Armen Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Maybe it's a good thing there isn't just black and white, then? Generaly, it's a good thing. But sometimes the colorful stuff is anoying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 But, sweetie, I was thinking, "especially Axel"... Well, Sasun, see, she's the one harassing me. Alas the internet doesn't provide the means for a hands-on explanation, that would allow me to satisfy her urge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned about global cooling. I watched the film "Soylent Green" on TV last night - which was made in 1971 I think. If the concept of global warming had entered society to the extent that a mainstream movie was made about the "greenhouse effect" (the phrase was used extensively in the film) over 30 years ago then to say that people were concerned about global cooling 30 years ago is an absurd statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 even THOTH... Especially Thoth, axel. He can talk and talk and talk for hour after hour after hour and still say nothing worthwhile. He could talk all four legs off a donkey, (and then would try to persuade it to walk afterwards, and get all self-rightiously offended when it didn't.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 After what Sip had said, I don't need to add anything new. Starting any conversation with anon, always end up the same way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Perhaps you should take the time to 'learn' and not start one if you are going to complain about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ED Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 And perhaps everyone should jump to there own conclusions by exercising common sense, its simple as 1+1=2 said that, if a person is living in one of the industrial countries would realize those and its inhabitance are somewhat contributing to the global warming, very simple and very easy to understand, like Sip said, LA is much cleaner because strict emission regulations state imposed, now take that into the study and tell me that did not have an impact as one major factor. Study after study sometimes reflects biased endorsement of surthen interest group, government, and administration. And there are always radical and contradictory studies to counter that, in all, again, depends what the motivation is. But I also believe, if there was not a environmental movement, those bustards would chop of the last tree from Amazon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 (edited) I also believe, if there was not a environmental movement, those bustards would chop of the last tree from Amazon. So true (and well said...)...and I know as I've been there - overseeing Environmental enforcement and dealing with corporations (many of whom) do their best to get around every rule and who act in flagrant disregard for the health and wealfare of all of us....additionally many of these corporations are happy to just pay the paltry fines and keep polluting - strictly because it costs less.... I think its clear that there are problems...that humans can (significantly) negatively impact the environment, the flora and fauna around us - and this can not only afect our own being - but perhaps the very exsistence of life on earth as we know it. So should we care? All depends how selfish and stupid one is I guess...not naming any names of course...(as some prefer being anonymous...) Edited June 9, 2004 by THOTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Global Warming: Nature or Nurture?  by Kevin Van Cott May 24, 2003 I'm wondering if the major media outlets reported on the following item. Maybe I just happened to miss it, but I have my doubts. The June issue of Scientific American highlighted some research results out of Columbia University. Recently, Professor Richard Wilson published a peer-reviewed article in the journal Geophysical Research Letters where he reported the results of his studies on the amount of solar energy that our sun has been producing over the last 24 years. During this time period, the amount of energy the sun is producing has increased by 0.05% every 10 years.  Now that may not sound like much to anyone, but, as Prof. Wilson points out in his article, the cumulative effects of this trend could be significant. For example, if this trend had begun even earlier, say as little as about 100 years ago, it would account for a significant amount of the global warming that has become so important to both climatologists and environmentalists.  Prof. Wilson acknowledged that the whole story is not yet known, but his discoveries have shown that the mantra that has been chanted over and over in the media about how human activities are causing global warming needs to be re-evaluated.  It appears that the issue of global warming is a bit more complicated than those in the major media outlets and the environmentalist organizations would want us to believe. It also appears that our "fragile ecosystem" is a bit more robust than they would have us believe. But I wouldn't count on hearing a report on this during the evening news. And I also wouldn't count on hearing any apologies from environmental groups such as the Sierra Club for their statements in the past ridiculing President Bush's decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. And I haven't heard of any new statements from them welcoming more research into this interesting topic.  Maybe I just haven't looked hard enough, but again, I have my doubts. People in these organizations are rarely concerned with scientific integrity if it doesn't happen to favor their own agenda, and the data of Prof. Wilson are precisely what these groups do not want to even consider. Their raison d'être will disappear if it is shown that global warming is caused, not by a lack of nurture, but by the laws of physics that are embedded within the "genetics" of Mother Nature.  