Wayne SW/MO Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Nuclear power has other drawbacks like nuclear waste. Nobody wants to deal with it and they certainly don't want it in their backyard. I was under the impression that much of it was renewed now. What do countries like France, who are heavy in nuclear power, do with theirs. You feel it's better to spread the coal pollution, acid rain and such, then to deal with waste from nuclear plants? What is the environmental impact on windmills? That a few birds die? Not enough of an impact to worry about. It's already been stated in other threads that the amount of bird deaths due to windmills is less than bird deaths due to buildings. It has?? The desert is not the only place to put solar panels. There should be panels on every house to heat water and run the boobtube. Huh, isn't that two different technologies? I agree about the the heating of water, but the other? Don't you need batteries that are hard to recycle? Coal is easier to get at than NG and has been widely used for centuries compared to NG. In time, when they can figure out how to get the gas out of the earth without enviromental damage from fracking... So you're good with coal as the main source of fuel for generation of electricity? Electric cars with solar panels to power them may one day be possible. Couldn't they do that now, or is there a drawback? How fast would they run in the rain? With the $ BILLIONS the oil companies make in profit every year, they are the ones who should be researching alternative fuels. This earth only has so much oil and it is getting harder and harder to find and produce. Ever hear of "Peak Oil"? I believe that is old hat, unless you mean the vehicle. It would put out too much methane for us up here in the promise land, but it might work in Arkansas.:lol::lol: Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
podum Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 i offer the following as an eloquent synopsis of the skeptic's viewpoint: http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=2097 I wish I had more time more than I wish I had more money.
jdmidwest Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I enjoy reading this, I really do, but I'll repeat my 40 year held belief that I've stated on other threads -- over-population of this earth is the root cause of this and significant other societal problems. We have exceeded the earth's carrying capacity. Initiating these stop-gap measures only postpones the inevitable if we continue to increase the world's population. We have the technologies to reverse the population growth problem if only there was any interest in doing so. steve The lemming theory. I don't feel that we have exceeded earth's carrying capacity, we are not on the edge of the cliff yet, but there are areas in trouble. We supplement populations in deserts that can't support squat. We try to help countries that are dying of Aids. We try to stop wars in areas where wars are a way of population control. Our current ideas of technology only increase populations instead of letting nature run its course and let the strong survive. But it is not proper to let nature run its course, it is not humane. There is that little weakness of ours called compassion. Or is it control? "Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously." — Hunter S. Thompson
eric1978 Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 There is that little weakness of ours called compassion. Compassion is a weakness? How very Christian of you.
Members Steve_IA Posted January 29, 2011 Members Posted January 29, 2011 One of my grandfather's often used phrases to me: "you've become just smart enough to be dangerous". I look at man's evolvement in the same way. Through our development of spoken then written communication we have increased man's collective intellegence enough to overcome many of the natural and societal factors that previously limited our total population. In the last century I believe we've consumed more of the earth's resourses than she has the ability to replenish. I consider this exceeding earth's carrying capacity. I wish we would now become intellegent enough to recognize our need to self-regulate our world's population and balance it with earth's resources. steve
Tim Smith Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 So Eric do you dispute the statement by the Academy that "It said less confidence could be placed in reconstructions of temperatures prior to 1600, although proxy data does indicate that many locations are warmer now than they were between A.D. 900 and 1600. Proxy data for periods prior to A.D. 900 are sparse, the report notes." I don't doubt that temperatures can be accurately estimated for past periods, but aside from tree rings, what can be done to estimate real time periods, which is very important to the present theory? Wayne you're making me crazy. Did you go look at the graph I posted in response to this? The trend is the same, the only thing that differs is the confidence intervals around the trend during that period. You're picking nits here. The National Academy of Sciences is almost universally in agreement with human induced climate change.
Tim Smith Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I get my data and alleged facts from Meteorologist and Scientist who actually work with the weather and predict it acurately.They also don't rely on a grant for income that is contingent on the results of their studies. Here is a link to a gentleman, Joe Bastardi who is brillant and has predicted trends very well.To me it puts a huge hole in the global warming science. My link some of the weather related terms in this vid may not be to familiar to some, but it is about to get real cold for little bit, with out trying to sound so "Rushbeckian". Smallie. This guy is a WEATHERman. His job is to predict short term trends in WEATHER. The only reason this debate exists at all is because of day to day, year to year variation in weather that hides long term trends until you back up and look at the big picture. Anyone prattling about the planet cooling off when we have just finished finished a year tied for the hottest on record, and a decade that is the hottest ever recorded a the end of a 150 year tend in temperature increase is simply not worth listening to.
Wayne SW/MO Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 Wayne you're making me crazy. Did you go look at the graph I posted in response to this? The trend is the same, the only thing that differs is the confidence intervals around the trend during that period. You're picking nits here. The National Academy of Sciences is almost universally in agreement with human induced climate change. Don't go there Tim, crazy I mean. If I'm not mistaken the way around the fact that warmer periods have existed is to point out that this one is over a shorter period of time. Shorter than any in history, but how do we know that? Tree rings are obviously a good guess, but not perfect either. The little Ice Age according to some scientist could have been caused by a rapid warming. I simply have a problem accepting the fact that man is the primary cause of global warming in excess. If that's not enough I'm expected to accept that most of the billions we're inserting into the cure aren't going to make billionaires without any realistic progress. When you're my age it's easy to be a skeptic because this isn't my first rodeo and I've heard most of the hype before. To quote you Tim," The academy is almost universally in agreement." We hear that most scientist are in agreement, but we don't hear wheather they are doing independent research, or just picking the side with the most members. Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
gotmuddy Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 I'm with you on that. I think we should start by giving tax breaks to families with two children or less. If you have three or more, you get no tax benefit for doing so. Also, it should be federal law that birth control be FREE for women with ANY health-care policy, and rubbers should be dropped from the sky by the trillions, especially around schools, cities, and third-world countries. birth control is already free. Rubbers are free too. The downside to rubbers is the idiots don't wear them. What we need is a $5000 cash gift for women or men who volunteer to be fixed. With the $$$ BILLIONS the oil companies make in profit every year, they are the ones who should be researching alternative fuels. This earth only has so much oil and it is getting harder and harder to find and produce. Ever hear of "Peak Oil"? Oil isn't hard to find. We have PLENTY. We just arent allowed to drill for it. everything in this post is purely opinion and is said to annoy you.
eric1978 Posted January 29, 2011 Posted January 29, 2011 birth control is already free. Huh? They're not free for us...let me know where they're giving them away, wouldja? Oil isn't hard to find. We have PLENTY. We just arent allowed to drill for it. I hear there's a nice reserve under Crooked Creek. I say we go get it.
Recommended Posts