-fired power plants in the U.S. is responsible for very little of the mercury in U.S. waters. That small contribution will be significantly reduced after EPA’s Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean Air Mercury Rule are implemented.


Source: Mercury Emissions: A Global Problem (http://www.epa.gov/mercuryrule/factsheetfin.htm - broken link)
Do you want to discuss radiation, asthma or the plethora of other issues often overstated or sensationalized by environmentalists in regards to US emissions? Line 'em up, I'll knock them all down.

Here's common tactic, let's put up the image of coal plant with gobs of smoke emitting from it:



Quote:
the smoke looks bad (and even worse due to the HDR processing)

Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/davipt/164 ... 546709059/ (http://www.flickr.com/photos/davipt/164341428/comment72157601546709059/ - broken link)
Firstly the photographer used HDR processing on this image which will increase the contrast between light and dark colors, that is why the top of the stack in the foreground is so dark. Images like this are often used to sensationalize this topic. The trouble is the only stacks in this image that produce any emissions are the tall skinny ones to the right. The larger more prominent stacks are cooling towers that produce nothing but water vapor. A wet scrubber is one form of pollution control and it too produces water vapor, all the "smoke" you see is nothing but good old H20. It would be humorous if it wasn't so serious but what most people depict as pollution and others perceive as pollution from being bombarded with these images is in fact pollution control.

Last edited by thecoalman; 12-12-2009 at 02:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2009, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Nort Seid
5,288 posts, read 8,846,662 times
Reputation: 2459
You guys just keep spinning your wheels - the global temperature is increasing (and I have posted ample evidence), the oceans are getting more acidic (ditto), and we need to act.

if not allowing people to poison my air & water is "pushing an agenda," so be it.

regarding Jones, he will hang in the court of public opinion if it's determined he actually manipulated data. I have no way of knowing if he deleted emails or not, but him deleting an email is irrelevant to the overwhelming amount of other research (not modeling - learn the difference) out there.

but this kind of malarkey is why where we're at:

"False, the US has some of the tightest regulations on the planet and has reduced air pollution by 54% since 1980."

Great - unfortunately, that's still not good enough.

You sound like this guy who was caught dumping a million gallons of toxic chemicals into a river, and the excuse given was "it's not nearly as much as they used to dump!"

So many straw man arguments... yes, you do like to set them up so you can knock them down, unfortunately, this isn't a game.

Hypoxia in the Northern Gulf of Mexico
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-14-2009, 04:18 PM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,868,443 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post

Great - unfortunately, that's still not good enough.
Good, glad we learned something today. Anything else?

How about a movie? I'm guy on left you could be woman he's interviewing:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzkB5DuveDE
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2009, 03:04 AM
 
Location: OKC
5,421 posts, read 6,487,724 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
You guys just keep spinning your wheels - the global temperature is increasing (and I have posted ample evidence), the oceans are getting more acidic (ditto), and we need to act.

if not allowing people to poison my air & water is "pushing an agenda," so be it.

You know, correlation doesn't prove causation. (actually, you don't even have a correlation here, you only have the general idea that CO2 ppm and temperature are both allegedly rising at the same time. But it's not tightly correlated.)

Lets assume that Co2 has went up, while temp has risen. Does this mean that Co2 CAUSED the temp to go up? Nope. One could as easily say "women's rights increased at the same time the temperature has increased. Therefore, women's rights are causing the temperature to increase."

Correlation doesn't prove causation. (And it's not really correlated, anyway.) In order to prove causation, you also need to show that there were no intervening third variables.

And that parts pretty much a guess right now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-15-2009, 05:19 AM
 
41,815 posts, read 50,868,443 times
Reputation: 17863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chi-town Native View Post
FYI, the primary cause of that is nitrates from agriculture. Stop growing food? We could probably slash production by half but millions if not billions might starve outside of this country if we did that. Sound like a plan?

See how hard it gets to fix these problems? It's easy to say lets stop doing X but without an adequate and practical alternative the problem is not that easy to solve.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top