The lesson for us here is that we need to be very careful when we hear so-called experts from lobbying groups pontificate about "scientific facts." Sure, university professors are not completely impartial, but in the realm of the natural sciences, hard data cannot be disputed, and the peer review system is one of the best detectors of phony science. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Van Cott teaches chemical engineering at Virginia Tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Yeah yeah, so burn away, we're safe until studies are "concluded," it's the sun and not us, it's gonna happen, we'll just turn on a huge air-conditioner if we're proven wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Perhaps you should take the time to 'learn' and not start one if you are going to complain about it. Look Mr. the link to that old thread in question was from articles that you can NOT find in the web, they were a little collection from the huge collection I have for a research paper I have written. I have learned something that you have yet to learn. The reason why I am not continuing about this is because of the obvious. What is the obvious? The obvious is that you a a foot in your mouth.  You tell us about how statistics can be manipulated, and later post a meteorologist, which has as one of his main tools statistics... I propose you to read a little about the process of predictions in meteology. And Mr. this is not the Armenian genocide, or the racial discussion, but this is more than just, it's my field. You present us Chemistry engeneer to support your point... Mr. do you know what is one of the main research areas of a chemical engeneer? It's the transformation of the CHOO..... plastics etc... and ressources directly dependent of the transformation industries that are one of the major pollutors. As for the energy production of the Sun... this is amazing, just few months ago, I had in my hand the data collection of the Sun cycles from the oldest temperatures recorded to now... I havn't seen anything unusual... so one must know if the Energy he is reffering to is really about the conversion of energy to Heat, even if the efficency of energy conversion of the Sun to heat is extraordinary... we have yet to see if the measures of Solar total energy production increase of a slight fraction is really entirly converted to heat... any scientist which will uses such a research that is not concluded would expose his biases. You must always be an extremist in every sense of the term, never do you have a critical opinion that is balanced, always you must be on one or the other side... That being said, I realise that one of the most brilliants ideas i had on the web was to ignore you... since it was a brilliant idea... I will follow it yet again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 You are definitely a closet socialist hiding behind the guise of environmentalism and like all Marxist/Socialist cadres, Greens are just another offshoot that want to control the property of individuals and control how people live because somehow of the false myth that people control more to pollution than the billions of years old earth and the solar system. Such premises are shady and precisely based on manipulation. Do you have anything to say about the sun which is perhaps more dangerous to our world than any humans not recycling plastic? I guess by your logic we should destroy the sun or build special buildings to block the sun. Once again you deflected the article, just as the author predicted as any environmentalist wacko would. I would like very much for you to ignore me, because obviously you cannot contend with me, so hence you have to run away. Better to leave opposing views untouched, since to tangle with them, is to bring to question your own fallacies. Very well played out, "Mr". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 ... Greens are just another offshoot that want to control the property of individuals and control how people live because somehow of the false myth that people control more to pollution than the billions of years old earth and the solar system. Anon, do you clean your room? Do you flush the toilet after taking a dump? Why do you do it? I hope you don't take a dump in the living room.  On the same token, I hope you see the parallel between my rediculous example above and how we should think in the larger picture about our bigger home (earth). What's wrong with controlling how people live if it means I don't have to walk around stepping on crap all day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 There is nothing wrong with looking after where you live, but when environmentalists use the State to try to interfere in property rights of individuals, via coercive legislation like Kyoto, which hampers on productivity and instead of developing in the third world, causes lagging and no production, that is a problem, for that's no different than Socialism. And the USSR after its dissolution had a worse environmental record than the so called evil Capitalist west. Oh the joys of government interferences. Well of course by your answer you seem to like the idea of telling other people how to live. That is all fine and dandy until those people themselves have the State strike down on them and tell them what they can or can't do. We have already seen how fungible the data about 'global warming' is and how to make policy based on this data is silly, so why continue to push forth socialistic legislation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Sip, more you write more I had to conclude that you are a nice person, more than I thought(this thread is one evidence among others)... you're not the materialistic