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.
The most alarming news of all is that you guys really pay attention to this balderdash!
Live your life,it's way too short to worry about this BS.
Let the politicians worry about it.
The politicians don't have a very good track record with that. That's how we got into this mess in the first place--trusting the politicians. Seriously, I have a bridge to sell you.....!
The most alarming news of all is that you guys really pay attention to this balderdash!
Live your life,it's way too short to worry about this BS.
Let the politicians worry about it.
That's fine if all you are worried about is yourself, and you don't plan to live too long.
For those of us who feel a responsibility to leave a healthy planet to our grandchildren, and to their grandchildren, however, these are matter of great import.
Matter of fact, that's exactly what this Green Living forum is all about, leading our lives in ways that conserve the planet's resources and lifeforms. It's about sustainability over consumption. And it's definitely not about leaving it to the politicians.
If that doesn't interest you or concern you, this really isn't the forum for you. And per the special rules posted at the top of the forum, this is not the place to attack or bash people who are endeavoring to reverse the damage humankind has already done to the planet.
Matter of fact, that's exactly what this Green Living forum is all about, leading our lives in ways that conserve the planet's resources and lifeforms. It's about sustainability over consumption. And it's definitely not about leaving it to the politicians.
Tell the class how posting 12 thousand + comments in 1 forum helps "save the planet" ..
PC's do use power,or is that solar powered?
Surely someone pays you do this .
Tell the class how posting 12 thousand + comments in 1 forum helps "save the planet" ..
Not all those posts are in this one forum, obviously. As a matter of fact, most are not in this one. But need I say it again? Yes, I guess I must... stop making personal comments about me. It is against the rules, and against the principles of civilized debate. Think of this forum as the opposite of talk radio, where we talk about facts, not about unsubstantiated opinions and not about other people's character.
Quote:
PC's do use power,or is that solar powered?
There's nothing about Green Living that requires anyone to stop living a normal life. As a matter of fact, I've used the 130 watt computer I'm writing this on, or ones like it, to save probably thousands of gallons of gasoline over the years I've been writing from home rather than commuting to an office.
Quote:
Surely someone pays you do this .
And at last you have coughed up the hairball of what so many folks like you think is the ultimate put down. It's meant as an insult to my character, implying that I get paid to write what I do, that nobody could possibly say the things I do unless they were paid. It's the ultimate ad hominem fallacy, attacking me personally because you don't like what I have to say. And need I say it, I am not the most prolific poster on this forum, so why are you accusing me of being the paid one?
Sorry, but I'm just a regular guy who's retired from the corporate whirl... never having worked for any of the big organizations people like to accuse me of... and who is an independent thinker, beholden to absolutely no one but myself.
The real irony of being falsely accused of being a paid shill on THIS issue, is that all the serious money is actually on the other side, the side in favor of unfettered use of fossil fuels, no matter what damage it does to the planet. The Green Living side is woefully underfunded compared to the folks who are well paid to be climate change deniers, just as the money behind implementation of renewable energy resources is tiny compared to the money that fossil fuels represent in the global economy.
There is no such things as 100% in the field of science, but there is consensus, which is when the scientific support for something is so large that it effectively sets the direction that everyone follows. The consensus of the global community of scientists is, and has been for some years, that global climate change is happening, that it is caused by human activities, that it is serious, and that it is accelerating. The November report from the UN IPCC presents the consensus of thousands of scientists that the problem is worse than previously thought, and that we have a limited time to deal with it before it passes the tipping point, where it will cost more to undo the damage than it would have cost to deal with it proactively, and eventually could pass a point where it even can be reversed.
Of course, the fossil fuel investors would like you to believe that this is all just balderdash, and they pay well to influence people to think that instead of actually looking at the evidence for themselves. It's overwhelming, staggering, even humbling to see how clear the picture really is about the mess we're making. I don't want to leave such a mess to my grandchildren, so I write about what we need to do to make a difference and turn this situation around.
I'll say it again... it's what this Green Living forum is all about.
There's nothing about Green Living that requires anyone to stop living a normal life. As a matter of fact, I've used the 130 watt computer I'm writing this on, or ones like it, to save probably thousands of gallons of gasoline over the years I've been writing from home rather than commuting to an office.
