This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Yes, we know, you have no clue. And as a result, our solution is the same as your solution.
The world's foremost scientists have offered solutions. Some countries around the world have even started to employ them. You don't like any of them.
No one here is denying the climate has changed, and man is probably partially to blame. Nobody is fighting greener most sustainable energy. We should be building nuclear plants. It is the crazy gloom and doom we are all going to die unless we tax the hell out of energy which people oppose.
I agree we should be building nuclear plants. But each of those involve government investment of billions of dollars. Are you willing to increase our debt to do it?
I'm on the other side of the argument (I think denying climate change and the man-made negative contributions to said changes, along with the harm it is doing to the air and water we all need to survive, is about on-par with believing in unicorns and leprechauns), but I agree. If people believe that we're harming our planet and do nothing about it other than blather on and on? They're worse than the deniers/haters. As at least you can forgive ignorance/stupidity (as it often isn't said idiot's fault for not getting a full share when they were handing out intelligence). But KNOWING there's a problem and CHOOSING to let other people fix it? Not cool.
Land, when creatively and responsibly utilized, can keep one's family alive indefinitely. Gold? Will look real purr-dee on that watch, ring, or necklace they bury you in.
, and/or morons.
I'm not using your two co-worker sample as indicative of what most people would do. I'm going with land - so I can put up a gigantic fence and keep you crazies all away from me. And I'll have solar panels and wind turbines and collect my water so I don't need you people for anything. Now we've got a tie.I'm on the other side of the argument (I think denying climate change and the man-made negative contributions to said changes, along with the harm it is doing to the air and water we all need to survive, is about on-par with believing in unicorns and leprechauns), but I agree. If people believe that we're harming our planet and do nothing about it other than blather on and on? They're worse than the deniers/haters. As at least you can forgive ignorance/stupidity (as it often isn't said idiot's fault for not getting a full share when they were handing out intelligence). But KNOWING there's a problem and CHOOSING to let other people fix it? Not cool.
That said, I got into an interesting discussion with two co-workers of mine last week. The debate was basically gold, or land? They both chose gold. I chose land. Because gold has no intrinsic value for your Average Joe. Other than "being shiny" and something that lots of people are willing to pay lots of money for. Land, on the other hand, is something that provides clothing, shelter, food, and maybe even some of those precious resources people have started wars over.
Got me thinking about the whole climate change debate. Many (most?) people out there would choose "gold." Something shiny, that other people who like shiny things will covet. But I look at every stone, every stream, every plant on the ~30 acres I own and think: "how can I utilize this resource more effectively?" And when you really explore the use of resources that we all mostly take for granted? You start to see energy consumption and pollution in our society/planet in an entirely different light. Case in point: "excess" water. People have tiled millions of acres of farm land to move as much rain and melted snow off their land as quickly as they can. But then rather than saving/storing said water for periods of drought? They blast it down the creek, which connects to a river, which connects to a bigger river, which connects to an even BIGGER river, which eventually makes its way to the ocean. Where it needs to be desalinated to become useful as irrigation water or drinking water. So instead of spending billions developing systems to capture/store said water, we spend trillions building levees and rebuilding communities devastated by flood. All because people are lazy,
Tim,
When you can't even demonstrate the harm that's going to happen, it becomes impossible to demonstrate the good associated with any given solution. The only thing that can be relatively certain is the amount of sacrifice that needs to be made to employ said solution. At a certain point you're going to need to take a leap of faith with your religion and just start cutting carbon no matter the cost. Especially when you fear we're at a tipping point.
Aah, but then I'll just "exercise my Second Amendment rights," form a militia, get my crew elected into local government and hired as local law enforcement, and come and take what you've got behind that fence, brah. Don't tread on me. But if you have something I want/like, prepare to be treaded upon...I'm not using your two co-worker sample as indicative of what most people would do. I'm going with land - so I can put up a gigantic fence and keep you crazies all away from me. And I'll have solar panels and wind turbines and collect my water so I don't need you people for anything. Now we've got a tie.I'm on the other side of the argument (I think denying climate change and the man-made negative contributions to said changes, along with the harm it is doing to the air and water we all need to survive, is about on-par with believing in unicorns and leprechauns), but I agree. If people believe that we're harming our planet and do nothing about it other than blather on and on? They're worse than the deniers/haters. As at least you can forgive ignorance/stupidity (as it often isn't said idiot's fault for not getting a full share when they were handing out intelligence). But KNOWING there's a problem and CHOOSING to let other people fix it? Not cool.
