"Its power is fed by greed, blindness and complacency in the present generation, and we know that this giant wreaks havoc though the immense power of the weather systems, which are themselves unpredictable."
Winter Olympians Call For Climate Action: "On behalf of the more than 100 Olympians that have signed this letter, we’re urging you to act in Paris to set limits on global emissions and take meaningful steps forward in fighting climate change. It can be done and let’s use the global stage of the Olympics as the call to action."
"With oil setting the marginal price of electricity, retail electricity prices in the Caribbean are among the highest in the world, hindering economic development, job creation and quality of life,” said Crane, CEO of NRG. "By tapping into each island’s specific, readily available and ample renewable energy resources, we can achieve an immediate and significant reduction of operating expenses, imported fuel cost, carbon footprint and other air emissions and noise pollution. The renewables-driven micro-grid solution being designed and installed on Necker is intended to demonstrate this and provide a scalable real life application relevant to other islands of the Caribbean."
What I THINK is that this movement is driven by the desire to aquire power and money.
Conversely, it is at least equally possible that "this movement" is driven primarily by science, reason, and altruism, and the opposition is being driven primarily by the desire to preserve and maintain the status quo with respect to power and money.
I also don't think that one can ethically complain about government-funded climate-science research without also subjecting the tax-funded subsidies paid to fossil-fuel and transportation (primarily railroad) industries to similar scrutiny. If you are going to talk about the cost of "green" energy from renewable sources, you're also going to have to talk about the total cost, both direct and indirect, of competing fossil fuel technologies.
quote
Even if greenhouse gases COULD be reduced to the point of reversing or even SLOWING any climate change, it would have to be done on a GLOBAL scale.
Agreed ... but you can't change the entire world, only your small part of it at best. Even the longest journey begins with a single step. If no one ever takes that first step, though, none of us will ever get anywhere.
Development of renewable energy resources is a good idea, on several levels, even if global warming and climate change were not occurring.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-13-2014).]
Wow! This is a fast moving thread. I was like, where the crap is my post!? LOL
quote
Marvin: I also don't think that one can ethically complain about government-funded climate-science research without also subjecting the tax-funded subsidies paid to fossil-fuel and transportation (primarily railroad) industries to similar scrutiny.
I definately don't want to sound like I'm complaining about research. I'm not. I believe we should know everything we can. I'm just saying if the scientists can create a panic, they create a greater need for themselves and their work. In other words, it is in their best interest to promote global warming. I feel the same way about lawyers and politicians. They seem to spend more time figuring out how to create a reason for you to come back than they do on fixing what you went to them for in the first place.
As for subsidies being paid to providers of the goods and services that millions of people need and use, it was their money in taxes in the first place. In theory, it should be lowering their out of pocket costs for electricity, etc.
quote
Boostdreamer: Even if greenhouse gases COULD be reduced to the point of reversing or even SLOWING any climate change, it would have to be done on a GLOBAL scale.
quote
Marvin: Agreed ... but you can't change the entire world
That is my point. There is no need for us to get in a panic trying to change our lifestyle when our efforts would only be a drop in the global bucket. We should ABSOLUTELY track this stuff, learn what we can, try to dertermine what the root causes are, and make a plan to act should those actions become necessary. Knowledge! Let's get it. Then when the rest of the planet agrees with the theory of the impending doom, we will know how to instruct them to help be involved in the solution.
Til then, we would just be spinning our wheels and paying through the nose to do it.
That is my point. There is no need for us to get in a panic trying to change our lifestyle when our efforts would only be a drop in the global bucket.
Your point is that since we don't know everything with 100% certainty we should do nothing. That is perhaps a valid position, but one that I strongly disagree with. I'm a believer in doing what you can with what you know, and retaining the flexibility to change our behavior as our knowledge improves.
quote
Then when the rest of the planet agrees with the theory of the impending doom, we will know how to instruct them to help be involved in the solution.
I don't know how to respond to that level of nationalistic arrogance. I will just point out that the U.S., by Congressional veto, is still one of the very few countries to reject the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 in its entirety. It appears that we are the ones with our heads in the sand (or perhaps other places).