Well my 1200watt PS offsets that I guess.But she idles at less than 150watts.
So I'm green. woot.
Quote:
Of course, the fossil fuel investors would like you to believe that this is all just balderdash, and they pay well to influence people to think that instead of actually looking at the evidence for themselves. It's overwhelming, staggering, even humbling to see how clear the picture really is about the mess we're making. I don't want to leave such a mess to my grandchildren, so I write about what we need to do to make a difference and turn this situation around.
Really, the only thing staggering, edit I'll leave it at that!
Consensus indeed. The consensus was that water was brought to planet earth by comets. It was taught in schools to probably millions of children. They all believed it and to date, most probably still do. Then we have the planet or not, Pluto. The list is long.
Then we find out the consensus was wrong.
The point is that we so often hear that the consensus was wrong and for one day, if that, it makes the news. The ingrained beliefs remain. This illustrates the problem with so much of the talk about scientists this and that, especially here. Every major consensus found to be in error was just that, a consensus among the leading scientists in their fields. Few ever stood up and said, "we were wrong..." especially those who convinced others they were right.
None of this is to say scientists have no value or are mostly wrong. But they are wrong sometimes, especially when they are used to determine ideologies which is the case in much of the green movement so to speak.
Scientists have their place and value. Controlling how people live through regulation is not one of them.
Consensus indeed. The consensus was that water was brought to planet earth by comets. It was taught in schools to probably millions of children. They all believed it and to date, most probably still do.
Then we find out the consensus was wrong.
To be accurate, there is currently a new challenge to that theory based on new data, but it's not conclusive.
That's the great thing about science... once it finds a theory that is generally agreed on, it doesn't stop. It keeps going and going and going. Instruments become more powerful, more sensitive, new observations are made. Consider the measured speed of light, currently given as 299 792 458 (meters / second). That figure has been adjusted several times since it was first measured. Not by a lot, but by small amounts as measuring techniques have improved.
So is each new update a "gotcha?" Not at all. It's a refinement of what is known. And it's very rarely a complete upset of previous theories. More often it is merely an update.
Quote:
The point is that we so often hear that the consensus was wrong and for one day, if that, it makes the news. The ingrained beliefs remain. This illustrates the problem with so much of the talk about scientists this and that, especially here. Every major consensus found to be in error was just that, a consensus among the leading scientists in their fields. Few ever stood up and said, "we were wrong..." especially those who convinced others they were right.
That's a misconception. It may look that way to laymen, as reported in the popular press, but it doesn't really work that way at all within the field.
Quote:
Scientists have their place and value. Controlling how people live through regulation is not one of them.
No, and they don't do that. It's not their role. They provide information, and they provide recommendations on what to do about that information.
On the other hand the leaders and regulators and legislators and administrators who ARE responsible for our laws and regulations are too often beholden to factors other than the truth and factual information, and they justify it by downplaying science, or misusing it, or misstating it, or denying it, or just plain ignoring it. They really should stick to their assigned roles, and let the scientists do theirs.
I think we would all be far better served if our leaders and lawmakers would openly and honestly debate amongst themselves what to do about the known facts that scientists are presenting us with, rather than trying to "play scientist" with the facts because of the involvement of special interests and financial interference.
1. Sea ice isn't the same as land ice-- sea ice is seasonal, land ice is not.
2. Because of its seasonality, sea ice only reflects heat from the Earth when it is cold, not when it is hot.
3. The thickness of the ice was not part of their 'entire argument'... it simply isn't pertinent because Antarctic sea ice is a poor climate regulator.
4. The theory of AGW is not dependent on whether or not sea ice is increasing in Antarctica. Dismissing the entire history of climatology as a failure because of this would be like dismissing your entire life as a failure because you turned up late to work one day.
5. The sea ice might be increasing during the winters, but it is also melting much faster during Antarctic summers: Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis | Sea ice data updated daily with one-day lag
There is an additional factor -- Antarctica is from a climate standpoint an isolated area. The ocean currents are generally circular down there and there is no close land mass. To a large extent what happens in Antarctic is interesting but not particularly meaningful from a climate standpoint.
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.
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.
