|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
 Posted - 07/02/2001 : 15:22:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Ever get the feeling it's you, me, and Zman against the world here?
hehe for a while there I thought it was just me! Thanks for jumping in over on the John Stossel thread.
Also, on your posts showing up twice, you should be able to go back to any of your previous posts and hit the delete button on the title bar. Look for the little trashcan.
------------
Gambatte kudasai! |
 |
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 16:07:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
First, the Precautionary Principle: You're right in that the reaction is extreme both ways and industry will of course complain that any requirements are too onerous. The fact that we know they're exaggerating doesn't mean they're entirely wrong. My point is that there is no certainty to global warming and there MAY be harm from the precautions being advocated, harm that MAY be so damaging as to make it not a good idea to try them.
I've certainly never said whether the earth is cooling or warming. I do know that greenhouse gasses can contribute to warming and particulate matter contribute to cooling. I don't know enought about the entire issue to take a firm stand on one side or the other. I don't understand why industry is so staunchly against researching ways of controlling these emissions. OK, I understand this is just a small part of the issue.
Do you know why coal from CO is shipped east for their powerplants? Sulphur content and the costs involved in removing the sulphur from the burning of the coal. The resultant sludge (chemically the same as gypsum) is unusable by any industry.
quote:
And to clarify: of course reducing CO2 emissions would not be detrimental to the atmosphere; I was saying it might be more than detrimental to the economy and all the facets of our lives tied to it.
OK, I can agree with this. When they add oxidants to the gas here during the winter it does drive the cost up. And they still don't know whether this has a positive impact on the CO2 emissions from cars or not. However, without any inquiry into whether this will always be the case, can we say that it will definitely do anything to our economy.
quote:
You're not necessarily correct about the pre-industrialized world not dumping all the greenhouse gases into the atmosphere that we do today; (actually, I suspect you're right, but the difference is probably not so great as you think). I think the estimates now suggest that humans account for about 5% of all greenhouse gases but less than 1 or 2 per cent of all CO2. Eliminate all CO2 that humans put in the atmosphere: where's the science that says it will make a difference? Bestonnet has said that the slight comparative amount is enough to tip the balance, but again, where's the science?
Like I've said before, I don't know enough about the issue to really take a stand here.
quote:
But here's the science against:
The earth went through a warming trend from the second half of the 1800's through about 1940. Even the global warming theorists do not dispute this. But since 1940, the earth has if anything, cooled a bit. The satellite data confirm this. The surface temperature data are suspect. But the atmospheric CO2 increase has occurred in the majority since 1940. Why isn't the temperature increase concurrent with the CO2 increase?
I understand the cyclic nature of our climate. I haven't seen enough data on either side that would make me choose sides. I have seen damage to our environment from mining (slag ponds) and other industries here in the west. Erring on the side of caution in many instances has been the wiser course than total disregard. (Not saying this is what's going on mind, just an opinion.)
quote:
Trish, I almost forgot: when you mentioned Denver as a pollution sink, it made me think of the CO2 sinks I had mentioned previously. In this context, a CO2 'sink' is an area that consumes it, i.e., it's not pollution. The U.S. 'consumes' more CO2 than it produces. The same is not true of Europe.
I wasn't aware of this....what's the source? where can I find the info? and all that happy stuff? 
quote:
And I know what you mean about the Denver pollution. I lived along the front range for a few years, including a year in Denver proper (Fort Collins and Colorado Springs were the other places; found the home I want in Estes Park as soon as someone gives me a million and a half dollars tax free).
Well, better increase that mil and a half... Oh, and a lot more people have moved into Estes in the last few years. Though the town proper has maintained its old *charm*. I'd prefer to move to Rifle or Eagle (they're far enough from ski resorts to still be small towns!
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 19:01:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I understand the cyclic nature of our climate. I haven't seen enough data on either side that would make me choose sides. I have seen damage to our environment from mining (slag ponds) and other industries here in the west. Erring on the side of caution in many instances has been the wiser course than total disregard. (Not saying this is what's going on mind, just an opinion.)