That said, I got into an interesting discussion with two co-workers of mine last week. The debate was basically gold, or land? They both chose gold. I chose land. Because gold has no intrinsic value for your Average Joe. Other than "being shiny" and something that lots of people are willing to pay lots of money for. Land, on the other hand, is something that provides clothing, shelter, food, and maybe even some of those precious resources people have started wars over.
Got me thinking about the whole climate change debate. Many (most?) people out there would choose "gold." Something shiny, that other people who like shiny things will covet. But I look at every stone, every stream, every plant on the ~30 acres I own and think: "how can I utilize this resource more effectively?" And when you really explore the use of resources that we all mostly take for granted? You start to see energy consumption and pollution in our society/planet in an entirely different light. Case in point: "excess" water. People have tiled millions of acres of farm land to move as much rain and melted snow off their land as quickly as they can. But then rather than saving/storing said water for periods of drought? They blast it down the creek, which connects to a river, which connects to a bigger river, which connects to an even BIGGER river, which eventually makes its way to the ocean. Where it needs to be desalinated to become useful as irrigation water or drinking water. So instead of spending billions developing systems to capture/store said water, we spend trillions building levees and rebuilding communities devastated by flood. All because people are lazy,
[/sarcasm]This is where the 2nd amendment comes in for me as well. Prepare for a world of pain.Aah, but then I'll just "exercise my Second Amendment rights," form a militia, get my crew elected into local government and hired as local law enforcement, and come and take what you've got behind that fence, brah. Don't tread on me. But if you have something I want/like, prepare to be treaded upon...I'm not using your two co-worker sample as indicative of what most people would do. I'm going with land - so I can put up a gigantic fence and keep you crazies all away from me. And I'll have solar panels and wind turbines and collect my water so I don't need you people for anything. Now we've got a tie.I'm on the other side of the argument (I think denying climate change and the man-made negative contributions to said changes, along with the harm it is doing to the air and water we all need to survive, is about on-par with believing in unicorns and leprechauns), but I agree. If people believe that we're harming our planet and do nothing about it other than blather on and on? They're worse than the deniers/haters. As at least you can forgive ignorance/stupidity (as it often isn't said idiot's fault for not getting a full share when they were handing out intelligence). But KNOWING there's a problem and CHOOSING to let other people fix it? Not cool.
That said, I got into an interesting discussion with two co-workers of mine last week. The debate was basically gold, or land? They both chose gold. I chose land. Because gold has no intrinsic value for your Average Joe. Other than "being shiny" and something that lots of people are willing to pay lots of money for. Land, on the other hand, is something that provides clothing, shelter, food, and maybe even some of those precious resources people have started wars over.
Got me thinking about the whole climate change debate. Many (most?) people out there would choose "gold." Something shiny, that other people who like shiny things will covet. But I look at every stone, every stream, every plant on the ~30 acres I own and think: "how can I utilize this resource more effectively?" And when you really explore the use of resources that we all mostly take for granted? You start to see energy consumption and pollution in our society/planet in an entirely different light. Case in point: "excess" water. People have tiled millions of acres of farm land to move as much rain and melted snow off their land as quickly as they can. But then rather than saving/storing said water for periods of drought? They blast it down the creek, which connects to a river, which connects to a bigger river, which connects to an even BIGGER river, which eventually makes its way to the ocean. Where it needs to be desalinated to become useful as irrigation water or drinking water. So instead of spending billions developing systems to capture/store said water, we spend trillions building levees and rebuilding communities devastated by flood. All because people are lazy,
Tim, this is bull####, unless you're talking the cost of red tape. Which, honestly, I can believe given how obstructionist this government is over this issue. The billions you're speaking of are loan guarantees. However, unlike Solyndra, Abound Solar, and A123, these entities aren't going to fold up shop at the drop of a hat. The likelihood of paying back those load guarantees is exceedingly high.
Most of the oppenents of nuclear power point to the long process it takes to get approval and build a new plant, which is largely a result of the red tape they put in place to begin with. But if global warming is a long term issue, we should not be put off by the fact it may take 20 years to get something built.
Actually I believe there is. I'd cut all research dollars into the global climate change arena, which is fairly useless, and shift it into fundamental research on alternative energy production (thorium nuclear, solar, LENR, etc). My game plan, if I was dictator, includes massively expanding oil and gas production in the US to export to Europe and bankrupt Venezuela and Russia (Russia because they're being #######s and Venezuela for ####s and giggles). Having accomplished that we'd then shift our energy production to the disruptive technology that the research has produced and add yet another S-curve to the US economy by producing clean, cheap power everywhere.
Perhaps there are a few, but I am not seeing anyone arguing that. Tim likes to group everyone together with those on the fringe and used Nazi-type Rhetoric with the "deniers" label. Really distracts from the discussion. It is so hypocritical of him in so many ways too.
