Wayne SW/MO Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 If we're so dedicated to reducing our co2 output, why do we avoid nuclear production? I actually found it laughable that Cape Cod should be exempt from windmills, 20 miles out in the ocean, but not rural America. windmill farms could be discounted on ugliness alone, but add in the environmental impact on wildlife and they're only good for that industry. How long will it be before some environmental group complains that solar covers too much of the desert? Why do we rely more on coal then Natural Gas? While NG is not the ultimate answer, it is a better alternative in the interim. We see a push for electric cars, yet vehicle pollution and electricity production are literally neck and neck in co2 pollution? It would seem to me that bio-diesel would be a better trade off, the plants probably use up as much co2 while growing as they would produce as fuel. I don't see the oil companies as culprits, it doesn't compute, they have the distribution system for alternative fuels. They obviously aren't going to make a big investment until an alternate is settled on. So while we seem to be running down the dead end road toward urban golf carts, they do what anyone or company would do, stay in business by producing a sure thing. Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
Smalliebigs Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 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".
Wayne SW/MO Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 And Eric I agree that lobbyists are the scum of the earth(and this is coming from a future lawyer ) But in this instance, there has to be a business move, a company willing to take on this market. And there are going to have to be investors, once you get these established, then the option of renewable energy has promise. http://www.cbsnews.c...in6321633.shtml Check out this link. So the prostitute is a whore, but there's nothing wrong with the John? There's not much to debate when it comes to lobbyist, they operate with the blessings of congress. In case either political persuasion wants to blame the other, I don't believe any bills addressing it has risen in congress during either period of control. While Klamath's use of geothermal is a good thing, and solar water heaters for residences is a good thing, they are drops in the bucket and straw in the wind for solving the major pollution problem. If hydrogen powered busses, for instance, can't get off the ground, I don't see any hope for scattered, regional sources making any significant dent. Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
Wayne SW/MO Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 Yes, we do. Temperature data can be extrapolated from ice-core samples up to 800,000 years ago, and longer-term but less detailed temperature data can be extrapolated from sediment-core samples in the hundreds of millions of year 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? Today's release is tomorrows gift to another fisherman.
Members Steve_IA Posted January 28, 2011 Members Posted January 28, 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
eric1978 Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 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." No, I don't dispute that, but it doesn't really matter. Climate change is happening and it's because of us. I'm not going to argue that point anymore because it's already settled according to scientists...the people who know about science. But we basically agree Wayne, that we need to start moving toward alternatives...you're clearly not opposed to that as long as the alternatives are viable. No one, right OR left, wants a vehicle that can't go more than a couple hours without having to recharge it, and no one wants a truck without enough power to haul a boat. Where I think we differ is who we look to and expect to solve the problem. It's simply too big for individuals to really make a substantial difference by decreasing their carbon footprint with recycling and conserving energy with efficient bulbs and windows and what-not...not that those aren't good things to do...we should all be making small sacrifices to help out. But what we truly NEED is the governments of powerful nations to intervene and regulate, to make DRASTIC changes in energy policy. We aren't gonna make any progress until that happens, because like you said, the private sector is just gonna keep producing the "sure thing" until they are FORCED to do otherwise, the environmental consequences be darn. 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 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.
flytyer57 Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 If we're so dedicated to reducing our co2 output, why do we avoid nuclear production? I actually found it laughable that Cape Cod should be exempt from windmills, 20 miles out in the ocean, but not rural America. windmill farms could be discounted on ugliness alone, but add in the environmental impact on wildlife and they're only good for that industry. How long will it be before some environmental group complains that solar covers too much of the desert? Why do we rely more on coal then Natural Gas? While NG is not the ultimate answer, it is a better alternative in the interim. We see a push for electric cars, yet vehicle pollution and electricity production are literally neck and neck in co2 pollution? It would seem to me that bio-diesel would be a better trade off, the plants probably use up as much co2 while growing as they would produce as fuel. I don't see the oil companies as culprits, it doesn't compute, they have the distribution system for alternative fuels. They obviously aren't going to make a big investment until an alternate is settled on. So while we seem to be running down the dead end road toward urban golf carts, they do what anyone or company would do, stay in business by producing a sure thing. Nuclear power has other drawbacks like nuclear waste. Nobody wants to deal with it and they certainly don't want it in their backyard. 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. 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. 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... Electric cars with solar panels to power them may one day be possible. 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"? There's a fine line between fishing and sitting there looking stupid.
snagged in outlet 3 Posted January 28, 2011 Author Posted January 28, 2011 When I read that original article I knew it would be good for 5-6 pages easy. It even drew Eric back in after he said he entered the cone of silence. Priceless!!! SIO3
eric1978 Posted January 28, 2011 Posted January 28, 2011 When I read that original article I knew it would be good for 5-6 pages easy. It even drew Eric back in after he said he entered the cone of silence. Priceless!!! SIO3 Dammit!
Recommended Posts