AAR
Click here for full forums index
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
 
Change
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1369

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Really follow the money, not Republican red herrings.
I took a quick look at Wikipedia for info on fossil fuels and found a reference to a spreadsheet from BP. The last year of data included was 2006. If I converted all units correctly, world 2006 production had values (using middles of price ranges given) of:
Oil $1,937,454,675,000 (just under 2 trillion dollars)
Natural gas $722,055,600,000 (about 3/4 trillion dollars)
Coal $433,657,000,000 (433 billion dollars)
It would be interesting to see exact totals including all price variations through a year rather than making estimates like this, but I think we can trust a ballpark figure of over 3 trillion dollars per year for the cost of those 3 fossil fuels. The full fossil-fuel economy also includes all the extraction and delivery infrastructure (mines, wells, pipelines, supertankers, tanker trucks, gas stations, delivery pipes, etc.) and all the vehicles (cars, trucks, trains, planes, etc.), power plants, heaters, etc. that use those fuels. I won't even try to estimate the annual production or value of assets in place for all of those since they aren't even needed to see the point.
The whole National Science Foundation had a fiscal 2008 budget of about 6 billion dollars. How much of that went to climate research I don't know, but it wasn't much. Even if you add NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and all other agencies that do any research that might be connected to climate change, the total is still a drop in the bucket compared to the fossil-fuel economy. There is orders of magnitude more money tied to the fossil-fuel economy than to all climate research and all R&D on alternative sources of energy.
Face the facts.
Science News is currently a biweekly magazine, but for several decades before last year it was a weekly magazine. I have read Science News cover-to-cover for almost 40 years, and I read other news sources about science.
There are trends in science just as there are in almost every aspect of nature and every human endeavor. Ecological awareness developed a lot in the 20th Century, getting boosts from Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, the Earthrise and blue marble (Earth) images from the Apollo program, and other milestones, yet large segments of humanity are still ecologically careless or too pressed for survival to act in ecologically sound ways. Awareness of anthropogenic climate effects has been gradually developing for several decades, but even less of the population has such awareness than for other ecological issues such as aid & water pollution.
Despite people acting like ostriches with their heads in the sand (where does that myth come from?) and people ordering the tides to turn back, a body of knowledge has been established that human (mostly industrial) activities are reducing the ability of Earth to support large numbers of humans. The problems are rapidly accelerating, requiring remedial action ASAP (if a tipping point hasn't already been passed making any remedial action too late for humans to survive long-term).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Really follow the money, not Republican red herrings.
I took a quick look at Wikipedia for info on fossil fuels and found a reference to a spreadsheet from BP.


Ooh, Mark invoked the Republican Demon -- ooh.

First off, there are idiot Republicans just like there are idiot Democrats ... especially where "Man Made" global warming is concerned -- like Senators Lugar and McCain. Luckily, there are people who aren't so in love with being scared by some boogie man who are Republican, Democrat and international parties those of the ilk of Al Gore are losing their ridiculous hold ... even if Mr Gore has stooped to trying to put a stop to any more debate by just stating "there's no need for debate." Of course, he's right -- there is no need for debate because he's just plain wrong. Hmm, did he ever tear down that energy hog he lives in?

As to Wikipedia -- oh, yeah, there's a world class source to quote ....

I'm all for finding something that provides energy that is renewable and cheap. But, for right now, fossil fuels is what we have. I'm sure someone, somewhere will find the equivalent of dilithium crystals, but we're not there yet. Sure, spend money on R&D for research, great. When that energy becomes financially viable, it will put the fossil fuel people out of business. But until then don't force people to fore go energy we have now. Report today -- if one of the current "ideas" out of Washington is passed, electrical power in my state will go up 40% -- FORTY PERCENT!!!! Oh, yeah, in this economy, let's come up with even more stuff to cause financial hardships. I'll find it hard to pay -- and my retired parents, whose retirement income has already taken a major hit, will probably find it impossible. All this to aid the fear mongering of that deadly toxin, Carbon Dioxide. Well, folks, it isn't a toxin. It isn't a pollutant. It's the normal intake of green plants on this planet and is turned into oxygen.