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-13-2014).]
Marvin, do you even know how to post WITHOUT being inflamatory?
quote
Marvin said: Your point is that since we don't know everything with 100% certainty we should do nothing.
How did you make a leap to that from this?
quote
Boostdreamer said: We should ABSOLUTELY track this stuff, learn what we can, try to dertermine what the root causes are, and make a plan to act should those actions become necessary
quote
Marvin said: I'm a believer in doing what you can with what you know, and retaining the flexibility to change our behavior as our knowledge improves.
In most cases, all people believe in that. That is nothing special or different than me or anyone else. You seem to be implying that this sets you apart? Am I misreading this? As you said before, it will take a GLOBAL EFFORT to see any results. If that global effort is not in place, what value will your efforts be? At what cost? I would like to retain flexibility also. What if we see that attempts to change or influence the rest of the world is futile? I would rather put my efforts into going underground or making some other self-sustaining decision. When faced with that sort of realization, it is time to get off your bicycle-powered atmosphere de-toxifier and find a place to hide.
quote
Marvin said: I don't know how to respond to that level of nationalistic arrogance. I will just point out that the U.S., by Congressional veto, is still one of the very few countries to reject the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 in its entirety. It appears that we are the ones with our heads in the sand (or perhaps other places).
Damn if you don't try your best to pick a fight! What nationalistic arrogance? I made no mention to the United States. I only stated SCIENTISTS and WE. "We" meaning those who have studied and posess the knowledge of the phenomenon who can give it to the other nations around the world who are NOT in posession of the facts, ideas, and plans.
What nationalistic arrogance? I made no mention to the United States.
Your exact post was:
quote
Originally posted by Boostdreamer:
Then when the rest of the planet agrees with the theory of the impending doom, we will know how to instruct them to help be involved in the solution.
As you used it, "we" is exclusionary. Just what "we" were you speaking of vs. "the rest of the planet." "We" as a country vs. "other nations?" "We" as the enlightened ones? "We" as elite recipients of revealed truth? You've already established that don't believe those corrupt scientists who are paid for their work. I must also point out that "climate scientists" includes a lot of competent people from "the rest of the planet," not just where "we" live.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-13-2014).]
As you used it, "we" is exclusionary. Just what "we" were you speaking of vs. "the rest of the planet." "We" as a country? "We" as "the enlightened ones?" "We" as elite recipients of revealed truth? I must also point out that "climate scientists" includes a lot of competent people from "the rest of the planet," not just where "we" live.
Are you unable to accept that I had no ill will in my post? Do you refuse to accept my explanation of "we"?
quote
Boostdreamer said: "We" meaning those who have studied and posess the knowledge of the phenomenon who can give it to the other nations around the world who are NOT in posession of the facts, ideas, and plans.
Also, how did you leap to this:
quote
Marvin said: You've already established that don't believe those corrupt scientists who are paid for their work
From this:
quote
I definately don't want to sound like I'm complaining about research. I'm not. I believe we should know everything we can. We should ABSOLUTELY track this stuff, learn what we can, try to dertermine what the root causes are, and make a plan to act should those actions become necessary. Knowledge! Let's get it.
Pine much for an antagonist? I guess my request to have a civil discussion went out the window.
If China and India (and some other countries, such as Australia and Poland) persist and increase their reliance on coal-fired electrical power plants and other fossil fuels, it does seem to make it a moot point whether the U.S. and Canada are "in" or "out", as far as carbon dioxide (CO2) reductions.
The flip side of this is that if the U.S. and Canada do not get conspicuously out in front of the global pack with effective plans to reduce their own CO2 emissions, then the U.S. and Canadian governments will not have the "street creds" for any efforts to move China, India and the other such countries onto the path of becoming fully vested in CO2 reduction programs in parallel with the U.S. and Canada.
^^^ I agree. Lets gain the knowledge and devise a plan and even implement it on a small scale somewhere that can be monitored to learn the effects. Control the costs so the public doesn't have to suffer higher taxes and loss of services. When THE SCIENTISTS can prove what they think they know and can show that their solution is sound and repeatable, show it to the world! If they accept it and get on board? Phase III kicks in and the world unites to combat this problem. If not, there will be no need for THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT to tax THE US CITIZENS in an attempt to tow the line.
