Well said Unirdna! As for Dignan, I thought it was Gore who came to Kyoto and engineered an easy position for the US. I live here and was watching the proceedings pretty closely. Remember that Bush-the-First (and the relatively intelligent) signed the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and it was ratified into law by the US senate with only one dissenting vote. This mandated that all countries who signed the treaty would reduce their emissions to avoid climate change. Now all you "Gee-I-don't-know"s, "Gore-haters", "Rush-Limbaugh-wannabes", and "Fox-News-watchers who don't know the difference between propaganda and journalism", why the hell do you think they would have done that? Or maybe you can remember back that far. Maybe the people who crank out the crap that you fill your heads don't want you to remember it. How am I doing Unirdna?
-
Welcome to the DeeperBlue.com Forums, the largest online community dedicated to Freediving, Scuba Diving and Spearfishing. To gain full access to the DeeperBlue.com Forums you must register for a free account. As a registered member you will be able to:
- Join over 44,280+ fellow diving enthusiasts from around the world on this forum
- Participate in and browse from over 516,210+ posts.
- Communicate privately with other divers from around the world.
- Post your own photos or view from 7,441+ user submitted images.
- All this and much more...
You can gain access to all this absolutely free when you register for an account, so sign up today!
[News] Global Warming: Media Hype ?
- Thread starterDeeperBlue.com
- Start date
Thread Status: Hello
, There was no answer in this thread for more than 60 days.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
It can take a long time to get an up-to-date response or contact with relevant users.
- Status
stingraydd said:
So your point is that because Congress ratified the UN's FCCC under a republican prez, then human influenced Global Warming must be a reality? Is that your point?
Sorry my man, that doesn't prove the debate one way or the other. But i'm moved by your confidence in the senate.
My point was that it was a job well done on Clinton's part to recognize the problems with Kyoto.
Buuuutt, maybe if he had lived there at the time his close proximity to the goings on would have given him a better understanding, you know, by osmosis, and he would have seen the light. rofl
My point, Dignan is that where are your facts? Where is your experience with this issue, and why all of a sudden has the issue become this polarized? Yeah, you can make the point that just living here and paying attention of the the proceedings doesn't amount to a hill of beans, and that the Senate, even 99 of them under the influence of Gingrich, the democracy killer, couldn't be right. But I don't see anything substantive from you except for the fact that you've got a sour attitude and can dish out a liberal amount of sarcasm. Which is all I see from the "it's a hype" ilk.
stingraydd said:
Ok' gotta admit that the post above is truly "non polarizing". Proving yet again that the Leftwing zealots would never "politicise" an issue as important as "Global Warming". rofl rofl rofl
You're always right, Roy.
Fact: In Kushimoto, Wakayama (where I dive) since Veron's survey in 1995 there has been recruitment of 28 species of coral not found previously at that lattitude.
Fact: The average yearly water temperature has been rising there since the early 90s.
Fact: Crown of Thorns starfish, normally found in tropical and sub-tropical waters, has invaded (Kushimoto is warm temperate) and has become the primary cause of damage to the corals there.
Fact: Yellowtail, caught for centuries in the Maizuru area on the Japan Sea, (where I also dive) is now mainly being caught 200 miles to the north as a result of rising water temperatures.
And the list goes on. Lots of leftwing politics here. It's hard for me to believe that anyone who gets out of their SUV and spends some time in the water looking at something other than their depth gauge can't see some changes like these. Just a coincidence that CO2 levels have risen simultaneously, right? Maybe. Hope you continue to be right, Roy.
Fact: In Kushimoto, Wakayama (where I dive) since Veron's survey in 1995 there has been recruitment of 28 species of coral not found previously at that lattitude.
Fact: The average yearly water temperature has been rising there since the early 90s.
Fact: Crown of Thorns starfish, normally found in tropical and sub-tropical waters, has invaded (Kushimoto is warm temperate) and has become the primary cause of damage to the corals there.
Fact: Yellowtail, caught for centuries in the Maizuru area on the Japan Sea, (where I also dive) is now mainly being caught 200 miles to the north as a result of rising water temperatures.