I think we're in near total agreement. As I've said, I'm not a scientist, so all my info comes from sources that I have to make value judgments about. I'm not convinced that global warming ISN'T happening. I just don't see enough info for radical steps, which Kyoto, at least, is. There's still time to study and enough good scientists on both sides to do it.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trish, I almost forgot: when you mentioned Denver as a pollution sink, it made me think of the CO2 sinks I had mentioned previously. In this context, a CO2 'sink' is an area that consumes it, i.e., it's not pollution. The U.S. 'consumes' more CO2 than it produces. The same is not true of Europe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't aware of this....what's the source? where can I find the info? and all that happy stuff?
I'm not at my normal computer and desk. I'll post some of the info tomorrow.
quote:
Well, better increase that mil and a half... Oh, and a lot more people have moved into Estes in the last few years. Though the town proper has maintained its old *charm*. I'd prefer to move to Rifle or Eagle (they're far enough from ski resorts to still be small towns!
Agreed. I like the one house in Estes not because of Estes but because of its style, lot layout (40 acres), and view which was the most phenomenal I've seen anywhere short of being on the peaks themselves.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 20:49:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
This is indeed sad, but not the same topic. I'm rather on the fence about this, I admit. I'm for saving species, but not all, and not at all costs. Further, I would
like to see the book listing all species that have gone extinct with this book as just a chapter. What percentage of extinctions are human-induced?
It wasn't meant to be the same subject, got sidetracked with "Tampering With Nature". It actually is indirectly related human activity as is C02 emissions and global warming.
I'll have to disagree with you on this one. I think it is a huge mistake to let ANY species go extinct, even if we weren't the cause for it. We are in the biggest mass extinction since the cretaceous.
The average extinction rate without man is thought to be around once every four years. Estimates of the extinction rate now goes from 17,000 a year to 100,000 a year, the vast majority in the tropics where a species maybe limited to a couple of acres of rainforest. (There are, of course, people that say even the lowest figure is a gross exaggeration)
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~nwoolard/me/indexa.html
What ever the rate I think even causing the extinction of ONE species is wrong, and I'm for helping even those species who are going extinct even without our help.
This quote pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole thing-
quote:
Perhaps the best reason why these species should be saved was proposed by Rick Gore in National Geographic (June 1989)
when he said "For the first time, a living organism can consciously do something to halt a mass extinction. Perhaps most important, for the first time a living creature can gaze out across the species of the Earth and say : This is beautiful. I care. I will not let it go."
|
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 21:45:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I'll have to disagree with you on this one. I think it is a huge mistake to let ANY species go extinct, even if we weren't the cause for it. We are in the biggest mass extinction since the cretaceous.
This could be a fun discussion in itself, but I've very little knowledge on it so it would be mostly philosophy. That's not a bad thing; but this board is already addictive...
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 23:20:08 [Permalink]
|
Hey all....I started a new spot under psuedoscience for the global warming thing. I know that Garrette has made comments about this being under both astronomy and general folders. So I thought consolidation of the debate in one folder would be easier to deal with for those who are debating the issue and those trying to follow along.
I know most of you will be happy to get back to bitching about the trolls over at BA. Hee, hee, so will I if I ever get time to research and respond to some of the subjects over there.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2001 : 23:49:34 [Permalink]
|
Good going Trish. I thought of that while I was at work today, but I'm just getting home. (It's 2300 MST) This whole "global warming" and "man's influence on the environment" topic seems to be scattered all over the forum right now.
Can we beat up on JW now?
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2001 : 12:47:59 [Permalink]
|
Sure lets beat up on JW....He's the yoyo that decided that the bloody practices of the church were the same as abortion. LOL!
So what's he doin' now!?
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 10:45:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Sure lets beat up on JW....He's the yoyo that decided that the bloody practices of the church were the same as abortion. LOL!
So what's he doin' now!?
I haven't checked this morning, but as of last night, he's been pretty quiet. Everyone seems to be sort of ignoring him. No massive flames to get him stirred up.