Yes, not only is your position dumber, it's far more dangerous if what you believe is actually true. Congratulations.
And other people believe there isn't a statistically significant sample to prove one way or the other.
He must have DrScience on ignore
If man didn't exist, the climate would have changed anyways, so climate change is not due to man. Since large natural forces, bigger than us, drive the climate, climate would have progressed in the same cycles and direction, and temperatures would be probably be pretty close to what they are today. Any small difference in temperature between the man-occupied Earth and non-man occupied Earth I will blame on man. Its probably a very small number. Not all of that small number is due to CO2, some is due to deforestation, farming, draining swamps, etc.
I would bet you smoked weed before posting this. amiright?I'm on the other side of the argument (I think denying climate change and the man-made negative contributions to said changes, along with the harm it is doing to the air and water we all need to survive, is about on-par with believing in unicorns and leprechauns), but I agree. If people believe that we're harming our planet and do nothing about it other than blather on and on? They're worse than the deniers/haters. As at least you can forgive ignorance/stupidity (as it often isn't said idiot's fault for not getting a full share when they were handing out intelligence). But KNOWING there's a problem and CHOOSING to let other people fix it? Not cool.
That said, I got into an interesting discussion with two co-workers of mine last week. The debate was basically gold, or land? They both chose gold. I chose land. Because gold has no intrinsic value for your Average Joe. Other than "being shiny" and something that lots of people are willing to pay lots of money for. Land, on the other hand, is something that provides clothing, shelter, food, and maybe even some of those precious resources people have started wars over.
Got me thinking about the whole climate change debate. Many (most?) people out there would choose "gold." Something shiny, that other people who like shiny things will covet. But I look at every stone, every stream, every plant on the ~30 acres I own and think: "how can I utilize this resource more effectively?" And when you really explore the use of resources that we all mostly take for granted? You start to see energy consumption and pollution in our society/planet in an entirely different light. Case in point: "excess" water. People have tiled millions of acres of farm land to move as much rain and melted snow off their land as quickly as they can. But then rather than saving/storing said water for periods of drought? They blast it down the creek, which connects to a river, which connects to a bigger river, which connects to an even BIGGER river, which eventually makes its way to the ocean. Where it needs to be desalinated to become useful as irrigation water or drinking water. So instead of spending billions developing systems to capture/store said water, we spend trillions building levees and rebuilding communities devastated by flood. All because people are lazy,
I love when people confuse air and water pollution with the global warming debate. And did you know man's biggest contribution to global warming was most likely the banning of aerosols?I would bet you smoked weed before posting this. amiright?I'm on the other side of the argument (I think denying climate change and the man-made negative contributions to said changes, along with the harm it is doing to the air and water we all need to survive, is about on-par with believing in unicorns and leprechauns), but I agree. If people believe that we're harming our planet and do nothing about it other than blather on and on? They're worse than the deniers/haters. As at least you can forgive ignorance/stupidity (as it often isn't said idiot's fault for not getting a full share when they were handing out intelligence). But KNOWING there's a problem and CHOOSING to let other people fix it? Not cool.
That said, I got into an interesting discussion with two co-workers of mine last week. The debate was basically gold, or land? They both chose gold. I chose land. Because gold has no intrinsic value for your Average Joe. Other than "being shiny" and something that lots of people are willing to pay lots of money for. Land, on the other hand, is something that provides clothing, shelter, food, and maybe even some of those precious resources people have started wars over.
Got me thinking about the whole climate change debate. Many (most?) people out there would choose "gold." Something shiny, that other people who like shiny things will covet. But I look at every stone, every stream, every plant on the ~30 acres I own and think: "how can I utilize this resource more effectively?" And when you really explore the use of resources that we all mostly take for granted? You start to see energy consumption and pollution in our society/planet in an entirely different light. Case in point: "excess" water. People have tiled millions of acres of farm land to move as much rain and melted snow off their land as quickly as they can. But then rather than saving/storing said water for periods of drought? They blast it down the creek, which connects to a river, which connects to a bigger river, which connects to an even BIGGER river, which eventually makes its way to the ocean. Where it needs to be desalinated to become useful as irrigation water or drinking water. So instead of spending billions developing systems to capture/store said water, we spend trillions building levees and rebuilding communities devastated by flood. All because people are lazy,
And now we've come full circle to ....."it's just a theory".