And the list goes on. Lots of leftwing politics here. It's hard for me to believe that anyone who gets out of their SUV and spends some time in the water looking at something other than their depth gauge can't see some changes like these. Just a coincidence that CO2 levels have risen simultaneously, right? Maybe. Hope you continue to be right, Roy.
"Indisputable facts of life" ... ?
Um, science doesn't work that way. For science, all things are always disputable. Science is not in the business of proving things true - it is in the business of proving things false. The current best hypothesis is exactly that, no more, and is always subject to review against the data.
Religion is the province of indisputable facts of life.
To all who take global warming, dark Republican conspiracies, the gnostic omnipotence of the petroleum industry, etc. as Indisputable Facts of Life - I apologize if I've insulted your religion. Truly. If I've offended you by listing the Commandments in an incorrect order, for this I apologize as well. I can see that it hurts, and for this I'm sorry.
Indisputable is indisputable, right ?
Um, science doesn't work that way. For science, all things are always disputable. Science is not in the business of proving things true - it is in the business of proving things false. The current best hypothesis is exactly that, no more, and is always subject to review against the data.
Religion is the province of indisputable facts of life.
To all who take global warming, dark Republican conspiracies, the gnostic omnipotence of the petroleum industry, etc. as Indisputable Facts of Life - I apologize if I've insulted your religion. Truly. If I've offended you by listing the Commandments in an incorrect order, for this I apologize as well. I can see that it hurts, and for this I'm sorry.
Indisputable is indisputable, right ?
Technology review has a very interesting video about CO2 emissions.
CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming. They are currently higher than they have ever been, and rising exponentially. At the current rate of increase in 20 years it will probably be too late to halt their effect on the environment.
CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming. They are currently higher than they have ever been, and rising exponentially. At the current rate of increase in 20 years it will probably be too late to halt their effect on the environment.
pkotik said:
Sorry, Paul, but I am afraid you are not quite right here. Scientists do not dispute facts. That's an oxymoron. In science 'fact' is an objective and verifiable observation. It is usually contrasted to a theory, which is an explanation of or interpretation of facts. Scientists dispute theories, but not verifiable facts.
And global warming is no theory, it is indeed a fact easily verifiable by satellite and terrestrial thermometry, by measuring the ocean level rising, glacier and permafrost melting, and other factors. These are facts and they indeed occur.
What is a theory and what is disputed, is whether the global warming is caused or accelerated by humans, and whether it can be stopped or slowed down by humans. I do agree that the second half becomes less and less probable, and is disputed more an more. I also agree that there are some minor groups of scientist who doubt the global warming was caused by humans. However, I did not manage to find a single scientific work that would doubt the fact that the Earth is warming up. If you know about some serious scientific paper denying the warming, backed with objective measurements, please post a reference.
And although I know and accept that there are groups who fight against taking any steps to stop the global warming acceleration, calling it either useless or unnecessary, I do not understand why the US right wing public is so fanatically against reducing CO2 emissions. Finally, CO2 emissions go hand in hand with a lot of different other pollution, and I hope you will agree that reducing the pollution is definitely good thing to do. Additionally, if the USA, instead of spending trillions of dollars in invasive wars, invested the money into the research of alternative energies, it would solve two problems at a time - dependence on Arab and Central America oil, and emissions/pollution.
Instead of it, while Europe, China, Japan progress with their nuclear fusion reactors, the USA stopped funding several very promising projects (I can post much more information on this topic if needed, but do not want to clutter this thread with too many details).
So I am sorry, but I do not think that there is reason behind the bias to global warming, pollutions, alternative energies, etc. among the politicians, but rather that they are indeed influenced by powerful lobbies with own agendas. And I do not see any reason for calling such opinion religion. It is realism. I am afraid it is much more naive and closer to religion to believe that our 'decision makers' are more influenced by reasonable scientists and experts than by financial and industrial groups, and powerful lobbies.
Last edited:
stingraydd said:
Agreed, there's no need for such a vicous level of sarcasm here, just having fun i suppose. CErtainly no personal shots were intended. And it is a shame that the issue has become so polarized.