So, step back. Put the Kool-Aid down. And look at those screaming about Man Made Global Warming. Al's selling "carbon shares" -- of course, he owns the company. Too much of the Government in Washington (of both parties) is looking to control even more of our lives -- forgetting those inconvenient parts of the Constitution that says they aren't allowed to, scientists choosing "consensus" instead of facts, because if they don't, they won't be given grants.


“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” ------- Margaret Thatcher
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
erhea13



Joined: 01 Nov 2008
Posts: 117
Location: So Cal

PostPosted: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LisaW wrote:

As to Wikipedia -- oh, yeah, there's a world class source to quote ....

I'm all for finding something that provides energy that is renewable and cheap. But, for right now, fossil fuels is what we have. I'm sure someone, somewhere will find the equivalent of dilithium crystals, but we're not there yet. Sure, spend money on R&D for research, great. When that energy becomes financially viable, it will put the fossil fuel people out of business. But until then don't force people to fore go energy we have now. Report today -- if one of the current "ideas" out of Washington is passed, electrical power in my state will go up 40% -- FORTY PERCENT!!!! Oh, yeah, in this economy, let's come up with even more stuff to cause financial hardships. I'll find it hard to pay -- and my retired parents, whose retirement income has already taken a major hit, will probably find it impossible. All this to aid the fear mongering of that deadly toxin, Carbon Dioxide. Well, folks, it isn't a toxin. It isn't a pollutant. It's the normal intake of green plants on this planet and is turned into oxygen.

So, step back. Put the Kool-Aid down. And look at those screaming about Man Made Global Warming. Al's selling "carbon shares" -- of course, he owns the company. Too much of the Government in Washington (of both parties) is looking to control even more of our lives -- forgetting those inconvenient parts of the Constitution that says they aren't allowed to, scientists choosing "consensus" instead of facts, because if they don't, they won't be given grants.


“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” ------- Margaret Thatcher


Exactly! When quoting an informational source, it is probably best not to tout one that can be edited by the public (there are ways around even the locked articles).

Next, renewable energy is great, but not at the expense of our already bleeding economy. What good is protecting the planet from consumerist pollution simply to catapult it into the mass warfare resulting from failed economies with depressed markets that will become violently competative - to those who are jingoistically-minded (I'm guilty in some cases) this is not a bad option because America tends to benefit from worldwide warfare. Still, both of those possibilities are extreme, and by anyone's reckoning, a long way off. When it reaches the point where it helps the economy, yay for alternative energy. But until then, lay off the scare tactics and be a smart consumer. As for CO2, there are many ways to combat that in the atmosphere. Not only are there chemical processes to isolate all greenhouse gasses, but I have also heard of some plants - especially a specific grass - that can filter more CO2 than the South American rainforest planted in a much smaller area. Whetever happened to creative solutions that don't involve ideological pandering and the complete sacrifice of our economy. Like it or not, the consumerism that is blamed for "man-made global warming" is infinitely tied to our economy.

Mark, based on the structure of your arguments and your manner of expression I assume that you have had post-high school and possibly graduate education. That education was provided on the back of a working economy. Countries with crappy economies have crappy higher education - that's why many foriegners come to American universities. Without a viable economy, our education system will suffer even more and that education you enjoy will be degraded and possibly unavailable to future generations who potentially could solve the all important "global warming" issues. Think of the benefits you enjoy as a result of our consumer economy before you advocate its destruction in favor of a "green" society based on the words of scientists interpreting "facts" with agendas and loyalties of their own that are usually far from transparent.
_________________
"I do not want people to be very agreeable, as it saves me the trouble of liking them a great deal." - Jane Austen
"The person, be it gentleman or lady, who has not pleasure in a good novel, must be intolerably stupid." - Jane Austen
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1369

PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Calling science Kool-Aid does not make it so.
Read what is written. I said Wikipedia led me to a BP reference with the figures, not that I got the figures from Wikipedia (which is vulnerable to malicious edits).
LisaW's post is the first time I have ever seen anyone claim that carbon dioxide is a toxin. Carbon dioxide is a molecule, gaseous in normal Earth-atmospheric conditions, that is emitted at rates well above the pre-human background level by many industrial processes and other human activities. Carbon dioxide can kill animals directly only by replacing all available gaseous oxygen in an enclosed region (doing the same with water is called drowning), which is not what anyone is talking about with climate change. Emitting carbon dioxide is harmful because it changes the energy balance of Earth's atmosphere in ways that lead to overall warming and increased climate instability.
I also presented no suggestions to destroy the economy. That was more scare tactics. I have said repeatedly WE CAN'T IGNORE THIS ISSUE! There are already island nations starting evacuation/migration plans because of changes that are happening now. This is not something we can put off dealing with.
A tocsin has finally been sounded about the dangers of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, and it is being heard despite determined monkey-hear-nothing attempts.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sharon w.



Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Calling science Kool-Aid does not make it so.
Read what is written. I said Wikipedia led me to a BP reference with the figures, not that I got the figures from Wikipedia (which is vulnerable to malicious edits).
LisaW's post is the first time I have ever seen anyone claim that carbon dioxide is a toxin. Carbon dioxide is a molecule, gaseous in normal Earth-atmospheric conditions, that is emitted at rates well above the pre-human background level by many industrial processes and other human activities. Carbon dioxide can kill animals directly only by replacing all available gaseous oxygen in an enclosed region (doing the same with water is called drowning), which is not what anyone is talking about with climate change. Emitting carbon dioxide is harmful because it changes the energy balance of Earth's atmosphere in ways that lead to overall warming and increased climate instability.
I also presented no suggestions to destroy the economy. That was more scare tactics. I have said repeatedly WE CAN'T IGNORE THIS ISSUE! There are already island nations starting evacuation/migration plans because of changes that are happening now. This is not something we can put off dealing with.
A tocsin has finally been sounded about the dangers of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, and it is being heard despite determined monkey-hear-nothing attempts.



Which island nations are starting Evacuation plans?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Beatrice



Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

sharon w. wrote:
Mark wrote:
Calling science Kool-Aid does not make it so.
Read what is written. I said Wikipedia led me to a BP reference with the figures, not that I got the figures from Wikipedia (which is vulnerable to malicious edits).
LisaW's post is the first time I have ever seen anyone claim that carbon dioxide is a toxin. Carbon dioxide is a molecule, gaseous in normal Earth-atmospheric conditions, that is emitted at rates well above the pre-human background level by many industrial processes and other human activities. Carbon dioxide can kill animals directly only by replacing all available gaseous oxygen in an enclosed region (doing the same with water is called drowning), which is not what anyone is talking about with climate change. Emitting carbon dioxide is harmful because it changes the energy balance of Earth's atmosphere in ways that lead to overall warming and increased climate instability.
I also presented no suggestions to destroy the economy. That was more scare tactics. I have said repeatedly WE CAN'T IGNORE THIS ISSUE! There are already island nations starting evacuation/migration plans because of changes that are happening now. This is not something we can put off dealing with.
A tocsin has finally been sounded about the dangers of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions, and it is being heard despite determined monkey-hear-nothing attempts.



Which island nations are starting Evacuation plans?


