|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
 Posted - 08/29/2001 : 19:08:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally used to illustrate my point regarding natural factors and pollution. Denver is a pollution sink because of the geography of the area and weather caused by the geography here.
There was no intention of a strawman here. My apologies that you read it that way.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
 |
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 15:45:23 [Permalink]
|
quote:
There was no intention of a strawman here. My apologies that you read it that way.
Thanks for the clarification. No need to apologise at all. Truthfully, I wasn't going to say anything about it until you accused me of a straw man argument. Perhaps a little immature on my part.
Your illustration does however provide a good startup for a debate on the resposibility for pollution. Do you have any relevant facts/data/publicized opinion?
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2001 : 21:02:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Thanks for the clarification. No need to apologise at all. Truthfully, I wasn't going to say anything about it until you accused me of a straw man argument. Perhaps a little immature on my part.
Your illustration does however provide a good startup for a debate on the resposibility for pollution. Do you have any relevant facts/data/publicized opinion?
Hey we all prefer reason over emotive response, however, we all have our buttons.
Info regarding how the geography/weather here trap particulate matter in the trough? Or are you looking for specific amounts of particulate levels prior to settlers in the area? Or are you looking for something else here?
The first won't take long for me to find, the second will take a bit. It's been a long time since I took geology and we discussed this issue in class. I'll have to see if I can find those notes and get references otherwise I must start from ground zero.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/01/2001 : 18:25:21 [Permalink]
|
Trish,
I read in the NY Times this morning that Denver has been taken off of the list of cities that continually do not meet regulations for pollutants. Did you hear this? It has been my contention in this discussion that there are always ways around these pollution problems. It just depends on how much effort individuals, corporations, and government want to expend. Have you noticed how filthy the exhaust from trucks and busses is? There is no reason for these vehicles to be so polluting except that we allow it.
My question had to do with the atmospheric conditions that you mentioned and also the statement that you made about prehistoric particulate levels. I would be willing to bet that if you look in the area of Naples (Italy), you would be able to find many periods in which the atmospheric particulate level was orders of magnitude higher than current worst case. did volcanism have any thing to do with prehistoric atmospheric particulate levels? It's my understanding that the current area of Yellowstone Park is an ancient cauldera. There were/are many more volcanoes in the western US but most are hundreds of miles from Denver. I'm just trying to obtain an understanding of why ancient particulate levels would have been higher.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/02/2001 : 08:24:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
My question had to do with the atmospheric conditions that you mentioned and also the statement that you made about prehistoric particulate levels. I would be willing to bet that if you look in the area of Naples (Italy), you would be able to find many periods in which the atmospheric particulate level was orders of magnitude higher than current worst case. did volcanism have any thing to do with prehistoric atmospheric particulate levels? It's my understanding that the current area of Yellowstone Park is an ancient cauldera. There were/are many more volcanoes in the western US but most are hundreds of miles from Denver. I'm just trying to obtain an understanding of why ancient particulate levels would have been higher.
Mostly ash from forest fires carried into the area and trapped by air inversions. Other contributing factors (tho not as high) were camp fires of various tribes that traveled through the area. Mostly forest fires. Remember before we started putting out fires, they just ran their course and filled the skies with ash.
Well, I can still look toward Denver and see our Brown Clowd covering the city. Being taken off the list is due to the restriction on lighting a fire in the fire place on the cold night when the air is bad. Busses and big trucks still blow black smoke, tho this exhaust can be filtered.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2001 : 05:43:24 [Permalink]
|
Here is a good article outlining how corporations muddy the waters of truth. Many people are stuck in this false dilemma that we either can have jobs and economic prosperity or a clean environment. There is no evidence that this is true.
http://www.westchesterweekly.com/articles/prnation.html
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2001 : 08:51:57 [Permalink]
|
Greg, I'm not arguing that point. My point was that in areas there are other environmental factors that should be looked at, like the geography and weather. It should be understood that these thing (natural causes) can affect the environment.
I said this once before, somewhere I'm sure, that I really don't know enough about the issue of global warming and CO2 levels in the atmosphere to say yes it's all man caused (industrial revolution), no it's all natural (sun cycles, end of little ice age) or it's a combination. I think it most likely is a combination (opinion only). Nor, do I know enough to judge whether it's a direct result of CO2 emissions from industrialization or natural sources.
I do know enough to know that dumping wastes in the environment is a bad thing. I agree with the legislation supporting clean up of these types of spills/dumps etc. I live between two EPA superfund sites, The Rocky Mountain Arsenal and Rocky Flats (both of these are dealing with nuclear wastes primarily). At the Rocky Mountain Arsenal they keep finding seren gas bomblets, when they found the first 4 they didn't even know if there was anything they could do to destroy the things effectively. Fortunately, they were successful in destroying them, because when they did it, I was working within less than one mile of the facility.
As for towing a corporate line, I don't think I am nor is that my intention. I'm trying to find my way in something that I am unfamiliar with, but using Denver as an example that I am familiar with in the area of both causes by nature and people.
I think that a little prevention is worth a lot of cure. That legislation should be considered to require higher standards for new facilities for now.