My experience in this area is limited to that of a casual lay observer. But that doesn't really matter, the whole point of this thread was whether or not the debate even exists. IMHO, it seems like there is no debate sometimes, because of the shrill screaming from the hollywood propoganda machine. Covers of magazines at check ouut aisles, the news, everywhere you look it''s this impending doom. So people who are not inclined to look any further into it just jump onboard.
Again, as a casual observer, there are some awfully complelling dissenters out there. And those who believe the hype can't seem to agree on which model and which timeline of desctruction we are going to encounter. That being said, i agree that there is no harm in leaning towards caution,, which we seem to be doing. (Ratifiying kyoto does not fit into that catagory, BTW) We just need to keep our heads about us, and not go around blowing up SUV's.
Nice Trux.
An interesting conflagration point is all this is the mix of religion and politics now operant in the good ole' usa - quite against the founder's very explicit directions in this matter - and the confusion in popular religion of all kinds regarding the distinction between belief and faith - with it's corresponding intolerance of uncertainty. In this 'scientific' discussion we see one aspect of this as some participants seem to regard the phenomenon of global warming as a 'belief'. There is an alarming tendancy in american politicians to relate to reality as a belief. This, of course, gives rise to violence when the map does not fit the territory.
An interesting conflagration point is all this is the mix of religion and politics now operant in the good ole' usa - quite against the founder's very explicit directions in this matter - and the confusion in popular religion of all kinds regarding the distinction between belief and faith - with it's corresponding intolerance of uncertainty. In this 'scientific' discussion we see one aspect of this as some participants seem to regard the phenomenon of global warming as a 'belief'. There is an alarming tendancy in american politicians to relate to reality as a belief. This, of course, gives rise to violence when the map does not fit the territory.
trux said:
Those who disagree with this comment need check their bags immediately and exit reality.
Do you notice how we pull politics into every conversation these days? I firmly believe that each time we do this, we play to the politicians. Polarizing this country serves the re-election interests (98% in the House; an all-time high) of the left and right. For the sake of our State, and the People's right to control it - stop soaking every conversation with political rhetoric. Open your eyes!
.
.
Last edited:
All right, time out! I just got my weekly dave barry article emailed to me...enjoy...
Now that it's warmed up, I'm thinking about camping. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not thinking about actually going camping, in the sense of venturing outdoors and turning my body into an All-U-Can-Eat buffet for insects. I'm just thinking about camping.
What got me on this topic is a book I'm reading, called ''Undaunted Courage,'' by Stephen E. Ambrose, about the ultimate camping trip: the Lewis and Clark expedition. If you're a product of the U.S. educational system, you no doubt remember this historic endeavor, in which a tiny band -- (they didn't even have a keyboard player) set out in three tiny ships the Nina, the Pinta and the Merrimac -- and became the first Westerners to make the perilous voyage around Plymouth Rock and discover the Monroe Doctrine, without which the cotton gin would never have been invented.
That's pretty much how I remembered it, too, but the actual facts, as set forth in ''Undaunted Courage,'' are these:
In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase, in which he paid France $10 million for a humongous batch of land without having any idea what was in it. Why would Jefferson make such a purchase? The answer is simple: He didn't have a wife. There was nobody to say to him: ''You spent $10 million for what? Take it back right now!'' Guys without wives are always making impulse purchases that border on the insane. If hang gliders had been invented in 1803, Jefferson would have bought one of those, too.
Anyway, the United States found itself in possession of this extremely large parcel of land, and nobody knew what it contained in the way of geography, natural resources, shopping, etc. So Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark on an expedition to check it out and also see if they could find a way across the continent to the Pacific Ocean, which Jefferson hoped would be a better trade route for beaver pelts bound for the Orient. Back then, the beaver pelts had to be transported by river to St. Louis, then overland to the East Coast, then by ship to London, then by another ship to the Orient, where they had to be burned immediately, because, as you can imagine, after all that travel they smelled like the inside of Marlon Brando's laundry hamper.