Yep, you're right. All those cows farting in Los Angeles and Beijing are the REAL culprits behind air quality declining and more carbon being introduced into the atmosphere (as well as a measurable phenomenon called the Heat Island Effect). Er, I mean, the cows have nothing to do with it...since animals being raised in massive quantities that the land they use cannot support would be a man-made cause too. Hmm...free-range dolphins and whales farting just off-shore in the Pacific?!I love when people confuse air and water pollution with the global warming debate. And did you know man's biggest contribution to global warming was most likely the banning of aerosols?I would bet you smoked weed before posting this. amiright?I'm on the other side of the argument (I think denying climate change and the man-made negative contributions to said changes, along with the harm it is doing to the air and water we all need to survive, is about on-par with believing in unicorns and leprechauns), but I agree. If people believe that we're harming our planet and do nothing about it other than blather on and on? They're worse than the deniers/haters. As at least you can forgive ignorance/stupidity (as it often isn't said idiot's fault for not getting a full share when they were handing out intelligence). But KNOWING there's a problem and CHOOSING to let other people fix it? Not cool.
That said, I got into an interesting discussion with two co-workers of mine last week. The debate was basically gold, or land? They both chose gold. I chose land. Because gold has no intrinsic value for your Average Joe. Other than "being shiny" and something that lots of people are willing to pay lots of money for. Land, on the other hand, is something that provides clothing, shelter, food, and maybe even some of those precious resources people have started wars over.
Got me thinking about the whole climate change debate. Many (most?) people out there would choose "gold." Something shiny, that other people who like shiny things will covet. But I look at every stone, every stream, every plant on the ~30 acres I own and think: "how can I utilize this resource more effectively?" And when you really explore the use of resources that we all mostly take for granted? You start to see energy consumption and pollution in our society/planet in an entirely different light. Case in point: "excess" water. People have tiled millions of acres of farm land to move as much rain and melted snow off their land as quickly as they can. But then rather than saving/storing said water for periods of drought? They blast it down the creek, which connects to a river, which connects to a bigger river, which connects to an even BIGGER river, which eventually makes its way to the ocean. Where it needs to be desalinated to become useful as irrigation water or drinking water. So instead of spending billions developing systems to capture/store said water, we spend trillions building levees and rebuilding communities devastated by flood. All because people are lazy,
[/sarcasm]
I thought he might have smoked weed because of the rambling nature of his post... just reminded me of stuff I have written while baked.I love when people confuse air and water pollution with the global warming debate. And did you know man's biggest contribution to global warming was most likely the banning of aerosols?I would bet you smoked weed before posting this. amiright?I'm on the other side of the argument (I think denying climate change and the man-made negative contributions to said changes, along with the harm it is doing to the air and water we all need to survive, is about on-par with believing in unicorns and leprechauns), but I agree. If people believe that we're harming our planet and do nothing about it other than blather on and on? They're worse than the deniers/haters. As at least you can forgive ignorance/stupidity (as it often isn't said idiot's fault for not getting a full share when they were handing out intelligence). But KNOWING there's a problem and CHOOSING to let other people fix it? Not cool.
That said, I got into an interesting discussion with two co-workers of mine last week. The debate was basically gold, or land? They both chose gold. I chose land. Because gold has no intrinsic value for your Average Joe. Other than "being shiny" and something that lots of people are willing to pay lots of money for. Land, on the other hand, is something that provides clothing, shelter, food, and maybe even some of those precious resources people have started wars over.
Got me thinking about the whole climate change debate. Many (most?) people out there would choose "gold." Something shiny, that other people who like shiny things will covet. But I look at every stone, every stream, every plant on the ~30 acres I own and think: "how can I utilize this resource more effectively?" And when you really explore the use of resources that we all mostly take for granted? You start to see energy consumption and pollution in our society/planet in an entirely different light. Case in point: "excess" water. People have tiled millions of acres of farm land to move as much rain and melted snow off their land as quickly as they can. But then rather than saving/storing said water for periods of drought? They blast it down the creek, which connects to a river, which connects to a bigger river, which connects to an even BIGGER river, which eventually makes its way to the ocean. Where it needs to be desalinated to become useful as irrigation water or drinking water. So instead of spending billions developing systems to capture/store said water, we spend trillions building levees and rebuilding communities devastated by flood. All because people are lazy,
The smog in LA and Beijing are caused by neither CO2 or methane. There is a lot of other crap going in the air that has no relation to the greenhouse gas debate and is being largely ignored by environmentalists.Yep, you're right. All those cows farting in Los Angeles and Beijing are the REAL culprits behind air quality declining and more carbon being introduced into the atmosphere (as well as a measurable phenomenon called the Heat Island Effect). Er, I mean, the cows have nothing to do with it...since animals being raised in massive quantities that the land they use cannot support would be a man-made cause too. Hmm...free-range dolphins and whales farting just off-shore in the Pacific?!I love when people confuse air and water pollution with the global warming debate. And did you know man's biggest contribution to global warming was most likely the banning of aerosols?I would bet you smoked weed before posting this. amiright?I'm on the other side of the argument (I think denying climate change and the man-made negative contributions to said changes, along with the harm it is doing to the air and water we all need to survive, is about on-par with believing in unicorns and leprechauns), but I agree. If people believe that we're harming our planet and do nothing about it other than blather on and on? They're worse than the deniers/haters. As at least you can forgive ignorance/stupidity (as it often isn't said idiot's fault for not getting a full share when they were handing out intelligence). But KNOWING there's a problem and CHOOSING to let other people fix it? Not cool.