I haven't heard a thing about this. I sure hope it doesn't happen while I'm vacationing there. Would hate to have to swim back to the USA.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1369

PostPosted: Tue Mar 10, 2009 6:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is a recent article about the island nations:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/40789/title/First_wave
PLANNING has started, not evacuation. You can't plan well how to abandon a country when time has already run out.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mark



Joined: 22 Mar 2007
Posts: 1369

PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

In answer to the question of education, in science I am simply a moderately well-informed layman. I only went as far as a BA in college. I have been interested in science as far back as I can remember, and took normal math & science courses in school through college, but my nominal college major was philosophy. I've almost certainly read more about science since college (ending in 1976) than everything I learned in formal schooling.
I know there are people who frequent this site who have more formal credentials. I'm pretty sure Dick is a retired English professor and Virginia is a retired History professor, and I think there are some working scientists around, but none have apparently been inclined to join this thread (other than one earlier reference to the NSF).
My style of discourse probably owes more to character than schooling. My vocation for the last 3 decades (started after college) has been computer programming. A competent programmer must be an organized and logical thinker able to really see text as it is and not misread based on assumptions, all of which fits my view of myself.
I get more organized as I spend more time on something, including writing, which I do iteratively. First drafts or quick posts can be more sloppy, but anything I have worked on for more than one pass tends to improve in completeness and precision with each iteration.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sharon w.



Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Posts: 12

PostPosted: Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mark wrote:
Here is a recent article about the island nations:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/40789/title/First_wave
PLANNING has started, not evacuation. You can't plan well how to abandon a country when time has already run out.


I wondered if you were referring to the Maldives....have you seen any of the studies that oppose the theory you present? I have so much stuff bookmarked it's' crazy to hunt for stuff, but I found this one..........

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/MornerEtAl2004.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
KarenS



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 870
Location: Florida

PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most people don't care about global warning since they'll be dead anyway but those that do take global warning seriously feel they should be doing everything they can to help future generations. Kids and grandkids do matter to some folks.

This whole discussion tends to revolve around liberal/conservative, religious/non-religious axis. Others involved seem to be industry types who believe oil companies should be allowed to make record profits. Not to mention they really don't want to give up their SUVs.

It's that future thing again. Do we start making changes that will create a green economy, green jobs and a healthier planet? Or should we carry on and continue as is with no research into alternative energy sources.

I guess those who don't like Gore can never believe he has anything useful to offer. And that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Others feel he should be commended for raising the topic. He did win a Nobel Prize after all.

Some of my religious friends(and I do have a few-surprise, surprise) honestly feel that Jesus is coming back soon. Once he lands on Mother Earth his first priority will be to restore the oil so we will have plenty. So as far as they are concerned--No worries! No reason to concern ourselves with global warning as Jesus is going to take care of it.

Others are perfectly content with internal combustion engines. That big hog of a SUV is their god-given right and no one should take it away from them. Personal responsibility claims you can do whatever you want and no one has the right to tell you otherwise.

Others just don't want to have to contemplate changing their lifestyle. Going away from conspicuous consumption to a more "European" way of life sends chills down conservative's spines.

So what is it? Our old economy was based on conspicuous consumption and waste. Like it or not for environmental and financial reasons, most of us are being forced to change to the new economy. We can't afford the old lifestyle.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Beatrice



Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many scientist have proven that global warming is nothing but a myth. It's money making theory by Al Gore and people like him. The planet has been here for many years. We will all die and the planet will continue to live. I don't believe in global warming and I never will. It has been the coldest winter in a very long time. So much for global warming.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kass



Joined: 23 Mar 2007
Posts: 722
Location: under a cockatiel

PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 11:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Many scientist have proven that global warming is nothing but a myth.

No, they haven't.

BTW, the theory does not mean it will never get cold anywhere ever again. That shows that you know nothing about the theory.
_________________
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

My blog: http://www.thoughts.com/allergywoman/blog
http://www.shelfari.com/o1517440994
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Beatrice



Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kass wrote:
Quote:
Many scientist have proven that global warming is nothing but a myth.

No, they haven't.

BTW, the theory does not mean it will never get cold anywhere ever again. That shows that you know nothing about the theory.


You know nothing about the scientists that have proven this wrong. Do the research. Global warming is a ton of hot air by the liberals and their agenda. The earth is fine, get over it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
LisaW



Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 173

PostPosted: Tue Mar 17, 2009 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

KarenS wrote:
Most people don't care about global warning since they'll be dead anyway but those that do take global warning seriously feel they should be doing everything they can to help future generations. Kids and grandkids do matter to some folks.