But my question remains, do we really know enough to say: yes, industrialization is the sole cause of warming; no, sun cycles and the end of the little ice age are the sole cause of warming; or we don't know, but it is most likely a cause of both, now we need to find where the balance is between industrializations impact and the impact of natural causes.
I think we're somewhere in area three and that we don't yet know enough to understand or determine exactly where to place that line of demarkation between industrialization and nature.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2001 : 17:42:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Greg, I'm not arguing that point. My point was that in areas there are other environmental factors that should be looked at, like the geography and weather. It should be understood that these thing (natural causes) can affect the environment.
Trish,
I did not target my last post toward you, it is just a general information thing. Sorry I didn't make that clear.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2001 : 18:44:54 [Permalink]
|
Trish,
What do we know about CO2 and its relationship to global temperature?
Fact. The atmospheric CO2 content now is significantly higher than it has been through the last several interglacial periods.
Fact. The atmospheric CO2 content is accelerating and has been for ~100 years and even more rapidly since ~1950.
Fact. Global average temperature is rising and that rise is accelerating.
Fact. There is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 content and global temperature.
Fact. There is a well understood and experimentally verifiable mechanism of greenhouse gas warming, it's called infrared absorption. CO2 is a particularly strong infrared absorber as are chlorofluorocarbons.
Yes, there is a natural cycle of global climate change. It's very likely however that the anthropogenic inputs of greenhouse gasses will adversely affect the cycles.
The major anthropogenic input of greenhouse gasses come from burning fossil fuels.
Fossil fuel burning is the major anthropogenic source of fine particulate pollution.
Fossil fuel burning is the cause of acid rain.
Fossil fuel burning in cooperation with certain atmospheric conditions causes ozone smog which is very hazardous to health.
Fossil fuels are limited, non-renewable resources.
Extraction of fossil fuels is a very highly polluting activity in itself. Ecosystems can be and are repeatedly destroyed.
What is the logical conclusion?
Cut down significantly on fossil fuel use. There are many ideas kicking around on how best to do this, some right here in this forum.
The oil companies, power companies, coal mining companies, and the current Administration have all labelled arguments similar to that above as "junk science".
You be the judge.
Greg.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/03/2001 : 19:43:00 [Permalink]
|
Rats, I really don't want to get involved in this again, but I...can't....resist...!
All I'm going to say, is that Greg, your 'facts' above are at the heart of this whole discussion, and that is to say that whether they are 'facts' is what we're debating.
I implore anyone here that hasn't already done so to read this one page. I know it's full of facts and figures, graphs and data, but if you can just get through it, it's not that long, maybe it can put some of these media soundbyte 'facts' into perspective:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2001 : 01:05:29 [Permalink]
|
Maybe you should also look at http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
Then find your own planet to test your idea that we aren't causing global warming.
Radioactive GM Crops.
Slightly above background.
Safe to eat.
But no activist would dare rip it out.
As they think it gives them cancer. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2001 : 05:54:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Then find your own planet to test your idea that we aren't causing global warming.
*yawn*
------------
Hope springs eternal but there's no conviction
Actions mistaken for lip service paid
All this concern is the true contradiction
The world is insane... |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2001 : 08:43:25 [Permalink]
|
You can yawn, but plenty of us feel that there is more than enough evidence that we are causing global warming.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/04/2001 : 09:45:53 [Permalink]
|
quote:
All I'm going to say, is that Greg, your 'facts' above are at the heart of this whole discussion, and that is to say that whether they are 'facts' is what we're debating.
We have already discussed this site ad nauseum. The paper involved makes two separate arguments. First, that global warming is not occurring. Secondly, that global warming is good. One could sign this petition if they agreed with either argument, making it almost a no-lose situation.
This may come as a shock but scientists are not smarter or more skeptical than any other college educated people and probably quite a few non-college educated people. This is why science as a discipline does not trust scientists. Science trusts methodology over human intuition. There is something called peer review that ensures that any consensus is built upon the preponderance of the data rather than ones gut feeling, or wishful thinking, or political/economic philosophy.
What follows is a simple illustration of my point. One could get 50,00 scientists and engineers to sign a petition stating that God exists by giving an argument by intelligent design. Would you consider this to be scientific proof of God's existence? Whether or not 50,00 scientists are willing to buy into an intelligent design argument is totally irrelevant to whether or not God exists. But the petition above is like saying that intelligent design proves God's existence but even if it doesn't, God still could exist. A no-lose situation.
What I have stated as facts above are what the preponderance of the literature suggests. Unless of course, most of the scientists who actually write peer reviewed papers on this subject are part of some global conspiracy to destroy the fossil fuel producers.
Greg
|
|
|
|
Greg
Skeptic Friend
USA
281 Posts |
Posted - 09/05/2001 : 03:24:41 [Permalink]
|
Here is an interesting link describing the stealth approach that various corporations are involved in to discredit the science of global warming.
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1997Q4/warming.html
Note the comments about "reposition global warming as just a theory" and "see how the science approach sells". Sound familiar?
It appears from this article that US politicians have been manipulated by what were sold as "grassroots" efforts that were actually corporate PR scams.
Greg.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