''Forget it!'' the Orientals would say. ``We'll just go naked!''
So in 1804, Lewis and Clark set out in search of a better route. Reading about their brutally difficult, extremely dangerous trek across the continent, I was reminded of the summers when I was a counselor at Camp Sharparoon, and I used to set off, leading a party of 10- and 11-year-old boys, into the vast, uncharted wilderness around Dover Furnace, N.Y., fully aware that we would have to survive for an entire night with nothing to sustain us except roughly 200 pounds of marshmallows, graham crackers and Hershey bars. We used these to make the famous campfire treat called s'mores. Sometimes we'd hook up with a group of girl campers and make s'mores together; this is when I observed a fundamental difference between boys and girls:
How girls make s'mores: (1) Place Hershey bars on graham crackers. (2) Toast marshmallows. (3) Place toasted marshmallows on Hershey bars to melt chocolate.
How boys make s'mores: (1) Eat Hershey bars. (2) Eat marshmallows. (3) Throw graham crackers at other boys.
Anyway, Lewis and Clark -- whether because of religious reasons, or sheer ignorance, we shall never know -- did not take any s'mores ingredients on their expedition, so they had to survive by shooting and eating things like elk. I am deeply impressed by this. I have always procured my meat by taking a number at the supermarket; you could leave me out in the woods for a year with a machine gun and an electronic elk detector, and I'd still never be able to shoot an elk. And if I did somehow manage to shoot one, I wouldn't have a clue how to eat it. I mean, what part do you eat? You can definitely rule out the eyeballs, but then what? You just pick up a haunch and start chewing? I don't even know what a haunch is.
Guess what else Lewis and Clark ate? Dog, that's what. In fact, Lewis is quoted on page 322 of ''Undaunted Courage'' as saying that -- bear in mind, this is after two solid years of camping out -- he liked dog even better than elk.
My feeling is, you have to be pretty desperate to eat a dog. I mean, with elk, at least you know they don't like you. But a dog is going to be hanging loyally around your campsite, thrilled to be there, ready to fetch you a stick. How can you just pick up a frying pan and say, ``Here, boy''?
The point is that things were pretty rough for Lewis and Clark, and since this year marks the 190th anniversary of their return, I think it would be nice if Americans commemorated their courageous effort to open up our continent. Perhaps some of us will even want to pack our sleeping bags and retrace their steps through some of the still relatively unspoiled wilderness they explored. Others of us will want to wait until there is plumbing.
Now that it's warmed up, I'm thinking about camping. Don't misunderstand me: I'm not thinking about actually going camping, in the sense of venturing outdoors and turning my body into an All-U-Can-Eat buffet for insects. I'm just thinking about camping.
What got me on this topic is a book I'm reading, called ''Undaunted Courage,'' by Stephen E. Ambrose, about the ultimate camping trip: the Lewis and Clark expedition. If you're a product of the U.S. educational system, you no doubt remember this historic endeavor, in which a tiny band -- (they didn't even have a keyboard player) set out in three tiny ships the Nina, the Pinta and the Merrimac -- and became the first Westerners to make the perilous voyage around Plymouth Rock and discover the Monroe Doctrine, without which the cotton gin would never have been invented.
That's pretty much how I remembered it, too, but the actual facts, as set forth in ''Undaunted Courage,'' are these:
In 1803, President Thomas Jefferson made the Louisiana Purchase, in which he paid France $10 million for a humongous batch of land without having any idea what was in it. Why would Jefferson make such a purchase? The answer is simple: He didn't have a wife. There was nobody to say to him: ''You spent $10 million for what? Take it back right now!'' Guys without wives are always making impulse purchases that border on the insane. If hang gliders had been invented in 1803, Jefferson would have bought one of those, too.