^^^ I agree. Lets gain the knowledge and devise a plan and even implement it on a small scale somewhere that can be monitored to learn the effects. Control the costs so the public doesn't have to suffer higher taxes and loss of services. When THE SCIENTISTS can prove what they think they know and can show that their solution is sound and repeatable, show it to the world! If they accept it and get on board? Phase III kicks in and the world unites to combat this problem. If not, there will be no need for THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT to tax THE US CITIZENS in an attempt to tow the line.
How are you supporting your position of "Lets gain the knowledge" when a few posts ago you said....
quote
I think these are the most important questions. I don't know if the phenomenon is true or not. I don't know what information is out there. I don't know what information is being suppressed. I don't know if these numbers and stats are apple-to-apple comparisons.
^^^ I agree. Lets gain the knowledge and devise a plan and even implement it on a small scale somewhere that can be monitored to learn the effects. Control the costs so the public doesn't have to suffer higher taxes and loss of services. When THE SCIENTISTS can prove what they think they know and can show that their solution is sound and repeatable, show it to the world! If they accept it and get on board? Phase III kicks in and the world unites to combat this problem. If not, there will be no need for THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT to tax THE US CITIZENS in an attempt to tow the line.
Yes let's wait until it's too late, I'm sure the fossil fuel giants would like nothing more. Do you understand that it's more likely that it will cost more than just higher taxes and loss of services if Climate Change is left unchecked?
How are you supporting your position of "Lets gain the knowledge" when a few posts ago you said...."I don't know if the phenomenon is true or not. I don't know what information is out there. I don't know what information is being suppressed. I don't know if these numbers and stats are apple-to-apple comparisons."
It's very simple really. I'm not a scientist. I have not participated in any of the research. I don't know what they have learned and what they have published. I don't need to understand how weather works in the same sense that I don't need to understand how my digital watch works. (don't bother trying to make a mountain out of this molehill, spoiler alert, I won't respond to it).
I have not said it is happening or it is not. I'm not in posession of the facts that would make it possible to come to that conclusion. What I am saying is that as long as it is being funded, learn all that you can. In other words, if you're going to spend my money, I'd appreciate it if you would attempt to maximize your efforts.
Also, I suggested that it be tested on a small scale. Bio-dome perhaps? Maybe that is science-fiction. Don't know. For me it is about cost. The cost of the research, the cost of alternate energy sources, the cost of leaving cheap coal in the ground and forcing people to use expensive solar and wind technology, the cost of my community working and suffering to the point of economic collapse while the rest of the world throws another log on the fire. That's what point I'm trying to make.
Even if SCIENTISTS can isolate the problem and the cure, the UNITED STATES cannot save the planet by themselves. If the USA tries to save the world by themselves, they will have squandered all of their resources and efforts for nothing.
Yes let's wait until it's too late, I'm sure the fossil fuel giants would like nothing more. Do you understand that it's more likely that it will cost more than just higher taxes and loss of services if Climate Change is left unchecked?
Why do you feel the need to change my quotes and twist my meanings? I understand what you're saying. Are you having trouble understanding that my point is that A GLOBAL PROBLEM REQUIRES A GLOBAL EFFORT TO SOLVE. period.
You don't have to wait till it's too late. You and the rest of Canada can start now if you want. The problem is that you cannot change the world or its problems. You can lead by example and hope, but that is about it. Trying to get the world together on this thing will be harder than getting PFF members to agree in TO/T. Good luck. I admire your commitment even if I don't agree with your approach.
Marvin said: You've already established that don't believe those corrupt scientists who are paid for their work
Probably from these two posts:
quote
Originally posted by Boostdreamer:
Have the budgets of the scientists been increased since 'global warming due to human activity' became mainstream? I'd like to compare pics of the work spaces of these scientists then and now.
quote
Originally posted by Boostdreamer:
I'm just saying if the scientists can create a panic, they create a greater need for themselves and their work.
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-13-2014).]
