Environmentalism: Religion vs. Necessity

[MJ]

This is an attempt to transfer here the unrelated to the original topic of the thread discussions of the thread at http://armenians.com/cgi-bin/forum/ultimat...c&f=11&t=000015 .

 

So, go on guys, make my day.

 

[ July 14, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[MJ]

An interesting, in my view, material:

http://www.exxonmobil.com/news/publication...ge/c_intro.html

[bellthecat]

Originally posted by MJ:

An interesting, in my view, material:

http://www.exxonmobil.com/news/publication...ge/c_intro.html[/Q UOTE]

 

It's by ExxonMobil!

 

MJ, Do you have other urls, such as those where Bin Laden writes about feminisim, or where Stalin writes about the value of the individual, or where Bill Gates writes about the difficulties of the homeless?

[MJ]

Yes, I do. That's of Bellthecat writing on common sense.

[ThornyRose]

MJ, calm down...

[MJ]

I am calm, Thorny - more than ever.

[ThornyRose]

No, MJ, I think you've been overtly aggressive of late - especially with Winston. Your accusing him of not contributing anything of value to discussions was totally uncalled for...

[MJ]

Thorny, calm down.

Could you show me the instance where I have accused Winston "of not contributing anything of value to discussions?" Additionally, does it have anything to do with the environmentalism?

[ThornyRose]

OK, just one last irrelevant post on this thread.

/cgi-bin/forum/ultim...28&t=000024&p=2

 

[Azat]

Here is a another place to learn about Global Warming and Environmentalism

http://www.epa.gov/

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/

 

[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Azat ]

[MJ]

Thorny, you should read it more attentively.

[MJ]

I read a little bit of the material at http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/climate/index.html, which is quoted below:

 

Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide.

 

It immediately reminded me what my teachers have taught me: “Whenever you read something that says ‘ít is well known,’ ‘everybody agrees on,’ ‘ít is easy to show,’ etc, without concrete referrences or evidence, look no further to find lies.” I also find the expression “scientists generally believe” to be somewhat like an oxymoron.

However, I find it being supportive of my suspicion that the environmentalism in its current form belongs to the category of Religion.

 

Will try to read the rest of the material hopefully over the weekend.

[alpha]

MJ, will you please specify what do you mean by "the environmentalism in its current form belongs to the category of Religion". I thought environmentalism is about clean air and preservation of natural habitat.

[MJ]

Alpha, I guess my statement was a little bit a broad one. Here is the politically and perhaps factually more accurate one: "The concept of Global Warming in its current shape/status belongs to the category of Religion."

To go one step ahead and to provide satisfaction to your next potential request of giving explanation, I would say "because it is based on belief and not evidence or knowledge."

[Anshnork]

If you do not believe in saving the environment, then you should see a psychologist....

For you are suicidal.

[MJ]

Dear Anshnork,

As much as I understand your desire to live up to your self-described standards indicated by your nickname, I would recommend you to do few things:

1. Go back to a grade school to improve your reading abilities;
2. Work diligently on your thinking abilities - it can be improved (in principal);
3. See an ethicist capable of helping you to become more "shnorkov."

As I come up with more recommendations, I would be gracious enough to share them with you.

[THOTH]

Well MJ - do you say the same concerning evolution? Evidence seems somewhat circumstansial don't you think? I certainly am more then a little concerned that the average world temperatures (and more specifically the upper ocean temperatures - our worlds heat sink) over the last decade or so have been at all time highs (for recent times) and can be shown to be rising...and why is that we may ask - I think the answer is obvious. Perhaps this is my belief - you may call it a religion - and that because of insufficient data collection periods to develop trends (do we really have a few thousand years?) we may be just in some natural cycle (even if so - it is certainly an issue with (potential) meaning for us all - and with the great potential for a real hell theat none/few of us will likely be able to escape. I suggest - if you have any sense or concern about the type of world you or your children and their children will live in - that you try to "see the light" on this one. being wrong has true and perhaps irreversable consequences...and even if the dire predeictions do not come to pass - what do we lose? A little more clean air, more trees (which are dying from excess nitrogen and acids from the air - this i have seen with my own eyes) etc...so step up to the druidic alter son and be saved....

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MJ:

 

Alpha, I guess my statement was a little bit a broad one. Here is the politically and perhaps factually more accurate one: "The concept of Global Warming in its current shape/status belongs to the category of Religion."

 

To go one step ahead and to provide satisfaction to your next potential request of giving explanation, I would say "because it is based on belief and not evidence or knowledge."

---

[MJ]

Thoth,

 

 

Well MJ - do you say the same concerning evolution?

 

What about evolution?

 

 

Evidence seems somewhat circumstantial don't you think?

 

I would like to see at least some evidence regarding Global Warming – circumstantial or not.