There's a lot of stuff future generations are going to be paying for. Man made Global warming isn't one of them.


KarenS wrote:
This whole discussion tends to revolve around liberal/conservative, religious/non-religious axis. Others involved seem to be industry types who believe oil companies should be allowed to make record profits. Not to mention they really don't want to give up their SUVs.


No, it doesn't. There are conservatives who believe the hype. And what does religion have to do with it?



KarenS wrote:
It's that future thing again. Do we start making changes that will create a green economy, green jobs and a healthier planet? Or should we carry on and continue as is with no research into alternative energy sources.

I guess those who don't like Gore can never believe he has anything useful to offer. And that he doesn't know what he's talking about. Others feel he should be commended for raising the topic. He did win a Nobel Prize after all.



"Green" and "Economy" should really not be used together. You want a healthier planet -- it's that nasty little 3rd world that is really messing things up -- why don't we just restrict them instead of letting them go hog wild while restricting the nations that actually feed and medicate the world (check Kyoto).

Al Gore flunked divinity school. Last I heard he wasn't a climatologist but he does own a company that will sell you carbon credits. And he's so green, his house energy use could power a small country. Yasser Arafat also won the Nobel Peace Prize .... Winning doesn't mean Al's got any Climate Knowledge.

KarenS wrote:
Some of my religious friends(and I do have a few-surprise, surprise) honestly feel that Jesus is coming back soon. Once he lands on Mother Earth his first priority will be to restore the oil so we will have plenty. So as far as they are concerned--No worries! No reason to concern ourselves with global warning as Jesus is going to take care of it.


And I'll flat out say -- Bull S###. There's nothing anywhere that puts that forth. If you truly have friends who believe it -- they're from a very out there sect.

KarenS wrote:
Others are perfectly content with internal combustion engines. That big hog of a SUV is their god-given right and no one should take it away from them. Personal responsibility claims you can do whatever you want and no one has the right to tell you otherwise.

Others just don't want to have to contemplate changing their lifestyle. Going away from conspicuous consumption to a more "European" way of life sends chills down conservative's spines.

So what is it? Our old economy was based on conspicuous consumption and waste. Like it or not for environmental and financial reasons, most of us are being forced to change to the new economy. We can't afford the old lifestyle.



As to the internal combustion engine -- you don't like it, what are you proposing that can right now provide the same work? There is nothing. Before you wreck this economy (well, any more than it already is and the current administration is aiming for), find an answer before you stop the only thing we have currently. SUVs Pickup Trucks, etc., all have their place. There are people who need them (and, yeah, there are people who just want them). Guess what ... you don't get to choose. I dare say you have something that you hold to hard and dear that I can find someone who will say it's a waste of time and resources. And I bet it wouldn't be all that hard.

Have you ever lived in Europe? It isn't not the great Utopia!! I have friends who lived near Worchester, England -- who had a 45 minute drive to get to anything close to what we call a supermarket. Oh, sure, there was a butcher shop closer and a baker closer and a green grocer closer ... but to shop, you had to drive several places to find everything you'd want -- and the choices were pretty slim. You like Europe so much -- why haven't you moved there? Please.

I like this country. And our economy was built on standing on your own two feet, working for what you wanted, not governmental give-aways.
_________________
"The White House isn't the place to learn how to deal with international crisis, the balance of power, war and peace, the economic future of the next generation." --- Joe Biden, 1988
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SH



Joined: 24 Sep 2007
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Wed Mar 18, 2009 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="LisaW"]You want a healthier planet -- it's that nasty little 3rd world that is really messing things up -- why don't we just restrict them instead of letting them go hog wild while restricting the nations that actually feed and medicate the world[/quote]

So, global warming is not man-made, but people in the 3rd world are responsible for it. What logic is this???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    AAR Forum Index -> The Wild Wild West Forum All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group