That said, I got into an interesting discussion with two co-workers of mine last week. The debate was basically gold, or land? They both chose gold. I chose land. Because gold has no intrinsic value for your Average Joe. Other than "being shiny" and something that lots of people are willing to pay lots of money for. Land, on the other hand, is something that provides clothing, shelter, food, and maybe even some of those precious resources people have started wars over.
Got me thinking about the whole climate change debate. Many (most?) people out there would choose "gold." Something shiny, that other people who like shiny things will covet. But I look at every stone, every stream, every plant on the ~30 acres I own and think: "how can I utilize this resource more effectively?" And when you really explore the use of resources that we all mostly take for granted? You start to see energy consumption and pollution in our society/planet in an entirely different light. Case in point: "excess" water. People have tiled millions of acres of farm land to move as much rain and melted snow off their land as quickly as they can. But then rather than saving/storing said water for periods of drought? They blast it down the creek, which connects to a river, which connects to a bigger river, which connects to an even BIGGER river, which eventually makes its way to the ocean. Where it needs to be desalinated to become useful as irrigation water or drinking water. So instead of spending billions developing systems to capture/store said water, we spend trillions building levees and rebuilding communities devastated by flood. All because people are lazy,
Liberal propaganda.And now we've come full circle to ....."it's just a theory".
Cow belches have much more CO2 in them than farts.Yep, you're right. All those cowsfartingbelching in Los Angeles and Beijing are the REAL culprits behind air quality declining and more carbon being introduced into the atmosphere (as well as a measurable phenomenon called the Heat Island Effect). Er, I mean, the cows have nothing to do with it...since animals being raised in massive quantities that the land they use cannot support would be a man-made cause too. Hmm...free-range dolphins and whales farting just off-shore in the Pacific?!
Tell me more! You're saying that the smog magically knows to concentrate over areas of the planet with high human population density (has the smog developed a space program as of yet?), is naturally forming (no human contribution to the problem whatsoever), and that it has zero impact on the amount of the sun's energy that is retained inside the Earth's atmosphere? I mean, on top of all the replacement of soil and trees with concrete and asphalt over dozens of square miles, across hundreds of thousands of regions throughout the planet. This is just starting to get good...The smog in LA and Beijing are caused by neither CO2 or methane. There is a lot of other crap going in the air that has no relation to the greenhouse gas debate and is being largely ignored by environmentalists.Yep, you're right. All those cows farting in Los Angeles and Beijing are the REAL culprits behind air quality declining and more carbon being introduced into the atmosphere (as well as a measurable phenomenon called the Heat Island Effect). Er, I mean, the cows have nothing to do with it...since animals being raised in massive quantities that the land they use cannot support would be a man-made cause too. Hmm...free-range dolphins and whales farting just off-shore in the Pacific?!I love when people confuse air and water pollution with the global warming debate. And did you know man's biggest contribution to global warming was most likely the banning of aerosols?I would bet you smoked weed before posting this. amiright?I'm on the other side of the argument (I think denying climate change and the man-made negative contributions to said changes, along with the harm it is doing to the air and water we all need to survive, is about on-par with believing in unicorns and leprechauns), but I agree. If people believe that we're harming our planet and do nothing about it other than blather on and on? They're worse than the deniers/haters. As at least you can forgive ignorance/stupidity (as it often isn't said idiot's fault for not getting a full share when they were handing out intelligence). But KNOWING there's a problem and CHOOSING to let other people fix it? Not cool.
That said, I got into an interesting discussion with two co-workers of mine last week. The debate was basically gold, or land? They both chose gold. I chose land. Because gold has no intrinsic value for your Average Joe. Other than "being shiny" and something that lots of people are willing to pay lots of money for. Land, on the other hand, is something that provides clothing, shelter, food, and maybe even some of those precious resources people have started wars over.
