Global Warming (ignore the thread if you don't like the topi

Schmoe wrote:

We should start caring about our environment. Please do, before its gone.

Where is it going? I'm surrounded by national parks that no one can touch. A ridiculous amount of my state belongs to the federal government and can't be used for the oil (which would create jobs, lower gas prices, and, despite what hippies will tell you, does very little damage to the environment) or anything else. We do care about our environment, so much so that we're willing to make people homeless, bankrupt, and starving because of it.

I'm not a hippie, but I am one who beleives that the burning of fossil fuels does cause a lot of harm. A Lot. I appreciate the balance and competing needs and interests that we face and need to do as a society--jobs, the economy, and lifestyle. They are valid concerns. But so is preserving the world we live in. The continued and indeed the increasing burning of fossil fuels is of danger to our world.

BoiseBYU wrote:

danross wrote:
We should start caring about our environment. Please do, before its gone.

Where is it going? I'm surrounded by national parks that no one can touch. A ridiculous amount of my state belongs to the federal government and can't be used for the oil (which would create jobs, lower gas prices, and, despite what hippies will tell you, does very little damage to the environment) or anything else. We do care about our environment, so much so that we're willing to make people homeless, bankrupt, and starving because of it.

I'm not a hippie, but I am one who beleives that the burning of fossil fuels does cause a lot of harm. A Lot. I appreciate the balance and competing needs and interests that we face and need to do as a society--jobs, the economy, and lifestyle. They are valid concerns. But so is preserving the world we live in. The continued and indeed the increasing burning of fossil fuels is of danger to our world.

How are "fossil fuels" any more dangerous than other hydrocarbons?

BoiseBYU wrote:

danross wrote:
We should start caring about our environment. Please do, before its gone.

Where is it going? I'm surrounded by national parks that no one can touch. A ridiculous amount of my state belongs to the federal government and can't be used for the oil (which would create jobs, lower gas prices, and, despite what hippies will tell you, does very little damage to the environment) or anything else. We do care about our environment, so much so that we're willing to make people homeless, bankrupt, and starving because of it.

I'm not a hippie, but I am one who beleives that the burning of fossil fuels does cause a lot of harm. A Lot. I appreciate the balance and competing needs and interests that we face and need to do as a society--jobs, the economy, and lifestyle. They are valid concerns. But so is preserving the world we live in. The continued and indeed the increasing burning of fossil fuels is of danger to our world.

That's all fine and well, but making a statement like "We should start caring about our environment" implies that those who don't buy into the global warming hype somehow do not care about the environment or that "we" as a whole aren't taking steps that show that we care, when we are actually probably leaning too far on the side of caution, causing our people to suffer needlessly.

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

We should start caring about our environment. Please do, before its gone.

Where is it going? I'm surrounded by national parks that no one can touch. A ridiculous amount of my state belongs to the federal government and can't be used for the oil (which would create jobs, lower gas prices, and, despite what hippies will tell you, does very little damage to the environment) or anything else. We do care about our environment, so much so that we're willing to make people homeless, bankrupt, and starving because of it.

I'm not a hippie, but I am one who beleives that the burning of fossil fuels does cause a lot of harm. A Lot. I appreciate the balance and competing needs and interests that we face and need to do as a society--jobs, the economy, and lifestyle. They are valid concerns. But so is preserving the world we live in. The continued and indeed the increasing burning of fossil fuels is of danger to our world.

That's all fine and well, but making a statement like "We should start caring about our environment" implies that those who don't buy into the global warming hype somehow do not care about the environment or that "we" as a whole aren't taking steps that show that we care, when we are actually probably leaning too far on the side of caution, causing our people to suffer needlessly.

I hear you and understand your point. It is well taken. By the same turn though, calling folk like me "hippies" is not constructive nor helpful....

tww wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

We should start caring about our environment. Please do, before its gone.

Where is it going? I'm surrounded by national parks that no one can touch. A ridiculous amount of my state belongs to the federal government and can't be used for the oil (which would create jobs, lower gas prices, and, despite what hippies will tell you, does very little damage to the environment) or anything else. We do care about our environment, so much so that we're willing to make people homeless, bankrupt, and starving because of it.

I'm not a hippie, but I am one who beleives that the burning of fossil fuels does cause a lot of harm. A Lot. I appreciate the balance and competing needs and interests that we face and need to do as a society--jobs, the economy, and lifestyle. They are valid concerns. But so is preserving the world we live in. The continued and indeed the increasing burning of fossil fuels is of danger to our world.

