JPF Home Page Forums General Messages General Message Forum And The Heat Just Keeps On Coming

Hey Big Jim

This is where we might disagree. What we call ozone has been found to be exactly the same elements as smog (ie carbon monoxide dioxide pollution) It's in the upper atmostphere so it's not poisonus to us. I have heard theories as far fetched as cows burping and farting cause the ozone layer to deplete. The claims seems a little out there to me. Some have theorized that the ozone layer is something that's deplenishes and then replinishes. I don't know for sure if this is true, the data could be flawed; however, I do know that my main complaint is we need to be as careful with our environment as possible and I am for that.
Derek

Well the ozone layer as it is called is a protective layer preventing harmful uv and excessive heat into our atmosphere and there is a huge hole getting bigger and bigger. Kinda important but I will not argue the point. Concensus seems to be do what you can man the earths not a garbage can.

Seems funny to me but in something like 60 years we went from just dreaming about flight to putting a man on the moon.. yet we still burn coal to generate energy? ... Whether it be for smelting or creating steam for electricity.... yet there are other methods and they can be very effective.... people agaist these methods scream "COST" like it's this huge insurmountable "wall".... yet when the first cars came out it would cost a years (or 5),average wage just for the basic model... nowdays you can pick up the most basic cars for just over a months wage.... and I have seen in Indonesea little things that retail for about 2 to 3 weeks wages..... Same goes for recycling, we can split the atom, break down a rock collected from Mars, seperate out the elements and tell you exactly what it is made of and how much there is, but suggest we do the same with our rubbish and toxic waste... and seperate it into it's elements for re-use.... and again the "WALL" Yet you only need look at electronic equipment to know that as technology improves and we find better methods, costs come down.

Here we are trashing our forests for pulp, while burning paper rubish... but on the collecters show I saw furniture made in the 18th Century made from paper mache (sp) it was very beautiful using a method invented by the Chinese in the 2nd century AD (I think) It was as solid as wood...

We know as a creature of habit we (as a group) do whatever is easiest and cheapest.... This is our NATURE... so we need to be made do the right thing.... Just like there are laws to stop us drink driving and using drugs..... we need laws to stop us being wasteful and greedy.

There are those who will say it will make no difference or will only extend the resouce use by a few hundred years... but we went from dreaming about flight to putting a man on the moon in 60... think what we can do with a few hundred...

well lets see,
But then again the European space agency is probably a right wing organization.

October 3, 2007
The gaping hole in Earth's ozone layer has shrunk 30 percent in size compared to last year, according to new measurements made by the European Space Agency's Envisat satellite.

The ozone layer loses about 0.3 percent of its mass annually, yet fluctuates in its thinness through the year. The region of extremely reduced ozone above Antarctica, popularly known as a "hole," generally peaks in size during September and October but regains its composure by the New Year.

From more right wing scientist's
March 1, 2005
A dramatic thinning of Earth's protective ozone layer above the Arctic last year was the result of intense upper-level winds and an extra dose of space weather, scientists said Tuesday.

Ozone, which screens out some of the Sun's harmful ultraviolet radiation, declined by up to 60 percent in the stratosphere over high northern latitudes in the spring of 2004. Officials issued a health warning earlier this year for residents of the far North.

In a new study, scientists conclude that an intense round of solar storms around Halloween in 2003 was at the root of the problem. Charged particles from the storms triggered chemical reactions that increased the formation of extra nitrogen in the upper stratosphere, some 20 miles up. Nitrogen levels climbed to their highest in at least two decades.

A massive low-pressure system that confines air over the Arctic then conspired to deplete ozone.
The most extreme solar flare ever recorded erupted on Nov. 4, 2003.
The flare spawned this coronal mass ejection, which hurled charged particles into space. The storm was one of 10 major solar eruption to occur in an unprecedented two-week span of solar storminess.

Upper-atmosphere winds associated with the system, called the polar stratospheric vortex, sped up in February and March of 2004 to the fastest speeds ever recorded, the new study found. The spinning vortex allowed nitrogen gas to sink from the high stratosphere, some 20 miles up, to lower altitudes.

The nitrogen gas is known to destroy ozone.

Hey Bill ... That jogs the memory....I remember reading something like this... in the 20 something years since CFC's were banned for use as aerosol propellents and in airconditioners the ozone hole over Antartica has shrunk significantly... can't remember how much but I think it was like 50-90% ... again which demonstrates the point... we can change when we are made to.

Bill whilst your facts are basically correct your interpretation is way off the mark. It is a bit complicated to explain but this link will help you understand the problems we are facing. The basics are that we are losing about 4% of the ozone layer per decade. However there are seasonal temporary fluctuations which move the layer about and spreads it about to reduce the hole size but in reality it is actually getting bigger.
I know I have not explained it ptoperly. Read the articles and it will become clear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

Noel,
You mentioned the destruction of forests and burning paper rubbish.
Google "papercrete" and I think you'll find something that'll interest you.
I did some testing on this stuff and it's amazing material.It's starting to catch on more and more as a viable building material.
I slurried some old newspaper,mixed it with Portland cement then made some test blocks.I put one in a vise and drilled a hole to the center,inserted a thermometer,then held a cutting torch to the side of the block.
It got so hot on that side that the Portland melted to glass and I pressed my naked hand to the other side of the block .It was still cool to the touch.I took the thermometer out and it hadn't changed a degree.
It won't flame but it'll smolder to ash after a very long while.
Used as home building material it eliminates the need for fiberglass insulation and would be much safer in case there ever was a fire.
It soaks water like a sponge but I mixed some silicone sealant with paint thinner and painted it all over,let it dry,put it in water and it floated like a boat.I forced it down and placed a brick on it to hold it down...left it overnight...next morning I took the brick off and it popped to the surface like a cork.
This is the kind of practical stuff that'd solve lots of problems if it really became popular in the construction industry...think how much less waste in the landfills to boot.
JBW

Was it your own idea or did you copy the idea from somewhere cause a patent sounds in order? Could be worth a fortune.