Got me thinking about the whole climate change debate. Many (most?) people out there would choose "gold." Something shiny, that other people who like shiny things will covet. But I look at every stone, every stream, every plant on the ~30 acres I own and think: "how can I utilize this resource more effectively?" And when you really explore the use of resources that we all mostly take for granted? You start to see energy consumption and pollution in our society/planet in an entirely different light. Case in point: "excess" water. People have tiled millions of acres of farm land to move as much rain and melted snow off their land as quickly as they can. But then rather than saving/storing said water for periods of drought? They blast it down the creek, which connects to a river, which connects to a bigger river, which connects to an even BIGGER river, which eventually makes its way to the ocean. Where it needs to be desalinated to become useful as irrigation water or drinking water. So instead of spending billions developing systems to capture/store said water, we spend trillions building levees and rebuilding communities devastated by flood. All because people are lazy,
Wouldn't work- that's close to where my Fortress of Solitude is.
At this point you are just fishing and being purposely obtuse. I am saying that sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide are not greenhouse gases and are the main pollutants you should focus on if you are truly worried about smog, not CO2 which is the crux of the greenhouse gas debate. You are focusing on the wrong stuff. I never said it was not man-made or any of the other silliness you babble about.Tell me more! You're saying that the smog magically knows to concentrate over areas of the planet with high human population density (has the smog developed a space program as of yet?), is naturally forming (no human contribution to the problem whatsoever), and that it has zero impact on the amount of the sun's energy that is retained inside the Earth's atmosphere? I mean, on top of all the replacement of soil and trees with concrete and asphalt over dozens of square miles, across hundreds of thousands of regions throughout the planet. This is just starting to get good...The smog in LA and Beijing are caused by neither CO2 or methane. There is a lot of other crap going in the air that has no relation to the greenhouse gas debate and is being largely ignored by environmentalists.Yep, you're right. All those cows farting in Los Angeles and Beijing are the REAL culprits behind air quality declining and more carbon being introduced into the atmosphere (as well as a measurable phenomenon called the Heat Island Effect). Er, I mean, the cows have nothing to do with it...since animals being raised in massive quantities that the land they use cannot support would be a man-made cause too. Hmm...free-range dolphins and whales farting just off-shore in the Pacific?!I love when people confuse air and water pollution with the global warming debate. And did you know man's biggest contribution to global warming was most likely the banning of aerosols?I would bet you smoked weed before posting this. amiright?I'm on the other side of the argument (I think denying climate change and the man-made negative contributions to said changes, along with the harm it is doing to the air and water we all need to survive, is about on-par with believing in unicorns and leprechauns), but I agree. If people believe that we're harming our planet and do nothing about it other than blather on and on? They're worse than the deniers/haters. As at least you can forgive ignorance/stupidity (as it often isn't said idiot's fault for not getting a full share when they were handing out intelligence). But KNOWING there's a problem and CHOOSING to let other people fix it? Not cool.
That said, I got into an interesting discussion with two co-workers of mine last week. The debate was basically gold, or land? They both chose gold. I chose land. Because gold has no intrinsic value for your Average Joe. Other than "being shiny" and something that lots of people are willing to pay lots of money for. Land, on the other hand, is something that provides clothing, shelter, food, and maybe even some of those precious resources people have started wars over.
Got me thinking about the whole climate change debate. Many (most?) people out there would choose "gold." Something shiny, that other people who like shiny things will covet. But I look at every stone, every stream, every plant on the ~30 acres I own and think: "how can I utilize this resource more effectively?" And when you really explore the use of resources that we all mostly take for granted? You start to see energy consumption and pollution in our society/planet in an entirely different light. Case in point: "excess" water. People have tiled millions of acres of farm land to move as much rain and melted snow off their land as quickly as they can. But then rather than saving/storing said water for periods of drought? They blast it down the creek, which connects to a river, which connects to a bigger river, which connects to an even BIGGER river, which eventually makes its way to the ocean. Where it needs to be desalinated to become useful as irrigation water or drinking water. So instead of spending billions developing systems to capture/store said water, we spend trillions building levees and rebuilding communities devastated by flood. All because people are lazy,
That's what I love about scientists. Nothing stops them from smelling out the truth.Cow belches have much more CO2 in them than farts.Yep, you're right. All those cowsfartingbelching in Los Angeles and Beijing are the REAL culprits behind air quality declining and more carbon being introduced into the atmosphere (as well as a measurable phenomenon called the Heat Island Effect). Er, I mean, the cows have nothing to do with it...since animals being raised in massive quantities that the land they use cannot support would be a man-made cause too. Hmm...free-range dolphins and whales farting just off-shore in the Pacific?!