 

I certainly am more then a little concerned that the average world temperatures (and more specifically the upper ocean temperatures - our worlds heat sink) over the last decade or so have been at all time highs (for recent times) and can be shown to be rising...and why is that we may ask - I think the answer is obvious.

 

Not to me. Please show it. You have accurately indicated “over the last decade.” I assume that technically you are accurate. But why have you decided to average over the last decade and not over the last 500 years, for example?

 

Perhaps this is my belief - you may call it a religion - and that because of insufficient data collection periods to develop trends (do we really have a few thousand years?) we may be just in some natural cycle (even if so - it is certainly an issue with (potential) meaning for us all - and with the great potential for a real hell that none/few of us will likely be able to escape.

 

I think nobody can deny anyone to believe or not to believe in something, even if it is tooth fairy.

 

I suggest - if you have any sense or concern about the type of world you or your children and their children will live in - that you try to "see the light" on this one. Being wrong has true and perhaps irreversible consequences...and even if the dire predictions do not come to pass - what do we lose? A little more clean air, more trees (which are dying from excess nitrogen and acids from the air - this i have seen with my own eyes) etc...so step up to the druidic alter son and be saved....

 

I am ardent supporter of clean air and more trees. I don’t see any trees dying in my front or back yard. Nothing that you have said in the paragraph above contradicts to my desires.

 

Now, what was that you where suggesting to do?

 

Another question: In the material that I had referenced above there were few charts describing the temperature patterns of the surface of the earth/ocean throughout thousands of years, as well as a slice-chart on the emission distribution/entrapment throughout variety of media. Unless you assume that these charts are hoaxes, could you interpret them for me, please?

 

P.S. I just had few minutes to compose this material. Sorry if it sounds like "ping-pong."

 

[ October 17, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

[THOTH]

MJ - I to do not have time to review your material or respond just now. But i will try at some point. My point earlier (not stated well i guess) - is that the temperatures this last decade are the highest over the last 500 (or so?) years (don't remember exact span).

 

I believe in the concept of evolution and in the generally accepted "facts" of it regarding humans and other creatures - even though specific evidence (the misnamed) missing link issue etc - is still mostly speculation based on accepted/observed phenomonon extrapolated and applied to us. I see the "evidence" regarding global warmiong as similar. (in each case there are holes in the data - but there is ample supporting evidence/observations for one to come to the "correct" conclusion - IMO)

[Anshnork]

???????
1. What is wrong with my reading abilities? Do you say that because my previous post is seemingly unrelated to the topic being discussed? Considering that the link to the previous thread doesn't work, and that there didn't seem to be much of a discussion going on anyway, I don't think it's a crime to lead the discussion in a new direction.
2. Considering that your thinking abilities are FAR more superior to mine, my inferior mind cannot understand why you, in essence, call me stupid.
3. Somebody needs to stir things up once in a while. I was TRYING to take a DEAD topic and revive it so that some interesting conversation takes place. Sorry if I wasn't shnorkeen enough for your liking.

But hey, I know I'm far from perfect, and I appreciate your "recommendations", but next time, why don't you tell me WHY you come to these brilliant conclusions, ok?

[khodja]

Anshnork,

 

You will better understand the "bedside manner" of "Doctor MJ" by realizing that he is Sovietagan Hye, just as some of us should realize that we are, to paraphrase President Kocharyan, "TOOKAHYES."

[khodja]

Anshnork, pardon me "TOORKAHYES," notice the emphasis by not spelling it "TURKAYHES." What Armenians truly need is an Armenian Armenian Reconciliation Commission. This goes for language (eastern, western), culture (Ottoman, Persian, Russian, Arab, European, American, Spanish American, Australian, Far Eastern, etc.), religion (Gregorian, Catholic, Protestant, Hye-Horom and out-conversions) politics and general world-view.

[MJ]

There is at least one fundamental difference: there is no expectation to execute drastic economic and political transformations on the grounds of the evolution theory, but there are such expectations on the grounds of the hypothesis of Global Warming.

Have had too good of Cabernet to spoil its impact on such nonsense tonight. Sorry for not expending further.

[Azat]

The air is cleaner today because of all the things that Environmentalists did in the 70 and 80 and today.

 

Power plants did not did not spend billions because they are nice guys and wanted clean air, but because they were forced to do it. This is also true for car smog and all the other regulations. If groups do not put the pressure on an industry, the industry does not make the first move.

 

In LA we use to have "SMOG DAYS" where they would advice kids and elders not to go outside. I have not heard about one of those for ever.

[MJ]

Just came across the following material:Speaking of POWER: The tooth fairy is fouling our air

 

 

From the howls of indignation emitted by environmental groups, left-leaning politicians, and the mainstream media regarding President Bush's energy policy, you'd think this country has an air-quality crisis that cannot tolerate a single more Btu of coal being fired. But as with so many other political issues, the evidence contradicts the emotional rhetoric.