Was it your own idea or did you copy the idea from somewhere cause a patent sounds in order? Could be worth a fortune.

Ignore last couple of sentences. I just looked it up. It was patented 80 years ago. Hell why is it not getting used extensively? Solve a lot of probs and it is cheap to produce.

The only thing that I don't understand is....The USA is always getting blamed for all this global warming and pollution stuff. Well, how come it is that every time you go to buy something it says, Made In India, Made in China, Made in Korea, Made In Mexico, Made In Indonesia, Made In Germany, Made In Europe , etc and The USA is always last on the list?
I worked in textiles for years. I know that most of our dyes and chemicals (at least the base product) came from India, China, and Germany.

Thanks for that James This is excellent.

David... I don't see the USA as being blamed for the whole problem.... Australia, Britain and Europe are all up there, sure China, India, South America and Africa are now starting to conribute too.... the problem is Australia and the USA are basically denying any resposibility for the problem. They want contries who by comparison have contributed very little pollution and are struggling to industrialise, to stop bring their people out of the third world, before Australia and the US are willing to stop polluting... It's about acceptance of resposibility and leading by example... Instead of the "As long as they are we will" attitude. It might seem fair enough to say..... but it's a cop out so they don't have to do anything... Australia is just as bad, I was hoping a change in government meant a change in attitude but it hasn't They've signed Kyoto... but are still holding out...

It's easy to create a straw man. "Are you not doing everything you possibly good to give up any way of life that creates any emissions? If you're not, then your point of view is wrong, you're a hypocrite.." etc etc. A meaningless logical fallacy that has no place in rational debate. I do not drive. I take public transportation wherever I need to go. I wash my hands with cold water. I use one light in my apartment at any given time, two if I'm feeling extravagant. I re-use things as much as possible - recently I insisted my girlfriend keep an old comforter so I could use it for guests coming to our apartment, rather than throw it out.

I could go on. Do I do EVERYTHING possible to reduce consumption? No, I don't. But that is not relevant. The fact of the matter is, the average American is incredibly wasteful. It is hard to over-emphasize this point. For the sake of this discussion, I'll concede in advance that other countries have their share of problems that contribute to environmental damage and global warming as well, but I'd like to focus on the U.S. since that's where I was born and that's where I will likely spend my life.

There are a number of very easy things that most people could do to cut back in a small way on waste. Turning off the lights when you're not home. Running the air conditioner on power saver more often. Turning off the faucet or shower while shaving. Walking, biking, or taking public transportation instead of driving. You can find lists of hundreds, if not thousands, of things like this. While it's impossible to make a statistical estimation on the impact of these activities, it goes to reason that if tens (hundreds?) of millions of people all did, the beneficial effect would be cumulative.



You're right. These people are quite hypocritical. But as I mentioned in an earlier post, this does not affect the objective truth of their viewpoint.

Let me put it another way. A financial advisor tells you it is a good idea to save 10% of your income each year. This is sound advice. However, the advisor chooses to gamble all his money and does not save any of it. Does this make his advice less valuable? No, not in the least. Many of the "arguments" I've seen from people opposing the notion that global warming is an issue are simply character criticisms of people who support the opposite viewpoint. Pure, irrelevant ad hominem.

Man, Andrew, that was a funny post. I agree with it, by the way.

Here's another perspective. Let's put down the question of what's causing it for a moment. And let's also assume that, yes, the climate is heating up at an alarming rate.

If we accept that, then we have a problem for the whole world to solve. Nevermind blame, nevermind cause, nevermind who's going to foot the bill. Instead, my question is, how does the whole world solve a problem together?

What do you all think should be done globally, and how?

I agree Andrew. It's like a fat doctor telling you that you need to lose weight. Even though he's fat, the advice is still sound.
BUT! The difference that I see (speaking for myself) is that if your going to be a self proclaimed expert or guru on a particular subject then you should lead by example. Ben

Hey Andrew

Bravo my friend, I wish I had half the commitment you have to conservation. You are really doing it while the rest debate whether they or anyone else should. That is the measure of a mans charachter what he does, not what he says. You have shown incredible charachter my friend and I for one am very pleased to have read your comments thoughts and opinions. Again I say bravo, you've inspired me to do my part better.
Derek

Andrew makes good points. I can afford to pay my electric bills, water and heating and fuel for my car etc etc. However I try to keep them as low as possible. Even just a tiny amount saved (if we all did it) would make a huge difference.
Some examples:
Switch off all lights and all other electric aplliances when not in use. Even appliances on standby use up a lot of electricity.

Turn down thermostats by a couple of degrees not much difference in heat but a lot less power used.

Do not buy a great big engined car as smaller ones do the same job and use much less fuel. Try to walk or use public transport for short journeys.

Only fill a kettle with the amount of water you need. Why boil it several times over for one cup of tea or coffee.

Recycle everything you can and use bottle banks and paper recycle services.

Re-use plastic carrier bags when shopping. Do not keep getting new ones and throwing them away.

In the big picture a little can mean a lot.

About that ozone layer, yes, it is now steadily patching itself back up. The holes in the ozone layer were attributed mainly to the use of CFCs (chloroflourocarbons) which were used as a stabilizer in aerosol sprays and certain refrigerants.

The Montreal Protocol, an international initiative to ban the use of such ozone-depleting substances, was proposed and adopted over the years by several countries including the United States. Kofi Annan has called this the most successful international agreement to date.

It's a great example of the world accepting the existence of a shared problem and deciding to do something about it.

...But back in the day, the chemical manufacturer Dupont stood to lose a lot of money. Banning the use of CFCs meant many of their products could no longer be sold. They lobbied heavily against the legislation and brought forth a lot of people who claimed the science wasn't solid, nothing was proved, and we should continue to use CFCs. I think this sort of behavior is a natural response of a business whose livelihood is being threatened. But Dupont changed course after the Montreal Protocol and ceased production of CFCs.

Back in the 80's and 90's, this issue was often viewed as a Left vs. Right issue...remember? One side harped about those greedy right wingers defending the profitmakers, and the other side complained about those crazy left wingers trying to panic the world with bogus "eco-policy". But in the end, it all came down to hard science, a search for solutions to the problem, and a political accord between nations.