So...sulfur dioxide BAD (pollutant)? Or sulfur dioxide GOOD (stratospheric aerosols and China and India increasing their production of sulfur dioxide by over 60 percent in the past 10-15 years off-setting what would have been a global rise in temperature by as much as 25 percent)? Done in my best caveman voice.At this point you are just fishing and being purposely obtuse. I am saying that sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide are not greenhouse gases and are the main pollutants you should focus on if you are truly worried about smog, not CO2 which is the crux of the greenhouse gas debate. You are focusing on the wrong stuff. I never said it was not man-made or any of the other silliness you babble about.Tell me more! You're saying that the smog magically knows to concentrate over areas of the planet with high human population density (has the smog developed a space program as of yet?), is naturally forming (no human contribution to the problem whatsoever), and that it has zero impact on the amount of the sun's energy that is retained inside the Earth's atmosphere? I mean, on top of all the replacement of soil and trees with concrete and asphalt over dozens of square miles, across hundreds of thousands of regions throughout the planet. This is just starting to get good...The smog in LA and Beijing are caused by neither CO2 or methane. There is a lot of other crap going in the air that has no relation to the greenhouse gas debate and is being largely ignored by environmentalists.Yep, you're right. All those cows farting in Los Angeles and Beijing are the REAL culprits behind air quality declining and more carbon being introduced into the atmosphere (as well as a measurable phenomenon called the Heat Island Effect). Er, I mean, the cows have nothing to do with it...since animals being raised in massive quantities that the land they use cannot support would be a man-made cause too. Hmm...free-range dolphins and whales farting just off-shore in the Pacific?!I love when people confuse air and water pollution with the global warming debate. And did you know man's biggest contribution to global warming was most likely the banning of aerosols?I would bet you smoked weed before posting this. amiright?I'm on the other side of the argument (I think denying climate change and the man-made negative contributions to said changes, along with the harm it is doing to the air and water we all need to survive, is about on-par with believing in unicorns and leprechauns), but I agree. If people believe that we're harming our planet and do nothing about it other than blather on and on? They're worse than the deniers/haters. As at least you can forgive ignorance/stupidity (as it often isn't said idiot's fault for not getting a full share when they were handing out intelligence). But KNOWING there's a problem and CHOOSING to let other people fix it? Not cool.
That said, I got into an interesting discussion with two co-workers of mine last week. The debate was basically gold, or land? They both chose gold. I chose land. Because gold has no intrinsic value for your Average Joe. Other than "being shiny" and something that lots of people are willing to pay lots of money for. Land, on the other hand, is something that provides clothing, shelter, food, and maybe even some of those precious resources people have started wars over.
Got me thinking about the whole climate change debate. Many (most?) people out there would choose "gold." Something shiny, that other people who like shiny things will covet. But I look at every stone, every stream, every plant on the ~30 acres I own and think: "how can I utilize this resource more effectively?" And when you really explore the use of resources that we all mostly take for granted? You start to see energy consumption and pollution in our society/planet in an entirely different light. Case in point: "excess" water. People have tiled millions of acres of farm land to move as much rain and melted snow off their land as quickly as they can. But then rather than saving/storing said water for periods of drought? They blast it down the creek, which connects to a river, which connects to a bigger river, which connects to an even BIGGER river, which eventually makes its way to the ocean. Where it needs to be desalinated to become useful as irrigation water or drinking water. So instead of spending billions developing systems to capture/store said water, we spend trillions building levees and rebuilding communities devastated by flood. All because people are lazy,
I did not say nitrous oxide (N2O) , I said nitrogen oxides (NOX). The biggest greenhouse gases are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. When people talk about regulating greenhouse gases, they almost exclusively mean CO2, although methane is starting to get some minor attention. The smog you were so crying about has nothing to do with CO2 and methane only to a minor degree. You want to expand the debate to include all those polluntants which are the primary cause is smog, that is great. That is what needs attention. Not this laser beam focus on CO2. By the idiots definition of polluntants, the US is a worst polluter than China, but go live in Beijing if you believe that bullcrap. It has 10 times the real pollutants in its air than what you will see in US major cities including LA.So...sulfur dioxide BAD (pollutant)? Or sulfur dioxide GOOD (stratospheric aerosols and China and India increasing their production of sulfur dioxide by over 60 percent in the past 10-15 years off-setting what would have been a global rise in temperature by as much as 25 percent)? Done in my best caveman voice.At this point you are just fishing and being purposely obtuse. I am saying that sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and carbon monoxide are not greenhouse gases and are the main pollutants you should focus on if you are truly