Check out Rubysue's response to "Will". At the beginning of it, she state it will be a patented Rubysue rant. When I read that, I made sure I went and got a fresh cup of coffee. It's a classic! Hadn't laughed that hard in days. The only thing she left out was the Illuminati and the Camp Fire Girls. What I wouldn't give to have her imagination and writing skills.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
rubysue
Skeptic Friend
USA
199 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2001 : 12:53:43 [Permalink]
|
Why, thank you, Lisa, for the very kind words!  You made my day! I really like to write, but I'm too lazy to do anything meaningful so I practice on these boards.
Lisa and Trish, I hope you and your loved ones have a great Fourth! Here's an interesting link that I found the other day when I was arguing about voting rights over in the bumper sticker topic. It's worth reading today (and any day, actually)
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/exhibits.html
When I read the comments from "Will" over on the BABB the other night, I guess I just snapped. I wonder what it would take to make these hoaxers realize how stupid they sound when they mouth off about this vast conspiracy? I hope I didn't offend any of our nice regulars from Britain, though (e.g., Harold the Barrel).
Congrats on being asked to help moderate this board, by the way.
rubysue
If your head is wax, don't walk in the sun.
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 07/05/2001 : 02:48:45 [Permalink]
|
I, unfortunately, had to work on the fourth.
I know I didn't say much on your work on the amendments to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But I was in near complete agreement with you (ok complete but I have to retain my own perspective on the issue here). After I saw Garrettes and the BAs posts, well there wasn't much left to say.
Don't worry too often about snapping. We all have to otherwise we'd completely blow a gasket.
He's YOUR god, they're YOUR rules, YOU burn in hell! |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2001 : 02:02:03 [Permalink]
|
Good grief! Sequester is back. This time it's the tired yarn about the Van Allen belt. How many times do people have to explain the different types of radiation to this guy? Why does he insist on getting his information from HB sites?
Radiation bothers me too. It really bothered me when I worked out on my deck on a sunny day without much of a shirt on. Wait! How could a shirt have protected me from radiation? Perhaps I should have been wearing six feet of lead! Whatever. Pass the aloe.
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
The Bad Astronomer
Skeptic Friend
137 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2001 : 12:38:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why, thank you, Lisa, for the very kind words! You made my day! I really like to write, but I'm too lazy to do anything meaningful so I practice on these boards.
This isn't meaningful? ;-)
Actually, you should know that I started off the same way. I liked writing, so I wrote a humor column for a school newspaper, then started up the BA website a couple of years later. It got noticed, and now I get to write both for free (like right now!) as well as for the occasional Deutschmark.
My point is, if you like writing, write! Don't be afraid to send something to a magazine or newspaper (I suggest a newspaper first). You have a flair for it; you should encourage it.
Geez, I mean, look at this. I did the website as a lark, and now there is a completely different website with 18 pages of bitching about it! Fame at last!
*****
The Bad Astronomer
badastro@badastronomy.com
http://www.badastronomy.com |
|
|
|
Lisa
SFN Regular
USA
1223 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2001 : 13:20:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Geez, I mean, look at this. I did the website as a lark, and now there is a completely different website with 18 pages of bitching about it! Fame at last!
*****
The Bad Astronomer
badastro@badastronomy.com
http://www.badastronomy.com
BA, the proto-bitch board was under creation/evolution and had over 350 posts. Trish asked @tomic if we could have our own folder and he graciously created the Astronomy/Ufology folder. See? You're more famous than you thought!
Lisa
Chaos...Confusion...Destruction...My Work Here Is Done |
|
|
|
Rift
Skeptic Friend
USA
333 Posts |
Posted - 07/06/2001 : 13:31:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Geez, I mean, look at this. I did the website as a lark, and now there is a completely different website with 18 pages of bitching about it! Fame at last!
*****
The Bad Astronomer
badastro@badastronomy.com
http://www.badastronomy.com
Well, actually, we aren't bitching about the website, but the large number of cranks it seems to attract :P
Over the 3 year period I've been reading and posting and lurking the BABB I've seen geocentrists, anti-enstienians, moon hoad people, ufologists, stitchin worshippers, and probably a whole bunch more I've forgotten.
To be able to go some place and say "What a friggen moron" to like minded people is very stress reducing :)
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