Hope we can get past all the mudslinging and come together on a similar response to climate change.

Andrew,

It has nothing to do with advice. It's the "reality" of taking the advice that is in question. If the solution suggested is unrealistic, then what good is it? If Al Gore isn't able to do these things with his vast resources and social advantages, how can he expect that advice to be realistic for everyone else who don't have those advantages and options that he does?

It is VERY important to point out hypocrisy when people make sweeping statements or worse, want to legislate enforced changes on others that they themselves do no voluntarily abide by. It's unrealistic for us to do the things Al Gore suggests. If people don't conserve because they WANT to, then they're really going to resist being FORCED to. If those telling others to conserve do exactly the opposite, I do think their credibility is shot. This is very different than the analogy with a fat doctor. That fat doctor isn't forcing you to overeat. He's not cramming food off his own plate down your through making YOU fat. He's also not holding you accountable for HIS weight while telling you to work even harder to lose weight for yourself and lose enough EXTRA weight to make up for his own bloated existance. Al Gore IS doing that.

We can all agree that people shouldn't commit crimes, but just because it is true doesn't mean crime will stop. Someone has to decide they are going to STOP doing it on their own. And if the biggest proponents of stopping crime are revealed to be criminals themselves, then their credibility on the subject is destroyed. Perhaps crime isn't so bad. After all the cops do it.. the judges do it.. the politicians do it.. At least with crime, there is the threat of jail, but for enviromental issues, not enough people will be directly affected to care. The jail sentence they are facing would only come for 2-3 generations down the road. And because we don't know for sure (and never really will in our life times if it takes over 100 years) whether the earth is warming regardless of what we do (as it has many times in the past) or, even if we ARE causing it, if it's not already too late to reverse it, it's a tough sell to ask people to sacrifice on the level needed (i.e. not driving etc..) to make a difference. You live in a city.. you have ample public transportation. If you lived in Nebraska, you wouldn't have public transportation as an option. Then again, cities are big polluters by nature and an argument could easily be made that if you lived out on a farm in Nebraska and grew your own crops and stayed at home, that would be WAY better for the environment than living exactly as you do in the city. By the way, I applaud you for taking personal action to conserve. Few people do. Most of the being held up as the experts and they lecture the rest of us on what we should be doing when they won't do it themselves. If he can't live his life the way he wants while doing these things, why does he think I can?

Another thing to consider: Imagine how heinous Al Gore MUST be if he truly believed his doomsday scenario while serving as Vice President, but he put his own ego and personal interests in front of the entire worlds survival by NOT speaking out every day about the risks so he could remain in position to become president himself. Imagine the near psychopathic destructice personality you'd need to allow the entire world to get 8 years closer to destruction if you believed what he claims? Someone that unstable is not only not suited to be president, but he's not really suited to lecture the world on behavior. If GW is as he predicts, he sold out the entire world for his own hubris. Scary thought. Most rational people would have used the VP slot to scream from the pulpit that we needed to change and FAST. Why wait until he's out of the spotlight to try and make the case? It can only be because he knew he'd never get elected president if he brought it up earlier. That was more important that the safety of the world.

Pollution is bad. Being dependent on Oil is bad. But not feeding your family is bad and not offering your family and yourself a reasonable quality of life in comparison to your peers is also bad. Until those in power can offer some realistic alternatives like truly global mass transportation, or cars that run on something other than oil (and don't say Corn.. that's just a political fraud), people aren't going to stop driving cars. Gas prices have stunted casual driving a great deal, but it can't replace it entirely unless we want people out of work and our already struggling economy to collapse. Imagine a single parent trying to raise a child making 8 bucks an hour, but spending 1 or 2 hours of pay getting back and forth to work? It happens. But there's no other options for these folks so they do it. And they'll keep doing it.

Most manufacturing has already moved offshore to countries who have little or no standards at all. The tighter you make standards here, the more that stuff will move somewhere where there aren't any standards at all. When Al Gore wants to demonstrate truly workable solutions that even a guy like he could live with to conserve, I am happy to hear them. Until then, I really don't need his propaganda. I'd much rather hear from folks like YOU who actually put some actions into place. At least you are demonstrating some level of action that can actually be done in the context of a modern lifestyle. But also remember that you choose some areas to conserve in, but there's going to be plenty of others who would condemn the fact you were using electricity to power your instruments to record music and your computer to make this very post. Will you resist those folks or follow their marching orders? If you say no, then perhaps you better understand where most people are coming from when they're told to do things they aren't willing to do. We all draw our own lines. And someone will ALWAYS draw their line in a different place than you, no matter how conservative you are. Ask people in Sub Saharan Africa who use no electricity and almost no resources of any kind. They certainly see even the biggest Green fantatic as wasteful and destructive. So where do you draw the line, and if you draw such a line, do you believe that your so correct about it's placement that all others who disagree on either side are wrong? That's a reality that most activists fail to face adequately.

JPF is actually pretty green friendly. We don't print out any papers (everything is done via email). We don't run ads in magazines or newspapers which use lots of resources. We send newsletter electronically. We are switching the lions share of our music awards to digital to avoid the need for shipping and postage packages or even physical CD's. But the electronic energy still takes up resources. This message board by itself is very green, but the entire infrastructure it lives on is very consumptive of resources. I am hardly going to lecture everyone else who doesn't do things our way and say that they are wasting energy when the fact is if we shut it all down, we'd use even less. And the Al Gore's of the world would impose realities which would shut a lot of things down. All while flying around in private jets.

If you're comfy with that, more power to you. I'm not. I actually care about the integrity of the messenger. I stopped seeing a heart doctor because he smoked. (And I have never smoked). I needed someone living in the real world who could help me with advice that could be followed. I found one that was realistic. I trusted his integrity so it made it possible for me to follow his advice. But that's just me. To each their own.