Anyway, the United States found itself in possession of this extremely large parcel of land, and nobody knew what it contained in the way of geography, natural resources, shopping, etc. So Jefferson sent Lewis and Clark on an expedition to check it out and also see if they could find a way across the continent to the Pacific Ocean, which Jefferson hoped would be a better trade route for beaver pelts bound for the Orient. Back then, the beaver pelts had to be transported by river to St. Louis, then overland to the East Coast, then by ship to London, then by another ship to the Orient, where they had to be burned immediately, because, as you can imagine, after all that travel they smelled like the inside of Marlon Brando's laundry hamper.
''Forget it!'' the Orientals would say. ``We'll just go naked!''
So in 1804, Lewis and Clark set out in search of a better route. Reading about their brutally difficult, extremely dangerous trek across the continent, I was reminded of the summers when I was a counselor at Camp Sharparoon, and I used to set off, leading a party of 10- and 11-year-old boys, into the vast, uncharted wilderness around Dover Furnace, N.Y., fully aware that we would have to survive for an entire night with nothing to sustain us except roughly 200 pounds of marshmallows, graham crackers and Hershey bars. We used these to make the famous campfire treat called s'mores. Sometimes we'd hook up with a group of girl campers and make s'mores together; this is when I observed a fundamental difference between boys and girls:
How girls make s'mores: (1) Place Hershey bars on graham crackers. (2) Toast marshmallows. (3) Place toasted marshmallows on Hershey bars to melt chocolate.
How boys make s'mores: (1) Eat Hershey bars. (2) Eat marshmallows. (3) Throw graham crackers at other boys.
Anyway, Lewis and Clark -- whether because of religious reasons, or sheer ignorance, we shall never know -- did not take any s'mores ingredients on their expedition, so they had to survive by shooting and eating things like elk. I am deeply impressed by this. I have always procured my meat by taking a number at the supermarket; you could leave me out in the woods for a year with a machine gun and an electronic elk detector, and I'd still never be able to shoot an elk. And if I did somehow manage to shoot one, I wouldn't have a clue how to eat it. I mean, what part do you eat? You can definitely rule out the eyeballs, but then what? You just pick up a haunch and start chewing? I don't even know what a haunch is.
Guess what else Lewis and Clark ate? Dog, that's what. In fact, Lewis is quoted on page 322 of ''Undaunted Courage'' as saying that -- bear in mind, this is after two solid years of camping out -- he liked dog even better than elk.
My feeling is, you have to be pretty desperate to eat a dog. I mean, with elk, at least you know they don't like you. But a dog is going to be hanging loyally around your campsite, thrilled to be there, ready to fetch you a stick. How can you just pick up a frying pan and say, ``Here, boy''?
The point is that things were pretty rough for Lewis and Clark, and since this year marks the 190th anniversary of their return, I think it would be nice if Americans commemorated their courageous effort to open up our continent. Perhaps some of us will even want to pack our sleeping bags and retrace their steps through some of the still relatively unspoiled wilderness they explored. Others of us will want to wait until there is plumbing.
Did someone mention "FACTS" ?
“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...lim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html
I know I know, .... the evil "coprorations", Bush and Republicans caused "global warming" during the Middle Ages and 1930's.
rofl rofl rofl
“…Temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?”- Roy Spencer wrote in a May 25, 2006 column.
http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909
Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...lim06.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/06/ixhome.html
I know I know, .... the evil "coprorations", Bush and Republicans caused "global warming" during the Middle Ages and 1930's.
rofl rofl rofl
As for the first article, it is true that the research of Arctic and the climatological data from there are available in a systematic way only the last ~50 years. This data clearly shows the warming in the last decades. Have look at this page at arctic.nooa.gov for some graphs, for example this one showing sea ice extend trend (decreasing by 9% each decade since 1975):
OK, let's go even further - let's assume all those data about global temperature warming, sea level rising, permafrost and ice melting are lies and inventions of Gore. Still, I do not understand why you are so frenetically opposing abandoning this stupid way of producing energy by burning non-renewable fossil fuels, polluting the nature and destroying our own health, and in the same time provoking more and more military conflicts with countries controlling the oil production (especially Arabs, Russians, Central Americans)? Why is it wiser to go on burning "old dinosaurs" when we know the stock is coming to its end anyway, than funding the research of alternative energies and energy-saving technologies? Is there any logic and reason behind your opinions, or is it just a political stand?