worried about smog, not CO2 which is the crux of the greenhouse gas debate. You are focusing on the wrong stuff. I never said it was not man-made or any of the other silliness you babble about.Tell me more! You're saying that the smog magically knows to concentrate over areas of the planet with high human population density (has the smog developed a space program as of yet?), is naturally forming (no human contribution to the problem whatsoever), and that it has zero impact on the amount of the sun's energy that is retained inside the Earth's atmosphere? I mean, on top of all the replacement of soil and trees with concrete and asphalt over dozens of square miles, across hundreds of thousands of regions throughout the planet. This is just starting to get good...The smog in LA and Beijing are caused by neither CO2 or methane. There is a lot of other crap going in the air that has no relation to the greenhouse gas debate and is being largely ignored by environmentalists.Yep, you're right. All those cows farting in Los Angeles and Beijing are the REAL culprits behind air quality declining and more carbon being introduced into the atmosphere (as well as a measurable phenomenon called the Heat Island Effect). Er, I mean, the cows have nothing to do with it...since animals being raised in massive quantities that the land they use cannot support would be a man-made cause too. Hmm...free-range dolphins and whales farting just off-shore in the Pacific?!I love when people confuse air and water pollution with the global warming debate. And did you know man's biggest contribution to global warming was most likely the banning of aerosols?I would bet you smoked weed before posting this. amiright?I'm on the other side of the argument (I think denying climate change and the man-made negative contributions to said changes, along with the harm it is doing to the air and water we all need to survive, is about on-par with believing in unicorns and leprechauns), but I agree. If people believe that we're harming our planet and do nothing about it other than blather on and on? They're worse than the deniers/haters. As at least you can forgive ignorance/stupidity (as it often isn't said idiot's fault for not getting a full share when they were handing out intelligence). But KNOWING there's a problem and CHOOSING to let other people fix it? Not cool.
That said, I got into an interesting discussion with two co-workers of mine last week. The debate was basically gold, or land? They both chose gold. I chose land. Because gold has no intrinsic value for your Average Joe. Other than "being shiny" and something that lots of people are willing to pay lots of money for. Land, on the other hand, is something that provides clothing, shelter, food, and maybe even some of those precious resources people have started wars over.
Got me thinking about the whole climate change debate. Many (most?) people out there would choose "gold." Something shiny, that other people who like shiny things will covet. But I look at every stone, every stream, every plant on the ~30 acres I own and think: "how can I utilize this resource more effectively?" And when you really explore the use of resources that we all mostly take for granted? You start to see energy consumption and pollution in our society/planet in an entirely different light. Case in point: "excess" water. People have tiled millions of acres of farm land to move as much rain and melted snow off their land as quickly as they can. But then rather than saving/storing said water for periods of drought? They blast it down the creek, which connects to a river, which connects to a bigger river, which connects to an even BIGGER river, which eventually makes its way to the ocean. Where it needs to be desalinated to become useful as irrigation water or drinking water. So instead of spending billions developing systems to capture/store said water, we spend trillions building levees and rebuilding communities devastated by flood. All because people are lazy,
Related to nitrous oxides, the EPA apparently has a different take on it than you do, since their own website states: "In 2012, nitrous oxide (N2O) accounted for about 6% of all U.S. greenhouse gas emissions from human activities." So are nitrous oxides greenhouse gases, or aren't they? EPA says yes. Anonymous political conservative on a fantasy football forum says no. FWIW too, that same EPA website says: "Human activities such as agriculture, fossil fuel combustion, wastewater management, and industrial processes are increasing the amount of N2O in the atmosphere." But I assume it somehow has something to do with a liberal conspiracy to help Dear Leader convert our nation to communism. (?)
Oh yes, and liberal puppets such as the folks at NOAA will concede that carbon monoxide is not a "greenhouse gas." Though they do have this to say on the matter: "Carbon monoxide (CO) is not considered a direct greenhouse gas, mostly because it does not absorb terrestrial thermal IR energy strongly enough. However, CO is able to modulate the production of methane and tropospheric ozone. The Northern Hemisphere contains about twice as much CO as the Southern Hemisphere because as much as half of the global burden of CO is derived from human activity, which is predominantly located in the northern hemisphere. Due to the spatial variability of CO, it is difficult to ascertain global concentrations, however, it appears as though they were generally increasing until the late 1980s, and have since begun to decline somewhat. One possible explanation is the reduction in vehicle emissions of CO since greater use of catalytic converters has been made."
Someone ought to rise up, form a militia, and threaten all the people who don't agree with their world view with various forms of weaponry and bullying tactics. Have the vocal minority save the majority from themselves...before it's too late.