Early farmers boosted Earth's temperature by 1.6 degreesFahrenheit (0.9 degrees Celsius) over a period of 8,000 years, a new study suggests.
"This is almost as large as the global warming in the past 150 years," said Feng He, lead study author and a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. "That means early agricultural is as powerful as the whole Industrial Revolution."
However, the study concludes that the net warming caused by early humans was only 1.3 degrees F (0.73 degrees C), thanks to a slight cooling of 0.31 degrees F (0.17 degrees C) due to more sunlight reflecting from cleared land. . . .
Looking at this the other way around, the planet has seen more global warming since 1860 than the net warming for the 8000 years before 1860.
It's very simple really. I'm not a scientist. I have not participated in any of the research. I don't know what they have learned and what they have published. I don't need to understand how weather works in the same sense that I don't need to understand how my digital watch works. (don't bother trying to make a mountain out of this molehill, spoiler alert, I won't respond to it).
I have not said it is happening or it is not. I'm not in posession of the facts that would make it possible to come to that conclusion. What I am saying is that as long as it is being funded, learn all that you can. In other words, if you're going to spend my money, I'd appreciate it if you would attempt to maximize your efforts.
So what facts would you need to make a decision to think if it's happening or not? There is a ton of information out there. The vast majority of experts are in agreement.
One doesn't need expertise in the field to trust the experts. If a smoker was diagnosed with lung cancer and a panel of 100 oncologists agreed 97 to 3 that the smoker should quit smoking and get treatment, would it be prudent for the patient to maybe just cut down and take a portion of the treatment? Should he wait until all 100 oncologists agreed? either way I think you get the analogy.
quote
Originally posted by Boostdreamer:
Also, I suggested that it be tested on a small scale. Bio-dome perhaps? Maybe that is science-fiction. Don't know. For me it is about cost. The cost of the research, the cost of alternate energy sources, the cost of leaving cheap coal in the ground and forcing people to use expensive solar and wind technology, the cost of my community working and suffering to the point of economic collapse while the rest of the world throws another log on the fire. That's what point I'm trying to make.
Even if SCIENTISTS can isolate the problem and the cure, the UNITED STATES cannot save the planet by themselves. If the USA tries to save the world by themselves, they will have squandered all of their resources and efforts for nothing.
Which is more "expensive" importing a finite resource or building renewable domestic energy?
quote
Originally posted by Boostdreamer:
Even if SCIENTISTS can isolate the problem and the cure, the UNITED STATES cannot save the planet by themselves. If the USA tries to save the world by themselves, they will have squandered all of their resources and efforts for nothing.
Who ever mentioned the U.S.? They've been dragging their heals on this issue for years.
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-14-2014).]
Why do you feel the need to change my quotes and twist my meanings? I understand what you're saying. Are you having trouble understanding that my point is that A GLOBAL PROBLEM REQUIRES A GLOBAL EFFORT TO SOLVE. period.
You don't have to wait till it's too late. You and the rest of Canada can start now if you want. The problem is that you cannot change the world or its problems. You can lead by example and hope, but that is about it. Trying to get the world together on this thing will be harder than getting PFF members to agree in TO/T. Good luck. I admire your commitment even if I don't agree with your approach.
I agree it will take a global effort but as we see the fossil fuel giants have a vested interest in trying to confuse the issue. I also agree that it it's up to the individual to help as much as possible.
I find it ironic that climate scientists are accused of being corrupt and money-driven, and somehow the fossil fuel industry gets a pass. I mean, seriously...the fossil fuel industry?
I find it ironic that climate scientists are accused of being corrupt and money-driven, and somehow the fossil fuel industry gets a pass. I mean, seriously...the fossil fuel industry?
C'mon you know the rich scientists and researchers and their extravagant lifestyles!
[This message has been edited by newf (edited 02-14-2014).]
I find it ironic that climate scientists are accused of being corrupt and money-driven, and somehow the fossil fuel industry gets a pass. I mean, seriously...the fossil fuel industry?
quote
C'mon you know the rich scientists and researchers and their extravagant lifestyles!