The research of nuclear fusion, hydrogen cells, and many other similar technologies started in the middle of the 20th century, but was since greatly underfunded and often deliberately hindered or completely abandoned. I am persuaded that if the research received only fraction of costs of the wars that were faught for the oil dominancy, we could have cheap and clean energy since a long time. Unfortunately, cheap energy for everyone is the last thing the "decision makers" want to see.
As for the second article - I assume you did not read it until the end, including the summary, otherwise you certainly wouldn't post it 
Still, very limited and old arctic or middle-age European data are local. As for global surface temperature data, you can see either the [ame="http://forums.deeperblue.net/showthread.php?p=605991#post605991"]graph I posted earlier in this thread[/ame], or another one from NOAA.gov here:
Or, if NASA is more credible source, then have a look at their website with the global temperature anomalies here.
OK, OK, let's assume it is all wrong, and all the global warming was not caused by burning of fossil fuels at all. Let's assume it is just a natural cycle with no risk. Still, we know that the levels of athmospheric CO2 doubled during the industrial era, and we do know that CO2 causes the greenhouse effect, so I do not understand why do you claim it is safer to go on with the industrial growth and emissing more CO2 (or stay at the current level at best) than trying to reduce the emissions? Can you explain the logic behind it?
OK, let's go even further - let's assume all those data about global temperature warming, sea level rising, permafrost and ice melting are lies and inventions of Gore. Still, I do not understand why you are so frenetically opposing abandoning this stupid way of producing energy by burning non-renewable fossil fuels, polluting the nature and destroying our own health, and in the same time provoking more and more military conflicts with countries controlling the oil production (especially Arabs, Russians, Central Americans)? Why is it wiser to go on burning "old dinosaurs" when we know the stock is coming to its end anyway, than funding the research of alternative energies and energy-saving technologies? Is there any logic and reason behind your opinions, or is it just a political stand?
The research of nuclear fusion, hydrogen cells, and many other similar technologies started in the middle of the 20th century, but was since greatly underfunded and often deliberately hindered or completely abandoned. I am persuaded that if the research received only fraction of costs of the wars that were faught for the oil dominancy, we could have cheap and clean energy since a long time. Unfortunately, cheap energy for everyone is the last thing the "decision makers" want to see.
Last edited:
So, we have contradicting scientific research. Don't you think we better figure out who is right, before we destroy Europe's and America's economies ?
As for "...The research of nuclear fusion."
I have also noticed that the same crowd who demonstrated against "nuclear energy" are the ones who scream the loudest about "global warming". Can you spell "AGENDA" ? I mean get real people, where will all that hydrogen for your fuel cell powered car will come from ? Pig's offals ? I know hot air is free, after all Al Gore generates plenty of it.
As for "...The research of nuclear fusion."
I have also noticed that the same crowd who demonstrated against "nuclear energy" are the ones who scream the loudest about "global warming". Can you spell "AGENDA" ? I mean get real people, where will all that hydrogen for your fuel cell powered car will come from ? Pig's offals ? I know hot air is free, after all Al Gore generates plenty of it.
Roy we get it - you don't believe in Global Warming and Al Gore is the Anti-Christ... Geez..:head
"Nothing to see here you looky-loos.. move along now"
"Nothing to see here you looky-loos.. move along now"
Yes, I can spell agenda very well, and I think that's exactly what's behind all the anti-global-warming movement. No reason, no logic, no economy. Just agenda.
Yes (quite apart from the Global Warming question), I still do not understand what logical reasons are behind your refusing of going away from fossil fuels, decreasing emissions/pollution, and investing into alternative energies and energy-saving technologies? Could you please finally explain how will the development of new technologies and reducing of oil consumption destroy America's and Europe's economies? Can you explain when you want to start with the intensive research of alternative energies when not now? Do you also want to wait 100 more years like Paul Kotik suggested? I am afraid there will be no oil remaining then and starting such an energy-hungry research will no more be possible.