Brian

I wish the messenger had not been Al Gore. That paints the whole issue into a Democratic Party initiative, rather than a problem to be solved. It polarizes opinions, as we can plainly read here.

He brought the issue to the world's attention more successfully than anyone before him, but now we are left to argue about Al Gore. That's a shame.

Actually.. he's done more to create doubt and animosity than anyone else involved in these issues. There's so much political propaganda by the left and right that you have to doubt the truthfullness of anything said by either side.

Look at it this way. If you REALLY felt the world was in danger of ending for human life, when you learned that info, how would you react? If you knew about it and did nothing, what would that make you? If I truly believed that our actions were leading down a path where human existence would end in a short period of time solely based on our actions today, I'd certainly stop all consumption of anything not needed to keep me and my family alive day to day. All discretionary activity would immediately cease in an attempt to save the world. So for those who truly BELIEVE the GW story as told by Al Gore and his minions, how is it that any of you could POSSIBLY not take those immediate actions? Is is just because others won't do it, so if they are going to kill us all, you may as well have fun in the meantime? How could you NOT take drastic and immediate action? That's the question I truly don't understand.

Another one is these bogus "carbon offset" programs where you buy "credits" from others. If polution is cumulative, then you should STOP making it.. not simply transfer your pollution off into someone elses account. That's an insane concept. If we need to stop polluting.. that means we need to STOP it ALL. But so many people pat themselves on the back while doing nothing and expecting to buy their way out with those stupid credits, or do nothing at all like Al Gore. Sorry.. this goes much deeper than just Gore. If you believe it and you don't change everything immediately for your own self interests.. doesn't that make you a knowing and willing accomplice in the murder of humanity?

I am truly curious how folks could live with themselves if they actually believed the rhetoric.

Brian

Well, since this keeps trending back to personal, I for one am a lot like Andrew. I have cut back on particular ways of consuming energy, much like we did in 1973. But I can't go "all the way" with this philosophy and still make a living and feed my kids. I find it very disturbing and difficult that I have to stay on the grid, that I need to drive to work, that much of what I need to purchase just contributes to the problem.

But if I did manage to pull it off and live in a way that did not contribute to the problem whatsoever, living with myself would be no easier. I would know that others are too busy arguing with each other and calling each other insane for any meaningful planet-wide change to occur.

With all due respect Brian your hatred of Al gore has clowded your judgement and sadly according to other posts you are not alone. He might be a hypocrite, so what, most people are one way or another. Classic case of shooting the meseenger because you do not like the message. The big problem is that MOST scientific opinion sides with him. This is not political or personal opinions. What you and most of your fellow countrymen disagree with is scientific evidence from most of the world's experts. I have been accused of hating Americans just because I point the finger and disagree with Americas stance. Well for the record most other countries in the world agree with me so they must hate America as well. I have a link pointing out all the countries who take this matter seriously and are prepared to do something about it if you read my previous posts.
So you did not go to a heart specialist cause he smoked. Well you are entitled to see which ever doctor you like but I am sure his treatment and advice would have been the same as most if not all other doctors so I fail to see your logic there.
Just as I fail to see the logic in not believing Al Gore when he tells the American people that global warming is a fact.
The fact that America refused to even enter into talks shows the true feelings and my criticism that America is greedy and selfish in this issue is justified.
Pretending there is no problem won't make it go away.

So the argument is "everyone else does it" so I can too right? That's not a personal attack because the truth is that we ALL are living that way, whether we want to admit it or not. Unless you go "all the way" you are contributing to the problem. And just because you (and "you" doesn't mean Mark here, but rather all of us) may draw the line in one spot, you've nonetheless chosen to draw a line of acceptable pollution for yourself. It's hard to take that right away from others in that case.

So most folks will balance quality of life with conservatism. That's fine, except when it comes in the face of global human destruction. If an asteroid was definitely going to hit us in 100 years unless we did "x" I have to believe that folks would find a way quickly to do "x." So I don't know if this is a case that people don't REALLY believe it will happen among the GW crowd, OR, they simply don't really care enough to sacrifice? I still don't know which it is. I think in truth that most folks don't really, deep down inside, believe the rhetoric of impending doom for all.

I watched a fascinating documentary on the History channel that discussed the entire history of the earth. It also talked about how far off scientists have been in each generation of their understanding of it all. The latest set of theories indicate that no matter what humans do, the earth will eventually come to a complete end. Before then, it will experience wildly different swings in temperatures and climates. In addition, the continents are still shifting via plate techtonics and that process will also eventually stop which will lead to the catastrophic end of it all. Humanity is living on borrowed time. So we have to decide how we will live while we have time. It's nice to play the martyr for future generations well being.. but I doubt the human desire for accomplishment, advancement and reward and the inherant human quality of greed will really support that notion. Humans can't even agree to stop killing each other in mass genocides and religious fantaticism, so how do you expect them to collectively act to preserve a future generation? To many, since they believe they're going to someplace better than earth when it's all over anyway, why should they care? The answer is.. in mass numbers, far too overwhelming to support the global effort needed to remove man made pollution issues raised by Al Gore, people aren't going to take that action. There's also theories that global warming may help fend off the coming ice age which our time on earth is precariously placed. It's coming again no matter what we do. (They said even with our global warming/greenhouse effect, it will STILL come...). I found that interesting. If our wildest polluting actions won't hold off an ice age, why is it we can cause global catastrophe on the other side?

Most scientists seem to be less hysterical than the politicians and special interest groups. If you want to know why they are so hysterical.. follow the money. Often there are all sorts of business interests supporting the global warming crowds agendas.. just as there are other business interests disputing it. Then you throw in left/right politics (and scientists are just as politicaly biased as anyone else) and it's hard to know what to trust. Add to that everyone's (left, right, global warming crowd, anti-global warming crowd and everyone in between) unwillingness to personally do more than minimal things and to pay lip service to it all and we realize it's just another folly of man who thinks that we can control mother nature and we are the problem and solution to the problems of the universe. We're just another life form along for the ride.