How are "fossil fuels" any more dangerous than other hydrocarbons?

TWW, correct me if I am in error, but the large large portion of hydro carbons being burnt are coal and oil. The burning of these fuels pumps CO2 into the air. I realize methane etc also, when burned, release CO2 too and so that is a problem. But for most of the world, the problem is with oil and coal, yes?

For some reason this conversation has reminded me of this.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPSJW8ri34o

CO2 is what trees/plants inhale and O2 is what they exhale. I don't go around measuring it but it seems to me that all this CO2 would benifit the plants. I have also heard that the U S has more trees now than it did at the turn of the 19th century. Sorry I don't have a source on that. I am not convinced that carbon feuls are that bad.



Again this warming, if indeed there is one, is far from the only one in history.

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

danross wrote:
We should start caring about our environment. Please do, before its gone.

Where is it going? I'm surrounded by national parks that no one can touch. A ridiculous amount of my state belongs to the federal government and can't be used for the oil (which would create jobs, lower gas prices, and, despite what hippies will tell you, does very little damage to the environment) or anything else. We do care about our environment, so much so that we're willing to make people homeless, bankrupt, and starving because of it.

I'm not a hippie, but I am one who beleives that the burning of fossil fuels does cause a lot of harm. A Lot. I appreciate the balance and competing needs and interests that we face and need to do as a society--jobs, the economy, and lifestyle. They are valid concerns. But so is preserving the world we live in. The continued and indeed the increasing burning of fossil fuels is of danger to our world.

That's all fine and well, but making a statement like "We should start caring about our environment" implies that those who don't buy into the global warming hype somehow do not care about the environment or that "we" as a whole aren't taking steps that show that we care, when we are actually probably leaning too far on the side of caution, causing our people to suffer needlessly.

I hear you and understand your point. It is well taken. By the same turn though, calling folk like me "hippies" is not constructive nor helpful....

If you'll look closely, the only people I called hippies were those who exaggerate the damage to the environment by things like oil drilling.

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

Schmoe wrote:

We should start caring about our environment. Please do, before its gone.

Where is it going? I'm surrounded by national parks that no one can touch. A ridiculous amount of my state belongs to the federal government and can't be used for the oil (which would create jobs, lower gas prices, and, despite what hippies will tell you, does very little damage to the environment) or anything else. We do care about our environment, so much so that we're willing to make people homeless, bankrupt, and starving because of it.

I'm not a hippie, but I am one who beleives that the burning of fossil fuels does cause a lot of harm. A Lot. I appreciate the balance and competing needs and interests that we face and need to do as a society--jobs, the economy, and lifestyle. They are valid concerns. But so is preserving the world we live in. The continued and indeed the increasing burning of fossil fuels is of danger to our world.

That's all fine and well, but making a statement like "We should start caring about our environment" implies that those who don't buy into the global warming hype somehow do not care about the environment or that "we" as a whole aren't taking steps that show that we care, when we are actually probably leaning too far on the side of caution, causing our people to suffer needlessly.

I hear you and understand your point. It is well taken. By the same turn though, calling folk like me "hippies" is not constructive nor helpful....

If you'll look closely, the only people I called hippies were those who exaggerate the damage to the environment by things like oil drilling.

I did not read it that way but will take your word for it. All's good. Calling me a hippie is not so bad either--now if you called me a Ute..well, them are fightin' words yes? Any ways, Happy Thanksgiving to all!

BoiseBYU wrote:

BoiseBYU wrote:

danross wrote:
We should start caring about our environment. Please do, before its gone.

Where is it going? I'm surrounded by national parks that no one can touch. A ridiculous amount of my state belongs to the federal government and can't be used for the oil (which would create jobs, lower gas prices, and, despite what hippies will tell you, does very little damage to the environment) or anything else. We do care about our environment, so much so that we're willing to make people homeless, bankrupt, and starving because of it.

I'm not a hippie, but I am one who beleives that the burning of fossil fuels does cause a lot of harm. A Lot. I appreciate the balance and competing needs and interests that we face and need to do as a society--jobs, the economy, and lifestyle. They are valid concerns. But so is preserving the world we live in. The continued and indeed the increasing burning of fossil fuels is of danger to our world.

How are "fossil fuels" any more dangerous than other hydrocarbons?