The only reason I could understand is if you own a large stock of Exxon shares. However, even in such case, you should not fear too much. Even if they should tend to crash (which won't happen any soon), you can always sell them and invest into the new technologies
As for nuclear fusion, you probably do not know what is it. Nuclear fusion, in contrary to the nuclear fission (the current technology) produces energy by merging small atoms - usually isotopes of hydrogen that are relatively easily available in ocean depths. Although not yet perfected, this technology would allow producing cheap energy, with little nuclear waste and with much reduced security risks.
I do not quite understand your note about crowd screaming against nuclear technologies - I think you should stop letting you opinions been formed through your sympathies to political parties, but rather get some real info and create your own opinion. I am afraid though that for getting that info you'll need to be little bit more active than just pushing a button on your TV set. If that's the only source of your information, then I am not surprised with the world views you are presenting.
Yes (quite apart from the Global Warming question), I still do not understand what logical reasons are behind your refusing of going away from fossil fuels, decreasing emissions/pollution, and investing into alternative energies and energy-saving technologies? Could you please finally explain how will the development of new technologies and reducing of oil consumption destroy America's and Europe's economies? Can you explain when you want to start with the intensive research of alternative energies when not now? Do you also want to wait 100 more years like Paul Kotik suggested? I am afraid there will be no oil remaining then and starting such an energy-hungry research will no more be possible.
The only reason I could understand is if you own a large stock of Exxon shares. However, even in such case, you should not fear too much. Even if they should tend to crash (which won't happen any soon), you can always sell them and invest into the new technologies
As for nuclear fusion, you probably do not know what is it. Nuclear fusion, in contrary to the nuclear fission (the current technology) produces energy by merging small atoms - usually isotopes of hydrogen that are relatively easily available in ocean depths. Although not yet perfected, this technology would allow producing cheap energy, with little nuclear waste and with much reduced security risks.
I do not quite understand your note about crowd screaming against nuclear technologies - I think you should stop letting you opinions been formed through your sympathies to political parties, but rather get some real info and create your own opinion. I am afraid though that for getting that info you'll need to be little bit more active than just pushing a button on your TV set. If that's the only source of your information, then I am not surprised with the world views you are presenting.
Wow! What a read! I'm impressed by the amount of effort and thought that has gone into some of these posts. I'm not, however, ever impressed by personal attacks on the views of others. Why can't we notice the positives in people's views even when they're different than your own?
I've enjoyed BJ Pete's common sense comments. I like the fact that Chris (Fondueset) is concerned about the future of this planet for all of our children. I like the fact that Roy feels very strongly about individual rights and freedoms. I think it's great that Ted is actively involved in research into some of these things and is willing to share his point of view. Pete's (Laminar) comments about not buying crap is right on! Paul Kotik is bang on talking about how fickle public opinion can be and how smart we often aren't. Dignan, thanks for the Dave Barry article! We needed the laugh I could go on and on. Almost every post has had something postive in it.
Now I'm about as right-wing in my politcs as you can go, but I'm gonna try to keep my political views totally out of this! I'm not a scientist, but I do spend a vast amount of time in the outdoors, canoeing, hiking and diving. In the last couple years I've been lucky enough to explore Costa Rica, Mexico, alot of the Caribbean, many, many places in the lower 48 and Canada including the northern ice-dependant areas, Iceland, the UK, Spain and others. I've noticed a common thread... The air is not as clean sometimes as I'd like. The amount of junk washed up on beaches and clogging reefs would make your head spin. There's nothing that ruins the illusion of solitude and natural beauty more than an empty water bottle in the bush or a plastic bag laying in the water. So, I make an honest attempt to leave things as natural as possible for others who come behind me.