If folks really want to get humans to start conserving, make it about their life today. Cleaner water. Cleaner Air. Cheaper fuel. Cheaper heating sources. Cheaper energy sources. Challenge the world to create the technology and resources to do it because it will make their lives better in their own lifetime. That's the way to get what you want. Scare tactics based on worst case scenarios that still wouldn't happen until most or all of us are long gone isn't going to do much.

Brian

Actually I disagree on this point.... It's called "CRIME" because it's illegal... People as a group or the Government, have decided that these things should/ should not be done because it would be better for the community/ environment etc that way. To aid as an incentive againsdt breaking these laws they put in punishments...

Yes there are still those who don't see why they should obey the law.... But on the whole the majority of people if they think the law is watching will obey it most of the time...

You only need see what happens when the law system breaks down .. Things like the flooding just recently.... to see that with out laws our society would be Chaos...

Cheers

But the laws don't work in the USA to stop crime. That is the point. Even though we all agree crime is bad.. it still happens even WITH punishment attached. Do you think we could criminalize driving too many miles? Or criminalize the amount of energy you use? Or any other oppressive situation like that? I doubt it would fly in the USA. We already have more people incarcerated in the USA than any other country. And for everyone in jail, there's likely 3-4-5 maybe 10 times more people committing crimes that COULD lead to prison if caught.

People in the USA already feel a bit over controlled by the government (just ask the smoking crowd). No politicians will get elected (or stay elected) if they support wide spread laws to conserve. That's the reality. And no matter what actions folks here take, it won't slow down pollution by developing nations. Their quality of life is just now improving.. they're hungry for it and who could blame them. And the harsher the laws we pass here, the more that manufacturing will go elsewhere where they'll polute far more than they are no in the USA. And there's just too many special interests with money who won't allow the laws we'd need to really improve. They are not going to impose gas mileage laws that will really make a difference in the near future. The US car makers are already on the brink of total collapse and they employ too many people. If not for Wal-Mart, we'd already have skyrocketing inflation here and our economy would be in ever greater shambles that it is.

Aside from the green movement, has anyone noticed that none of the 3 remaining candidates is strong on the economy? Let's hope they appoint a VP with a clue. And as long as our economy is tanking, they're not going to take extreme measures to fix the Global Warming issues in the US.

Brian

I didn't view your post as an attack, Brian, just commenting on the growing trend of calling people's personal behavior to the carpet before any of their policy suggestions are to be considered. I think I understand your position, but if so, I have to disagree with it. Maybe I'm mistaken here, but it appears that you don't believe global warming exists? Or perhaps you do, but believe mankind's contribution is insignificant compared to the natural climate changes that come and go...ice ages, etc. Either way, it would refute the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They too are well aware of the existence of the natural historical swings of climate, but they still conclude that we have an enormous problem to deal with here, and they strongly recommend a change of policy regarding man-made emissions. That doesn't strike me as hysteria, but rather a worldwide problem to be addressed.

The argument for me is not "everyone else does it so I can too". Some think I shouldn't say a word until I am in absolute compliance with an emission-free lifestyle, otherwise it would be ridiculous for me to offer my opinion. Well, if I were to go back in time and live in a mud hut, it might take away any ammunition for people to challenge my viewpoint on the matter, but it really wouldn't solve the problem. However, to deny the existence of global warming is a perfect way to worsen the problem, and effectively shut down any momentum in moving forward on an international policy initiative. It just seems to be a defeatist stance, and I don't see a reason to follow that thinking over the thinking of the IPCC.

For my part, the continued efforts of the IPCC are meaningful to me, and I will continue to speak about it and try to reduce my own "carbon footprint". The fact that I haven't impoverished myself by ceasing all suspicious activities does not make me a hypocrite. I disagree with capital punishment, yet I live in a country in which it is mostly accepted and practiced. Does that mean I should either move to New Zealand or shut up?

Frankly, I don't believe Gore is a hypocrite either. In the book version of An Inconvenient Truth where Gore discusses what ordinary citizens can do to help combat global warming, he stops well short of calling for deep sacrifice or lifestyle change.

First, he lists a number of modest steps individuals can take to make their homes and activities more environmentally friendly -- like using energy-efficient appliances, adjusting the thermostat by a couple of degrees, installing solar panels, and using less hot water when possible -- all of which are economically as well as ecologically beneficial, and none of which we have any reason to believe Gore is not taking himself.

Second, he preaches activism -- voting for environmentally enlightened measures and candidates and spreading he gospel of global warming. And in these we know Al Gore has played an exemplary role.

Third, he argues that everyone ought to try to achieve a "carbon neutral" lifestyle. How? By doing precisely what he does -- offsetting one's environmental impact through investments in projects and enterprises aimed at reducing energy consumption overall.

So, where is the disjunct between what he says and what he does? Unless you put words in his mouth, there isn't one. You might argue that it would be better for the environment if people like Gore lived in smaller houses and modified their lifestyles instead of shelling out bucks for carbon offsets -- and you might even be right -- but that's a policy disagreement, not proof that he's a hypocrite. Folks who dislike his politics will no doubt call him hypocritical just the same, but judged strictly in terms of whether or not Al Gore practices what he preaches, the case against him falls down.

All I want to do is address this problem, both nationally and internationally. I do not know if it can be "solved", but I think we do need to address it on a political level. I think it will take a strong leader to get us closer to a cleaner lifestyle.

When 1 of your many houses consumes the same energy as 10 average family homes, you're a hypocrit. He's too "important" to live a more reasonable lifestyle. Bull! The truth is he's playing politics cherry picking some facts here and there to tell a story using statistics which we all know can be spun in a million different ways, especially when those coming up with the stats have a political agenda.

Is the earth warming? Sure. Do we increase the warming in our atmosphere? Sure. Do we make enough difference to cause a global tipping point that wouldn't come anyway? That's the question I am not so clear on. And beyond that, how much real world sacrifice is needed to stop all this based on the scientists findings? If they REALLY believe their propaganda, how could ANY of them not stop all their emmissions right away? the reason is that they don't even believe their own hype. Or if they do, they don't personally care to change their own lifes or make serious sacrifices to stop it. Perhaps they hope everyone else will so they can keep living well while everyone else does their bidding. My point is that no one is going to do their bidding nor is the industrial machine of the world going to grind to a halt.