It just isn't a real conversation unless all statements are pushed to the extreme is it? I wish my money was always trumped up way over face value like forum comments are! I'd have that black Porsche Cayman in my driveway now!
I immediately reject anything and everything associated with man-made global warming because at every opportunity, the powers that be attempt to use this issue as a means of coercion and to increase their power. The idea of carbon credits is ridiculous, and the fact that every UN proposal basically attempts to take from America and give to everyone else, is absolutely ridiculous to me. You guys can go on and on, but that remains pretty much every situation that has come about. I certainly believe the Earth has gone through many, many cycles over the past 20 or so billion years, I see this as no different.
Besides, every Progressive / Democrat issue is simply an exercise in giving up rights to the discretion of the "more intelligent" liberal elite.
It just isn't a real conversation unless all statements are pushed to the extreme is it? I wish my money was always trumped up way over face value like forum comments are! I'd have that black Porsche Cayman in my driveway now!
I immediately reject anything and everything associated with man-made global warming because at every opportunity, the powers that be attempt to use this issue as a means of coercion and to increase their power. The idea of carbon credits is ridiculous, and the fact that every UN proposal basically attempts to take from America and give to everyone else, is absolutely ridiculous to me. You guys can go on and on, but that remains pretty much every situation that has come about. I certainly believe the Earth has gone through many, many cycles over the past 20 or so billion years, I see this as no different.
Besides, every Progressive / Democrat issue is simply an exercise in giving up rights to the discretion of the "more intelligent" liberal elite.
It's certainly your right ignore good science because of a personal political bias. Seems like it's more the fringe that believes your positions though.
I immediately reject anything and everything associated with man-made global warming because at every opportunity, the powers that be attempt to use this issue as a means of coercion and to increase their power.
That is a bad reason to discredit the science itself.
You have to separate the politics from the science. The science is extremely solid - I doubt there's such a consensus among researchers on many topics, except maybe the health effects from smoking - and to expect 100% agreement or certainty is unrealistic and unreasonable.
You really think that climate scientists are more "bought out" than the status quo that is defending the fossil fuel industry? First off, becoming a researcher or scientist is not easy, and there are many professions that are easier and more lucrative. Most scientists are in the field because they want to be, and they aren't going to sell out so easily.
The political side is a whole separate issue, and I fully understand that side of it.
[sarcasm] This must be really disappointing news to all the climatologists who spent years of study earning their PhDs, when all they had to do was memorize Doug85GT's six "very clearly defined" climate types. [/sarcasm]
Rave on, dude!
[This message has been edited by Marvin McInnis (edited 02-14-2014).]
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: I immediately reject anything and everything associated with man-made global warming because at every opportunity, the powers that be attempt to use this issue as a means of coercion and to increase their power.
The future will be really awkward when people start to realize this attitude was a self fulfilling prophecy.
Study: Long-term dynamics of household size and their environmental implications: "Findings reveal that developed nations reached a threshold in 1893 when average household size began to drop rapidly from approximately 5.0 to 2.5. A similar threshold was reached in developing nations in 1987. With the notable exceptions of Ireland, and England and Wales in the early 1800s, and India and the Seychelles in the late 1900s, the number of households grew faster than population size in every country and every time period. These findings suggest accommodating housing may continue to pose one of the greatest environmental challenges of the twenty-first century because the impacts of increased housing present a threat to sustainability even when population growth slows."
[This message has been edited by FlyinFieros (edited 02-14-2014).]
[sarcasm] This must be really disappointing news to all the climatologists who spent years of study earning their PhDs, when all they had to do was memorize Doug85GT's six "very clearly defined" climate types. [/sarcasm]
"Many of Alaska's highways are built on permafrost. When permafrost thaws, roads buckle. Vehicles are only allowed to drive across certain roads in the tundra when the ground is frozen solid. In the past 30 years, the number of days when travel is allowed on the tundra has decreased from 200 days to 100 days per year." Source.
I made no mention to the United States. I only stated SCIENTISTS and WE. "We" meaning those who have studied and posess the knowledge of the phenomenon who can give it to the other nations around the world who are NOT in posession of the facts, ideas, and plans.