The same logic applies to my thoughts on the atmospheric environment. I would like to leave the air as clean as I found it... but I don't. I drive my mini-van with my 3 kids inside to go camping, hiking, canoeing or picnicking often. I fly an airplane that does a really good job of converting huge amounts of kerosene into noise and smoke. Someday we'll run out of fossil fuels, or they'll become prohibitively expensive... When that happens, our lifestyle will change. But so what?? Life will go on. Maybe for the better. I'm not afraid of losing my job and my mini-van, but as long as I can keep them I probably will. I love living in a free country. (Insert flag waving patriot here! )
On the other hand, certianly efforts to reduce emissions should be praised! I'm sure no-one here thinks that coal smoke from electric generators is healthy for the environment... Nor nuclear waste dumps, regular garbage dumps, etc. etc. etc. I've read (unverified) that ambient radiation levels across north America are higher that what was considered "maximum safe" in the '60's... That scares me more than GW for sure.
So when I see a local left-wing environmentalist riding his/her bike to work, or trying to save the rainforest, or recycling a plastic bag, it warms my right-wing heart. They're making the world a little better for my kids and grandkids. And, when I see the soccer mom in her SUV, I understand... I have kids too.
So, in conclusion to an overly long post, tell me what you're doing to make the world a better place! You'll more than likely inspire someone else. Attacking others for what they're doing or not doing however, is almost entirely counter-productive. It usually only entrenches their beliefs.
I, for one, don't use air-conditioning, and I try to minimise my use of plastic bags. Tiny actions really. Do they make a difference? Maybe a little.
Cheers all,
Aaron
I've enjoyed BJ Pete's common sense comments. I like the fact that Chris (Fondueset) is concerned about the future of this planet for all of our children. I like the fact that Roy feels very strongly about individual rights and freedoms. I think it's great that Ted is actively involved in research into some of these things and is willing to share his point of view. Pete's (Laminar) comments about not buying crap is right on! Paul Kotik is bang on talking about how fickle public opinion can be and how smart we often aren't. Dignan, thanks for the Dave Barry article! We needed the laugh
I could go on and on. Almost every post has had something postive in it.Now I'm about as right-wing in my politcs as you can go, but I'm gonna try to keep my political views totally out of this! I'm not a scientist, but I do spend a vast amount of time in the outdoors, canoeing, hiking and diving. In the last couple years I've been lucky enough to explore Costa Rica, Mexico, alot of the Caribbean, many, many places in the lower 48 and Canada including the northern ice-dependant areas, Iceland, the UK, Spain and others. I've noticed a common thread... The air is not as clean sometimes as I'd like. The amount of junk washed up on beaches and clogging reefs would make your head spin. There's nothing that ruins the illusion of solitude and natural beauty more than an empty water bottle in the bush or a plastic bag laying in the water. So, I make an honest attempt to leave things as natural as possible for others who come behind me.
The same logic applies to my thoughts on the atmospheric environment. I would like to leave the air as clean as I found it... but I don't. I drive my mini-van with my 3 kids inside to go camping, hiking, canoeing or picnicking often. I fly an airplane that does a really good job of converting huge amounts of kerosene into noise and smoke. Someday we'll run out of fossil fuels, or they'll become prohibitively expensive... When that happens, our lifestyle will change. But so what?? Life will go on. Maybe for the better. I'm not afraid of losing my job and my mini-van, but as long as I can keep them I probably will. I love living in a free country. (Insert flag waving patriot here!
)On the other hand, certianly efforts to reduce emissions should be praised! I'm sure no-one here thinks that coal smoke from electric generators is healthy for the environment... Nor nuclear waste dumps, regular garbage dumps, etc. etc. etc. I've read (unverified) that ambient radiation levels across north America are higher that what was considered "maximum safe" in the '60's... That scares me more than GW for sure.
So when I see a local left-wing environmentalist riding his/her bike to work, or trying to save the rainforest, or recycling a plastic bag, it warms my right-wing heart. They're making the world a little better for my kids and grandkids. And, when I see the soccer mom in her SUV, I understand... I have kids too.
So, in conclusion to an overly long post, tell me what you're doing to make the world a better place! You'll more than likely inspire someone else. Attacking others for what they're doing or not doing however, is almost entirely counter-productive. It usually only entrenches their beliefs.
I, for one, don't use air-conditioning, and I try to minimise my use of plastic bags. Tiny actions really. Do they make a difference? Maybe a little.
Cheers all,
Aaron
- Status