Now, even in that context, there's all sorts of economic and geopolitical reasons to find an alternative to oil. Let's get behind that full force. That's something that everyone without a direct interest in Oil can probably agree on. Rather than use hysterical rhetoric and scare tactics, let's make it personal.. getting off oil will help you economically in the short and long term.

If on the other hand they keep using scare tactics and try bullying people to do what they want (when it reality they'll be cashing in on the process) I doubt it's going to get very far.

Brian

Someone really ought to take a look at the performance of the countries that signed the various anti-warming agreements.
Most have made no progress in reducing emissions since signing. Instead, they have increased emissions.
I doubt if some of the signers ever actually intended to reduce emissions in the first place.

Now these countries are using the mere fact of signing agreements to beat up on the U.S. No mention of their actual performance will be made, of course. That would be "inconvenient."

I'm the first one to agree that we should not push ourselves into a situation where we are going backwards... People should be able to fly private jets.... People should be able to use ALL the electricity they want.... That is why I am on the Global Warming side of the fence... I don't see why I should have to reduce my standard of living when there are alternatives.... Just so some big business can continue poluting the world just like they always have making as much profit as they can.

The point I was trying to make that unless our countries legislate that it will be done THIS WAY... people on the whole will take the easy out...

OK so big business and government don't want to take the initive ... don't stop others from trying to.... and we are back to the fact it is illegal to build and drive a Hybrid electric car, that does not have an internal combustion engine....

We don't need to send ourselves into the 3rd world... we need to move into the 21st Centry... Properly.

Lee's right, let's take a look:

http://www.carbonpositive.net/viewarticle.aspx?articleID=609

So far not so good.

I think what needs to be asked is, what is the point of "fixing" global warming? To save people and animals? What is the cost versus benefit?

The vast amount of money spent "fixing" global warming will only fractionally reduce worldwide emissions and/or fractionally fix the "problem". The Kyoto Protocol, as most people in the know will now admit, has a huge flaw. Even if fully implemented, its impact is minimal.

However, the same amount of money put to use providing vaccines, training people how to make a living, and simply providing water where it is needed, will vastly improve the human condition. Money spent on these items alone will save *many* (in magnitudes of 100's) more people than if this money is spent "fixing" global warming. The same with animals. Money spent on the above items raises the tide of economic fortune and technology worldwide. This is more likely to eventually provide a truly workable and less costly "fix" to global warming (if it even truly exists as a disastrous phenomenon) than spending tons of money on it now.

Don't be fooled. Scientists and "green" groups rely on donations, government grants, and corporate sponsorship money. What better way to get that money than to proclaim a crisis? If you get enough people believing it, then it snowballs into being fact, when fact it may not be. In the 70's, science was proclaiming a new ice age, with dire consequence.

I have no idea if global warming as it is popularly portrayed exists or not. That fact we currently can't even predict weather and temperature accurately much past 10 days makes me skeptical. And, I do agree with *rational* steps to reduce emissions. But I do feel if the cost versus benefits of "fixing" global warming (if it can even be done) are carefully studied, one has a good chance of coming away thinking that maybe we should be spending most of our time, money, and energy on something else.

Doug, your argument DOES sway me. A cost-benefit analysis might well place our efforts into an entirely different direction. And it could be that if some of the warming predictions turn out to be true, we may decide to burn a lot more just to rebuild and relocate the cities that will supposedly go underwater. At least what you mention does address the issue...that's what I find to be most important to this whole debate.

I may be way off base on this.

But I recall a study a while back on how they might colonize mars. One thing of interest was using green house gases to raise the temperature. Obviously global warming must be real in some regard, if they were planning to warm up mars through the use of green house gases. This wasn't some leftist eco freak organization! This was NASA! So whatever the effect it's obvious to me it must exist. So what is the impact? I have heard the polar ice caps are melting at an alarming rate. I live in oregon where mighty glaciers cut most of the natural canyons, mountains and valleys. These glaciers are gone no more. Every year it gets hotter than the last. I lived in the midwest (western Kanses) for a year and a half and they were experiencing some of the worst droughts ever recorded. I am not looking at this as a is global warming real. From my personal experience it is! My question is what impact is it going to have on our and our childrens future? A true conservative would see things from a conservationist’s viewpoint. I think they need to give that name back to people who actually care about the planet.
Derek

More recent studies show that the probable reason Mars doesn't have an atmosphere is because it doesn't have a magnetic field.... anymore.... Any colony would need to live in an artificially created environment... a bio dome so to speak...

Another group studing Venus now believe that the Atmosheric problems making it impossible with curent tecnology to land a working probe on the surface (of Venus) are due to green house gasses, and that Venus was formed not unlike Earth. Were it not for the overly dense atmosphere we could probobly live there...

Doug you make a good point. Everything boils down to cost. I agree that there is poverty and people dying in third world countries that can be prevented by vaccines and clean water and other basic things.

However it is not about throwing money at the problem and it will go away. It is about changing attitudes and ideals.
In the big picture of things everything relates to setting out a budget and cost effectivness. This is short term thinking and it has caught up with us. We, and I refer to the world, rather than just a nation must start living in harmony with our earth and each other. We must invest heavily in alternative ways to generate power and find renewabale systems that do not harm our environment. Politics should not enter into the debate.

We can all do our bit short term and it is not as sacrificial as we think. I do not ask for people to live in caves and wash in cold water. I ask to think about ways to save energy and resources. All the little things multiplied millions of times help. It is not rocket science. Let them work out the long term solutions LOL

For sure we all need to do what we can and not use anybody (or any country) as an excuse for not trying as hard as we can to help fix the many global and local problems out there.We are all family on this "Rock" that travels around the sun whether we like it or not. As usual, I donated all CD sales and tips from from my last 6 gigs to Doctors Without Borders & Sisters' Camelot (local food shelf). I'm just sorry it wasn't more.

