Global warming? More chance of an ice age

[Mac_Muz]

My take is big industry makes more pollutants than any private persons going about thir buisiness.

Most plastics as an example are made of oil bi-products, Most synthetics cloths, cordage, and the like are fibers of oil-bi-products.

K-1, K-2, Diesel, jet fuels, and etc are first made in the making of gasoline with many other products all based on oil. These first items that come before gasoline is like skimming cream off milk, and leaving them as the milk parts, which are a larger volume first, which makes it unreasonable the prices of these are more than gasoline.

In this representation the milk is of the lesser value, the cream being seen as gasoline.

With things as they are I just can't take the problem serious. If there was a big enough problem that $$$ don't stand in the way, something would be done about it.

As a wee lad I can recall when rivers near paper mills ran bright orange, which is no longer the case, because the problem grew to big, bigger than the $$. Then something was done about the problem.

Trees are still cut to run bio power plants, where hemp could be used to replace the trees cut.
I don't smoke or want to smoke hemp, so that isn't any part of the point.

The point is hemp can be grown and harvested apx 3 times in a single season. It could run the majority of bio power to make electricity, PLUS, it adds nitrogen to the ground and so could be rotated with corn and the like the next season.

Besides that you can get OIL from the seeds, you can make bio-degradable fibers and the worls once ran on hemp. You can make clothing, shopping bags, beer can holders, anti theft packaging, and etc all from hemp.

Hemp would KILL OIL, but no one is serious about killing oil. Oil is exactly what Killed Hemp in the first place. The only reason hemp is illegal is because it would Kill oil and back in the day the $$$$ investors knew it.

Hemp can be grown that no one would even want to smoke, which would end that problem. All hemp bi-products are naturally degradable.

As it is these days I can hardly find any reall wool, of a quality fit for a tradesman to work out in real cold. A simple jack shirt is over 100 dollars. This has been replaced with oil based poly pro clothing, which light on FIRE if you run torches and or weld. Car techs uniforms are made of that as well, which shows how concerned OSHA really is. I have personally torn off burning uniforms from 3 other techs, as they ran thru my bay on fire. I was burned as well as they, since the stuff turns to burning plastic goo.

As I see it this is all hype and spin, to get people to stay the same.

Once plastic 6 pack holders were banned, or so i thought, and for killing wild life that was trapped in the mung and goo of plastics in the 7 seas and other places, but they have made a real come back I see. Wild life is as at risk now as it was back then to this same thing.

Man doesn't care, so long as man is comfortable.

Once for 3 full years I lived off the land as a hunter gather, and today if you were to go to any of the 3 main camps I kept on Fedral lands, used to be public lands, or your land and mine, you would not find a traced of me being there, other than some carbon, from fire.

To fix the problem man is going to need toi find ways to go with out, to reduce man's levels of pollution. Will man do that? I hold high doubts.

[jimhcom]

Originally Posted by TheViking85

Yeah, but we cut down the forest (in an ever increasing rate) and harvest the algae, so natures attempts might not succeed.

There is very little debate amongst scientists that the temperatures are increasing, looking at the avg global temp the last 50 years and you'll see that in fact it is.

There's a little more controversy regarding mans contribution to this warming.

Now, though I think it's foolish to underestimate mans power to mess up natures way (we made a hole in the ozone layer some times back, remember?), I don't see how it's relevant to the discussion of polluting, and as such, I think both scientists and politicians somewhat missed the mark, when they've made a debate almost entirely about global warming or Climate change, as it's now known.

The truth is that the results of our polluting are far more direct and hits far closer to home than that. The "local" effects of polluting alone gives more than enough reason and arguments towards reducing our footprint, without pulling climate change into the matter.

Look at the rate children get Asthma these days, look at child cancer rates in populated areas in the hills of San Fransisco, close to the commercial docks (or any other city with a large dock), look at how many people get cancer due to their diet(high fructose corn syrup being one of the main "bad boys") or cancer because of environmental reasons, allergies are on the rise, for the same reasons, and some cities nigh on strangle themselves in toxic fumes. (I've yet to see the air in Dallas get a better rating than Orange, which is a warning).

The question really shouldn't be whether the earth is getting warmer or not, it should be: How long are we going to poison ourselves before we realize pollution is a problem?

The question is how much lifestyle are you willing to sacrifice for theorys? The real problem in the world is not the amount of pollution per person; it is the overall number of people. What the world needs is population control. If we continue to overpopulate, we will all be poor and hungry.

[Ferd]

As for debate about warming... until NASA did some "adjustments" 1938 (or there abouts) was the warmest year on record. even beating 1998.

post adjustments the 30's are now way down the list.

but we all do agree that we are seeing warming. the cause however has not been proven at all.

[mimimomx3]

We can't reliably predict next weekend's weather. Why do people think we can predict what the weather will be in 100 years??