TWW, correct me if I am in error, but the large large portion of hydro carbons being burnt are coal and oil. The burning of these fuels pumps CO2 into the air. I realize methane etc also, when burned, release CO2 too and so that is a problem. But for most of the world, the problem is with oil and coal, yes?

You are probably right about coal and oil being the most burned, though I am not certain. Considering that it is mostly wealthier countries that use them, the actual volumes of other fuels by third world populations may be close. But that is not exactly where I was headed with my question. While considering the safety of various fuels over others, it seems that there is a lot of theory as to how they effect things on a global level but not so much empirical data on a human level. It seems to me that to measure fuel safety properly we have to look at the actual health of people using the fuels, not computer models. If we look at health and mortality factors historically and regionally, it becomes clear that many people have died and are dying from the use of other hydrocarbon fuels. For example, people in Africa are dying at a much greater rate from CO1 trying to cook food and heat homes using cow dung than those using cleaner burning fossil fuels. Also, historically, cities like London were filthy and extremely unhealthy before the use of fossil fuels. Now they are much cleaner and healthier. The present day skies of LA are cleaner than the skies of London two or three hundred years ago. The fact is that fossil fuels are far cleaner burning than other sources of hydrocarbon, especially so when combined with higher technology equipment using them.



Happy Thanksgiving!

http://dailyfun.us/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/global-warming-joke.jpg" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I just read an article saying that 14,000 windmills have been abandoned. The government funding ran out on them.

nuk13 wrote:
I just read an article saying that 14,000 windmills have been abandoned. The government funding ran out on them.

Didn't some UK official also just come out and say that wind farms are worthless?

TW..The Clean Air Act has done well at "cleaning" our skies from particulate polution. The problem, at least as it relates to Global Warming, is that the culprit is pollutants you can't see, namely CO2 and those come fundamentally from the burning of fossil fules. Nuk, it is true that plants need CO2, but if there aren't enough plants to consume it all then the CO2 in our atmosphere grows, and when that happens it acts as a trap to heat and that is what we are seeing happening. According to the UN (and I know some of you will reject this out of hand because it is the UN, but the numbers don't lie) CO2 levels are at record levels and are growing at an even faster rate. The planet we live on is going to get warmer and warmer.

BoiseBYU wrote:
The planet we live on is going to get warmer and warmer.

Well, how else do you expect it to melt at the Second Coming?? :skeptic:



http://bible.cc/2_peter/3-12.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

snoscythe wrote:

The planet we live on is going to get warmer and warmer.

Well, how else do you expect it to melt at the Second Coming?? :skeptic:



http://bible.cc/2_peter/3-12.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

unless a whole lot of people pay their tithing, right? Nah that ain't gonna happen. ...



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BoiseBYU wrote:
TW..The Clean Air Act has done well at "cleaning" our skies from particulate polution. The problem, at least as it relates to Global Warming, is that the culprit is pollutants you can't see, namely CO2 and those come fundamentally from the burning of fossil fules. Nuk, it is true that plants need CO2, but if there aren't enough plants to consume it all then the CO2 in our atmosphere grows, and when that happens it acts as a trap to heat and that is what we are seeing happening. According to the UN (and I know some of you will reject this out of hand because it is the UN, but the numbers don't lie) CO2 levels are at record levels and are growing at an even faster rate. The planet we live on is going to get warmer and warmer.

I believe it has been shown that CO2 levels rise as a result of warming, not the other way around. What has not been proven is that warming or CO2 is harmful or that the pittance that man contributes is a significant factor. Nor has the effect of solar activity been properly acknowledged. The sun is quite literally the biggest player and will always dictate its will above all. Man is the smallest player on the planet while any effect man may have in the equation is so miniscule as to be a non-factor. But the sun cannot be taxed or controlled.



The whole CO2 argument is problematic in that when we make man made CO2 a culprit we are really not talking about fossil fuels, we are talking about human life. If CO2 production is a crime then all living animals are criminals. Of all the CO2 produced, fossil fuels produce a fraction of a percent. But you can't tax the ocean or termites.



I reaffirm my statement because it seems to have been ignored that the greatest health risks to man are not from the use of fossil fuels in first-world countries but by the use of other hydrocarbon fuels in third-world countries.

I hope everyone will be responsible enough in taking care of our environment.

danross wrote:
I hope everyone will be responsible enough in taking care of our environment.

You mean, like using mercury laden light bulbs?



(deep sarcasm)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;