I, for one, am not ALL that Concerned about Global Warming. Why? Because we STILL don't have all THAT GOOD a System in-place for locating/destroying Dangerous Asteroids that can, with a Good-Sized Hit..plunge Earth back into an Ice Age in a Month or so.

OR..we could ALSO have another Mt Krakatoa (Pardon My Spelling) where a VOLCANO spews such enormous Quantities of Debris into the Atmosphere..that, again, it takes YEARS before Sunlight arrives in Normal Quantities to warm things up again.

Either Event means a LOT Quicker Disaster than anything we'd bring upon ourselves.

ANY Nations protecting the Planet's Shark Supply? One Savant predicts they won't be able to re-genereate their species in about 5 more years of rampant Fin-Harvesting..meaning NO Control of the numbers of Plankton-Eating Fish in the world's Oceans, where 70% of OUR Oxygen comes from.

The latter's caused by Chinese Consumers...NOT Yanks..BTW. (Greed & Stupidity AREN'T just an "American Phenomenon"...they're Global.)

I think we ARE stupid to assure Europe gets so MUCH of their Oil Supply from the Middle East...& we spend so Much of Our Time/Materiel/Manpower/Diplomacy over there..& get So LITLE Oil BACK In-Return. (Or Appreciatiom.)

JMO...& I've lived in Europe..Know How We're Perceived...

Big Hugs, Anyways,
Stan

I backed out of this discussion because I felt it was a losing proposition.
I still feel that way. I have done a considerable amount of research over the last couple days and come to the conclusion that it is unlikely human beings have made any significant impact on global temperatures.
Any predictions of Global temperatures over the next 50 years are speculation and theories. Not Fact. No one really knows. But the Alarmists will treat any warming prediction as fact.

Actually there are many scientists that are saying we are entering another cooling period, but that remains to be seen.

I also don't believe the IPCC is anything more than a political organization that is trying to promote an agenda.
Most global warming alarmist's continue to quote its rhetoric as gospel when in fact many of its reports are fiction or altered scientific reports, altered to fit their agenda.
There have been other studies done which have been endorsed by many thousands of scientists thruought the world refuting their findings.
But Global Warming Alarmists will simply dismis them as faulty regardless who is endorsing them.

There have been many periods of drastic warming over the last couple thousand years. The year 1540 was one with an even more severe summer than was 2003. All over Europe, the heatwave lasted, off and on, for seven months, with parched fields and dried up rivers, such as the Rhine. People in Paris, France could walk on the river bed of the Seine without getting their feet wet. But Global Warming Alarmists will dismiss that.


Other studies of interest
More than 4,000 scientists from 106 countries, including 72 Nobel prize winners, signed the Heidelberg Appeal (1992), calling for a rational scientific approach to environmental problems. Many senior scientists have also supported The Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming (1992), The Leipzig Declaration (1997) and finally the Oregon Petition (1998) which received the signatures of over 19,000 scientists.

While I don't agree with the Global Warming Alarmists or the Ozone hole arlarmists, I put them in the same category as Michael Moore, I strongly agree that we MUST do something about our use of fossil fuels and our constant drain of non-renewable resources.
I also agree that we MUST stop poluting our atmosphere and water. It is our duty as humans to take better care of our home planet.
But not because of a Global Warming theory....Because it is the right thing to do.

One thing is certain. Most Global Warming proponents will NOT listen to any other theory. They are adamant that their view is the only correct view and only they are right. It is inconceivable to them that they might be wrong.
That is why I will not debate the subject, it is pointless.

And....they might be right. But it's still a maybe....

In my own efforts to reduce my contribution to pollution I installed an On Demand Hot Water system in my home. I also use Electric Heat in my Home. I realize the Electricity produced will cause some polution but I don't live very far from a Nuclear Power plant so I am hoping that is some help.
I quit smoking so I ain't polluting my lungs, My wife's lungs, or my dogs lungs.

I still would like to build my own Electric car but it just might not be feasible.
If I could I would install Solar panels on my home but the cost is so prohibitive I can't justify it at this time.
If I lived in a sunny area, like Arizona, I'd use passive solar. I already do some. I have a south facing window wall that gets a lot of solar gain in the winter.

Beyong this I don't think there is much more I can do right now.

BTW I would like to see a List of all these so called American companies that are doing all this polluting. I know we have installed all kinds of polution reducing things in factories all over this country..

Bill, I am not much for conspiracies but if there is one it might be the fact that oil companies are standing in the way of making those solar panels affordable. Here is Texas, we have so much sun that if every house was built with solar panels (now about $25,000)
most of the state could heat and cool all the buildings virtually free and even return energy to the grid. I average $400 electric bills year round in a 2400 square foot home. The cost in Oregon is about $80 a month. Texas oil including George Bush has very little reason to support anything that will supplant oil.

The cost of solar panels are so high because the Europeans buy up every thing we make. Here is a solution that is begging to be implemented and it is marginalized and shuffled off into subcommittees, never to see the congressional light of day. We could end all of our oil dependence in 10 years if we had a president that would treat this energy "security" problem with a "Marshall" plan or an "Appolo' program. Let's forget GW for a minute and just consider how much safer we would be if we made the MidEast oil about as valuable a cow manure.

"also don't believe the IPCC is anything more than a political organization that is trying to promote an agenda"

You win Bill those damn commies are plotting against America again and they have recruited all the worlds scirntists and Governments.
Yep I can buy that! Shame on them.

Joe,
You hit the nail on the head.
Back about 1973 or so we got a shot across the bow. By now we should be, and COULD be, free from foreign oil.
There's enough expertise and technology to reasonably make the whole world a paradise, economically, but human nature,being what it is,that won't happen. Not yet anyway,but let's not go there...it'd start another squabble.
With the "green" movement,it's slowly happening but it's WAY late.
Whether or not GW is caused or controllable by man aside,to me it only makes sense that we be good stewards of Earths resources.
JBW

See what I mean...it's pointless.