king boy I thought years back. I grant you eternity in the Fadixian universe. You are a respectful person just like Azat... but still that doesn't undo the spankings I owe you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Anon, I am realizing that you have a strong antagonism against all sorts of government. That is why you are biased in your thinking whenever governments are involved. A lot of times governments are wrong, but it doesn't mean that they are always wrong. The needful environmental decisions that they sometimes make are often correct. It is not like a bunch of people with posts are infringing upon citizens rights, but representatives of people are limiting a bunch of greedy and ignorant intustrialists who are infringing upon citizens' rights to breath pure air, enjoy pure nature, eat pure food, etc... Sometimes there can be mistakes and exaggerations of environmental impacts but that's not an issue of wheather environmentalists are right or wrong, but an issue of correct measurement and assesment, in other words a technical matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Anon, I am realizing that you have a strong antagonism against all sorts of government. That is why you are biased in your thinking whenever governments are involved. A lot of times governments are wrong, but it doesn't mean that they are always wrong. The needful environmental decisions that they sometimes make are often correct. It is not like a bunch of people with posts are infringing upon citizens rights, but representatives of people are limiting a bunch of greedy and ignorant intustrialists who are infringing upon citizens' rights to breath pure air, enjoy pure nature, eat pure food, etc... Sometimes there can be mistakes and exaggerations of environmental impacts but that's not an issue of wheather environmentalists are right or wrong, but an issue of correct measurement and assesment, in other words a technical matter. Sorry, but this is a typical example of how industrialists and entreperneurs are viewed as "greedy" and "ignorant", while politicians and public servants are somehow selfless representatives of the "people". I guess my anti-government bias is only countered by peoples pro-government bias. Government regulation and central planning only brings harm, not benefits to society at large. Only a market order brings about a peaceful cooperation among people, as it is able to calculate the costs and benefits of its operations in order to have even a remote idea of what is going on. And why can't environmental concern be subjected to the market place? Why cannot competition on the market deal with this, like it has all the time? Actually it already is, in how fuel is burned. If some company is extremely disastruous, then it will be receive bad reviews in consumer reports magazines and companies that outperform them and are cleaner will have the preference of consumers, thus the company will be hit and forced to upgrade or meet the demands of consumers who prefer cleaner vehicls or what have you. Central planning by government is infringement on the property rights of these companies. Mind you that most of the carelessness has happened in State controlled plants, or parks, or what have you. The Chernobyl incident was a result of State planning by government. The recent brush fires in America a few months ago were started State parks, who had been neglected and subjected to lack of quality and carelessness because of central planning. The natural process of industrialization and living the city means there is smog and you aren't going to breath the best air, but that is the price you pay for living the city. If you do not like it, perhaps you should move to the country side? What would you suggest to do? Destroy all cars on the grounds that they pollute? What about the sun? Research indicates that it is more harmful and could be the actual catalyst in the "global warming" scenario, and not humans. Should we attack the sun or build special shields and complexes to block that? And who says pure food cannot be obtained on the market? You can get organic food, or not. This is the beauty of the market order. Nature is itself pure, and CO2 is a part of nature. Should we then outlaw low level radiation on the grounds that it causes cancer? Low level radiation emanates from every object and everyone receives it. Should we outlaw that as the environmental policy makers in Washington would want? How would we go about doing that without violating the property rights of every individual? And should we get electric cars because of the environmentalist myth that electric cars do not pollute? Here is what Eric Peters of the Washington Times has to say:Â Environmental groups have also pushed for electrics to eventually replace gasoline-powered cars. They argue that only widespread use of electric cars can ameliorate the dirty skies of the nation's smoggy urban areas. Without them, they claim, the feds' air quality standards can't be met--and states will lose highway dollars. Â But, it turns out, existing and proven technology, used in tandem with reformulated gasoline, can make a conventional car run almost as clean as the electric model. Honda and Saab, for example, have unveiled promising prototypes, which didn't cost billions to research and produce. Â Even in new cars, 95-98% of harmful emissions have been eliminated, thanks to three-way catalytic converters, fuel injection, and computer-controlled engine management systems. What's it worth to knock out that last 2-5% of tailpipe emissions? Â We also have to consider performance. An electric car has a range of 75 to 100 miles before it has to be recharged for eight hours. As I can tell you, especially driving in the city, it is unnerving to watch that "tachometer" move toward 0. Less publicized is the