If you look at the actual data--something we engineers and scientists eagerly do, but activists and journalists seem to deliberately avoid--you'll see that emissions of most criteria pollutants peaked over 30 years ago--around 1970--while emissions of particulate matter smaller than 10 microns (PM10) peaked 50 years ago--before most of today's journalists were even born! This according to data from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)--no friend of industry--in its "National Air Pollutant Emission Trends" report for 1900-1998.

Since that peak in the 1970s, US air quality has improved by 30%, while the population was rising by about 30%, gross domestic product was leaping nearly 100%, and fossil-fuel use was skyrocketing. In particular, coal use by power producers went from 320-million tons in 1970 to nearly 900-million tons today--yet our air got dramatically cleaner!

And it's getting cleaner still, in a hurry. According to the EPA's latest atmospheric "Annual Air Quality Trends Report," the following nationwide improvements in average air quality occurred in the last decade, from 1989 to 1998:

• SO2 emissions, down 39%.

• CO, down 39%.

• Particulates, down 25%.

• NOx, down 14%.

Looking specifically at powerplant emissions of SO2 (Figs 1A, --the main culprit in acid rain--the data show that a peak of 17.6-million tons was reached way back in 1976, and that levels since then have been cut nearly in half to 10-million tons. The EPA's latest Acid Rain Program Compliance Report reveals that not only are utilities in full compliance with strict new SO2 emissions requirements, but their emissions have been substantially below the levels mandated by law every year since the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 kicked in. Realize that Phase II of the Amendments, which will further cut SO2 emissions, is just now being implemented, so by 2008, when it becomes fully effective, our skies may be so blue it will hurt to look up.

The improvement in US air quality is most astounding in Southern California, according to data from two nonprofit, nonpartisan groups, including the Foundation for Clean Air Progress. Since 1990, Los Angeles--often referred to as "Smell A" instead of LA--enjoyed a 95% reduction in the number of days ozone exceeded standard, from 121 days down to just six. Nearby San Diego and Orange counties saw a 100% drop! That's right, the number of ozone days in these counties went from 30 in 1990 down to zero in 1999. A few years ago, there was an article in the LA Times discussing the turmoil and anxiety within state air-pollution agencies because they had set aside $6-million to study smog, and there were not enough smoggy days to perform the study. Damn the bad luck!

Mainstream media rarely mention our cleaner air, but never miss a chance to claim that large, old coal-fired plants have been "grandfathered" so that they don't have to comply with the Clean Air Act. As a former presidential candidate famously said, "If you believe that, you believe in the tooth fairy."

Title I of the 1990 Amendments requires reasonably available control technology (RACT) to be installed for all existing major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and NOx in non-attainment areas, even if the plant does not undergo a major modification. In response, power producers retrofit countless numbers of low-NOx burners, selective catalytic reduction (SCR) systems, and other NOx-control technologies. Even more NOx-reduction upgrades are scheduled for the next few years.

Similarly, Title V of the 1990 Amendments affects all existing powerplants, requiring them to obtain an air-quality operating permit that is federally mandated and enforceable in order to achieve uniformity in air-permitting requirements across the country.

The most hard-hitting of the 1990 Amendments--Title IV, addressing acid rain--not only affected all powerplants, but its most pronounced effect has been on those very same large, old coal-fired plants that supposedly were "grandfathered." Phase I of Title IV specifically identified the 110 largest SO2 emitters, predominantly large coal-fired stations, and required them to cut their SO2 emissions to the amount produced at an emissions rate of 2.5 lb/MBtu at the average "baseline" historical fuel consumption for the years 1985 to 1987 (Fig 2). In response, the large coal-fired plants aggressively reduced their SO2 emissions to well below those mandated by law, largely through switching to low-sulfur fuels and retrofitting flue-gas-desulfurization (FGD) systems.

Perhaps the activists, journalists, and politicians are not deliberately ignoring the data regarding our cleaner air. Perhaps they truly intend to help the environment, and simply don't understand the reams of figures, charts, and chemical equations that tell the true story. In their minds, they are on a crusade to save the Earth for future generations.

And as we know from the anti-World Trade Organization looters in Seattle, the Earth First tree-spikers, and the Arizona Five nuclear plant saboteurs, some people will do anything to save the planet . . . except take a science class.

—Robert Swanekamp, PE, Editor-in-Chief

 

 

http://www.platts.com/engineering/issues/Power/0107/images/GM-2.JPG

 

2. Mainstream media like to claim that large, existing coal-fired plants in the US have been "grandfathered" so they don't have to comply with the Clean Air Act. In reality, Title IV of the 1990 Amendments hit the large, existing coal-fired plants the hardest, and the billions of dollars they've spent on SO2 reductions have dramatically cleaned the air.

 

[ October 18, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]