Joe I said that about Solar about 100 posts back but the GW alarmists said it wasn't so. except the part about Bush. I think he had other problems on his plate. maybe yes, maybe no.

Bill I enjoy a little joke but come on what have you been reading. What hidden agenda? The IPCC is an international neutral collection of scientists and eminent people who have studied all the reports etc and come up with the conclusion that GW is a prob that should be tackled. OK some scientists are still arguing about finer points and details. That is what scientists do. However the main points are universally accepted.
When it comes to hidden agenda and conspiracy theories I think some of the large oil and chemical companies are more likely to be the culprits after all they have a history of such things and a vested interest in protecting their investments. They have far more to lose than a bunch of neutral scientists.

I am not going to debate the issue because it is pointless.
I would ask the same question. What have you been reading?

If you really want to know Google IPCC scandal and start reading. You will find more than enough to keep you busy for the Next few weeks.

Try looking up the United Kingdom's House of Lords report of the IPCC and see what they have to say.

Try to find the actual Scientific reports on climate change. You might be surprised.

Read the Oregon Petition, signed by Sixteen THOUSAND scientists. see what it says

No one doubts there are problems but this Doom and Gloom hysteria is the Joke.

Ya Know,
There is a saying out there. Maybe you've heard it.
ROME WASN'T BUILT IN A DAY. You can't just tear down a system that has been in place for decades and upgrade it tomorrow. Things that have been improved to help the environment by many companies don't make the headlines but it is happening you just don't hear about it.

Try to get this thru your Thick Head. NO ONE wants to pollute the environment and work is being done here and elswhere to reduce emissions.

The whackos out there don't want fossel fuels, nuclear, hydro, wind power, and much of anything else used for power. I got news for em. There is nothing that will replace any of it without polluting just as much to acheve some new thing as we are using now and will probably pollute even more. The only thing you can do is try to reduce your own pollution.

By the way, if you want to kill something, give it to a committee. They will talk it to death. Maybe like the IPPC.

WHAT IT ALL COMES DOWN TO IS GREED, NO ONE WANTS TO GIVE UP THEIR LIFE STYLE, THINGS ARE CHANGING WE ARE GRADUALLY BECOMING MORE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM, HOWEVER I WATCHED A DOCUMENTARY RECENTLY THAT SAID THE WHOLE PROBLEM HAS BEEN OVERSTATED.

APPARENTLY THE ONLY REASON WE ARE HERE AS A HUMAN RACE WAS THE FACT THAT SEVERALL MILLION YEARS AGO VOLCANIC ERRUPTIONS ,
ACTUALLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE STABALISING OF AN ATMOSPHERE THAT WE AS HUMANS COULD NOT HAVE LIVED IN.

SO WE ARE ACTUALLY HERE BECAUSE OF POLLUTION.

THE ACTUAL PRESENT DAY POLLUTION FROM ERRUPTING VOLCANOES IS TRIPLE THE POLLUTITION CAUSED BY MAN.

I CYCLE EVERY WHERE AND AND VERY FIT, SO I'M DOING MY BIT,BUT
I USE THE VAN TO GET TO WEEKEND GIGS, MAYBE I SHOULD USE A HORSE AND CART, ?

SPLIT

SPLIT

I agree that Sam has hit the nail on the head, in a couple different ways. We need to elect people who will champion a push toward making it easier and more desirable to embrace alternative energy sources...solar and wind, etc. This would HELP the problem, HELP the economy, and HELP people.

A very simple and desirable short term answer that would only cut into the nest eggs of the fossil fuel industries...who don't appear to be struggling profit-wise, at the moment.

I'm probably being branded as an "alarmist" but the fact is I am quite aware that I am going to die soon enough. That little bit of info tends to take away any sort of panic about natural disasters. However, I will never understand why we would want to turn our backs on our own children and grandchildren. The least we can do is support a greener philosophy of business, government and personal philosophy. Ah, but what a whacko idea that is...

I will bow out of this discussion as I refuse to be called a thick head or a swine this shows a complete lack of respect and a level of ignorance I did not think JPF members were capable of being such assholes.
These outburst show who the thick heads and swine really are. However skeptics please read this it will show some real American swine and thick heads and how they operate.
"Political pressure on scientists"
US officials, such as Philip Cooney, have repeatedly edited scientific reports from US government scientists, many of whom, such as Thomas Knutson, have been ordered to refrain from discussing climate change and related topics.

Climate scientist James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, claimed in a widely cited New York Times article [13] in 2006 that his superiors at the agency were trying to "censor" information "going out to the public." NASA denied this, saying that it was merely requiring that scientists make a distinction between personal, and official government, views in interviews conducted as part of work done at the agency. Several scientists working at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have made similar complaints;[14] once again, government officials said they were enforcing long-standing policies requiring government scientists to clearly identify personal opinions as such when participating in public interviews and forums.

The BBC's long-running current affairs series Panorama recently investigated the issue, and was told that "scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed."

Mike Hulme, director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, wrote how increasing use of pejorative terms like "catastrophic," "chaotic" and "irreversible," had altered the public discourse around climate change: "This discourse is now characterised by phrases such as 'climate change is worse than we thought', that we are approaching 'irreversible tipping in the Earth's climate', and that we are 'at the point of no return'. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric."[16]

According to an Associated Press release on January 30, 2007,

"Climate scientists at seven government agencies say they have been subjected to political pressure aimed at downplaying the threat of global warming.
"The groups presented a survey that shows two in five of the 279 climate scientists who responded to a questionnaire complained that some of their scientific papers had been edited in a way that changed their meaning. Nearly half of the 279 said in response to another question that at some point they had been told to delete reference to "global warming" or "climate change" from a report."[17]
Critics writing in the Wall Street Journal editorial page claim that the survey [18] was itself unscientific.[19]

Attempts to suppress scientific information on global warming and other issues have been described by Chris Mooney as constituting a Republican War on Science.

Not my words but form the following link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming#United_States

Think I'll bid a fond farewell to this here thread too...not because I'm angry or anything...just think it's played out.

Time to make some music!

All right. Time to lock this one off as well.

Brian