fact that this range can plummet 20 miles when the outside temperature falls below zero. Such limited range would render electric cars all but useless during the winter months in the Northeast. These vehicles are palpably inferior to even the most rudimentary modern cars. Â Then there are the peripheral difficulties that may arise if electric cars ever become ubiquitous. Will the added demand for electricity from coal-fired utility plants result in increased "stationary-source" pollution? Â Available data indicate that's exactly what would happen, especially in the Northeast, where the coal burned is of the high-sulfur type. Now that nuclear power is out of the question, increase in sulfur dioxide emissions--alleged to cause "acid rain"--might go up 2,100%, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Â And what about the thousands of tons of toxic lead and caustic sulfuric acid used in electric car battery packs? They weigh several hundred pounds each and contain gallons of acid. Â After a period of use--just like your current car's much smaller battery--they must be replaced because they will no longer hold a charge. What will happen to all that lead and acid when these tons of used-up battery packs are "retired"? Imagine what landfills overflowing with this acid will do to ground water. Â It's pretty clear that electric cars will produce a tremendous amount of pollution. It's just of a different form and originates from a different place. The fact is there really is no such thing as an absolutely "clean car." Then the questions become: How much pollution are we willing to accept in return for affordable private transportation? How are we going to decide what is an acceptable form of pollution? Â Then there's the issue of safety. What happens if you are in an accident with an electric car and the battery pack leaks? The prospect of being doused with acid isn't an appealing one. The Department of Transportation mysteriously hasn't issued safety requirements for these government-mandated acid-mobiles. Â Federal and state bureaucrats lack even a layman's knowledge of how a car works and what causes air pollution. Yet they are overseeing a battle royal over what we, the consumers, are allowed to drive in our own towns and cities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 I guess my anti-government bias is only countered by peoples pro-government bias. Again a perfect example of Domino's accurate observation that with you, it's either a 1 or a 0 ... either one extreme or the other. Why must there be "anti government" and "pro government" bias? Why can't there be a middle (which is almost always the answer anyway!!!!)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Rat, my field is an industrial one, and I just got done with reviewing revisions to an environmental regulation (will be submitting my opinion soon ), and you have no idea how stupid what you say sounds, especially regarding the industry, especially since I have to say that, yes, by and far the industry is greedy and selfish, yet furthermore I have to add that top-notch companies have gone beyond the "points" you mention and fund research for more economic, more efficient technology while you air this and that, and it pays. And please don't bring in the USSR or what have you - the reason why Germany is cleaning up what used to be East Germany today is because of the culmination of environmental concern, due processes, and regulations, something the Russian Federation, ex-Soviet republics, and satellite states have lacked for a long time. You can't even compare the two. As for your copy-paste article, I have to say, yes, bureaucrats don't always have the expertise (which is why they consult academia) and your article only mandates more research and even more environmental and safety regulations, not less, and I don't see anyone with your attitude pushing for either nor the author of that piece even suggesting such, only hyperventilating, the only thing both of you are good for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 Again a perfect example of Domino's accurate observation that with you, it's either a 1 or a 0 ... either one extreme or the other. Why must there be "anti government" and "pro government" bias? Why can't there be a middle (which is almost always the answer anyway!!!!)? To answer your question, because the State is unethical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 As opposed to the individual? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 If you believe in aggression and violence against innocents, then the State is your way to go. We criminalize individuals for the murdering innocents, yet the State can do it. If you find that okay, by all means continue supporting the State, i.e. supporting violence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bellthecat Posted June 10, 2004 Report Share Posted June 10, 2004 (edited) Is it me or are you, Thoth, Stormtrooper in the same ideological camp? It's not you - but it's also not ideology, they are "bees around the honey-pot". Edited June 10, 2004 by bellthecat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted August 8, 2004 Report Share Posted August 8, 2004 Don't know what to make of this. Any American wanna comment?  The Forest For the Trees By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.. Posted August 5, 2004.  Bush's policy advisers don't see the benefits we've received from our investments in America's environmental infrastructure. All they see is the cost of compliance to their campaign contributors – a group led by the nation's most egregious polluters. Story Tools EMAIL PRINT ALSO IN ENVIROHEALTH  Dude, Where's My Beach? J.R. Pegg  Scientific Fraud Condemns Panther  Park Your Ride Brian Smith  Public Nuisance No. 1 Amanda Griscom  Lee Fights For Better AIDS Policy Rebecca Vesely   More stories by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.  There are several ways to measure the effectiveness of a democracy. One is to look at how much the public is included in community decision-making. Another is to evaluate access to justice. The most telling aspect of a government, however, is how it distributes the goods of the land. Does it safeguard the commonwealth – the public trust assets – on behalf of the public? Or does it allow the shared wealth of our communities to be stolen from the public by corporate power? The environmental laws passed after Earth Day 1970 were designed to protect the commons – those shared resources that cannot be reduced to private property, including the air, flowing water, public lands, wandering animals, fisheries, wetlands and aquifers. Since then, life has dramatically improved in America. Children have measurably less lead in their blood and therefore higher IQ levels. We breathe cleaner air in our cities and parks, swim in cleaner water in our lakes and rivers. These laws have protected the stratospheric ozone layer, reduced acid rain, saved threatened wildlife like the bald eagle, and preserved some of the last remaining wild places that make America so beautiful. In other words, they protect the parts of America that we all hold in common. But George W. Bush's policy advisers somehow don't see the benefits we've received from our investments in America's environmental infrastructure. All they see is the cost of compliance to their campaign contributors – a group that is led by the nation's most egregious polluters. This myopic vision has led the White House to abandon its responsibility to protect the public trust. James Watt, President Ronald Reagan's first Interior secretary, once promised, "We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber." In April 2001, a retired James Watt told the Denver Post, "Everything Cheney's saying, everything the president's saying, they're saying exactly what we were saying 20 years ago, precisely. Twenty years later, it sounds like they've just dusted off the old work." Bush administration Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton presides over a rich treasure trove: 450 million acres of America's public lands and 3 billion acres of coastal waterways. She has also been a champion of corporate welfare, and of polluters, for three decades. I've had many brushes with Norton's crew of ideologues. I have seen them subvert the law and corrupt our democracy and distort science. I have witnessed their willingness to break promises and deceive those they are appointed to serve. In summer 2003, my cousin Maria Shriver's husband, Arnold Schwarzenegger, approached me out on Cape Cod. He was determined, he said, to be "the best environmental governor in California history." I agreed to help him, and worked with a group of sympathetic Republicans and Democrats in California to draft Arnold's environmental platform. Among the key provisions was support for the Sierra Nevada Framework – the product of a decade of grueling work by government, timber industry and environmental groups to manage the Sierra Nevada forests. But radicals at Interior opposed restrictions on the use of public lands. Immediately after the election, conservative Republican Congressman David Dreier asked Schwarzenegger, at the behest of the White House, to abandon support for the Framework. Schwarzenegger refused, but noted that if changes to the Framework were warranted by new information or science, the Framework should be modified by the same thoughtful, inclusive stakeholder process that had resulted in the original plan. This seemed to appease the White House. Bush senior political adviser Karl Rove promised that no federal action would be taken on Framework protections, especially logging, without extensive discussions with the state and all stakeholders. And yet, in the late afternoon of Jan. 21, 2004, Gov. Schwarzenegger received word that the U.S. Forest Service would announce a new plan for the Sierra Nevada, tripling logging levels over the Framework agreement. Schwarzenegger's office and California Environmental Protection Administration Commissioner Terry Tamminen tried frantically to reach administration officials but all calls went unanswered. To emphasize its contempt for the process, the Forest Service held a press conference in the Sacramento Hyatt, directly across the street from the governor's office, to announce its plan. Republicans and Democrats alike in the Schwarzenegger administration were furious at the betrayal and astounded at the hardheaded arrogance that accompanied the broken promise.  Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is senior attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council, chief prosecuting attorney for Riverkeeper, and president of the Waterkeeper Alliance. His new book is Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Highjacking Our Democracy. http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/19461/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vigil Posted August 8, 2004 Report Share Posted August 8, 2004 (edited) Don't know what to make of this. Any American wanna comment? Yeah, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. supports environmental groups, but is a hypocrite in my opinion because he uses a private jet to get around. If he truly wants to "save the planet" then he should have no problem catcing a train.  In fact, If anyone wants to save the "planet" they should isolate themselves from the modern world because the actions of industrialized nations will always conflict with the needs of the environment.  Like I stated earlier, capitalism does not discriminate. Edited August 11, 2004 by Vigil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.