|
wildtrail
Aug 1, 2002, 9:20 PM
Post #51 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
I have to say one thing about everybody on this thread. I am very suprised at the level of maturity. You all impress me. In an impersonal world, such as the internet, you all are on one side of the fence or the other (some standing on it in the middle). However, usually this is the place that "flaming" starts and things get out of hand. Yet, none of you do that. It is a HUGE suprise on the net to see that. I congradulate you all for being such great people. You all truly inspire me that this world can be civil even in the midst of anonimity and geographic separation!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
wetrocks
Aug 1, 2002, 9:26 PM
Post #52 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2002
Posts: 102
|
Are you familar with the concept of an
Ecological Footprint ?
Yes the U.S. may produce more goods, but where does all the raw resources used to produce these goods originate?
Where is all the waste deposited after consumption of these goods? After comsumption the waste that isn't put into the landfills is deposited into the commons.
Such gluttinous use of resources adds a disproportionate amount of pollution and waste into the biosphere. Why should any proud country continue live in such a destructive manor?
Sorry for the spaze here, but what gives the U.S. the right to s--- on the planet so much?
Ok, ok, time to calm........quite venting........it's not only the U.S. causing the problem. I apoligize for pointing a finger. Just be aware of the excessive impact that the American lifestyle has on our planet.
Once I became aware of the impact I was having on our planet I sold my big Ol'GMC 4x4 and made changes to many other aspects of my lifestyle. Simple changes make such a difference over the long run.... I can't remember the last time I needed to use a disposable coffe cup and my cardio is great from all the biking.
After just flipping back to the thread I'm now way off topic but what can ya do. I gotta agree that the hardcore environmentalists lost any respect I had for them years ago. Regardless....we need to take care of this place...sounds simple enough...so lets minimize how much we consume.
Time to hit the crags. Gotta go, cheers to all.
|
|
|
|
|
gunkjunkie
Aug 1, 2002, 9:50 PM
Post #53 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 15, 2001
Posts: 153
|
Dear Mr. Langford:
To answer the question of what has the rest of the world done for us lately.
The "developing world" has served as a cheap source of natural resources and labor. The United States goverment is responisble for much violence in the name of "perserving democracy" an oxymoron for making the world safe for for corporations.
Take a look at the involvement of the US government in Central and South America. For example, the involvement of the US in Chile (overthrowing a democractically elected president Allende after he nationalized some industries and upset ITT). Guatamala - where the US has ties to the death squads and helped to overthrow an elected government - I believe that this was at the behest of the United Fruit Company. Columbia is currently on the receiving end of Plan Columbia in which the US supplies money and equipment for a campaign which is essentially against the people of Columbia.
Also - look at the example of Nicargua - the World Court found the US guilty of waging a terrorist war against the Sandinista government. The US supplied information to the Contras and encouraged them to attack soft targets. Soft targets are medical clinics, farms, villages, etc.
So before you start complaining about what the world has done for us lately - take a look at your cheap clothing, gasoline, tv's and other electronic products, shoes, even the alumninum that your carabiners are made of and then you'll see what the rest of the world has done for us.
Deirdre
|
|
|
|
|
cedk
Aug 1, 2002, 10:00 PM
Post #54 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 31, 2001
Posts: 516
|
1) If the USA saved France twice in the 20th century it was really the least we could do for them saving our ass durring the revoloutionary war and for showing us the way to democracy. That's one thing another country has done for us and I'd say a pretty big one.
2) Australlia: please don't stop sending food as I have no domestic source for Vegemite.
3) Langford: I totally disagree with your take on global warming. Take that stuff back to RushLimbaugh.com.
4) The USA does kick ass but that's because we've got the strengths of every culture in the world to draw upon.
E Pluribus Unum!
|
|
|
|
|
philbox
Moderator
Aug 1, 2002, 10:19 PM
Post #55 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
|
Just a short comment if I may.
The US must continue to be an economic powerhouse and by staying strong economically it will over time develop the knowledge and science to solve environmental problems.
Cripple the US and other developed nations and where will the money come from to solve these seemingly intractible problems.
Sure talk about what could be a problem and over time man will solve that problem, I have no doubt that man has the ability to solve these problems just don`t nobble the economic activity that will support such an effort.
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Aug 1, 2002, 10:48 PM
Post #56 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Wildtrail-Glad you agree and all but, just remember, I'm not talking just about environmentalists. I'm talking about both sides. Both sides have the same problem. If they're passionate about something alot of people view things as blac and white. That goes for miners, loggers, captains of industry, priests, butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers. Its closed minded and a really shi tty wat to go through life.
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 1, 2002, 11:04 PM
Post #57 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
Agreed!
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
biggernhell
Aug 1, 2002, 11:15 PM
Post #58 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 7, 2002
Posts: 563
|
Ah, yes JM we do, but how does one equte to the other? Are we helping more than we are fu cking up?
|
|
|
|
|
russmanswife
Aug 1, 2002, 11:58 PM
Post #59 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 5, 2001
Posts: 344
|
just have to add my two cents and this is all i am going to say on this. we use up fossil fuels everyday driving cars is not the only people use up the earth's resources. take what we eat that food doesn't magically appear out of no where it takes fuel to grow it and harvest it and get it to the store and then to your table, same with the clothes you wear i have yet to see t-shirts falling from the sky guess what they get to the store buy a truck burning fuel aka fossil fuels. your computer that you are typing on at the moment or surfing the internet you are using electricity to run that computer which may or may not come from fossil fuel, around here we have hydroelectic power don't even get started on the threat that that is to salmon even though they are an endangered species isn't it funny to still see the stores selling it and restaurants serving it. yes i am concerned about the enviroment and would like to see my kids have a beautiful planet to live on but at the same time i don't want them running around naked cold and starving because we can't take the risk of using too much of the earth's resources. i am from oregon and i am proud to say that many family members worked in the logging industry (yes they helped cut down trees oh my god!) an industry which helped provide for my family not only in material posessions but put food on the table and clothes on our backs without that i may not be and neither would my son. it isn't necessarily that we need to stop using natural resources we need to be more responsible in the way we go about using them. as far as suvs go i would say after many years of the government trying to get car manufacturers to make them more fuel efficient and i have yet to see a suburban get 30 miles to the gallon i would say that there is a bigger picture out there that not everyone always sees any of the manufacturers clothing, food, autos or otherwise are not ready to make the step to help everyone else save the planet. quit blaming the common man and start looking for the bigger fish to fry. until then i will drive my big ole suv to keep my family safe and make my trips in it to the grocery store so that i can feed and clothes my family and during all that time burning fuel to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
collegekid
Aug 2, 2002, 12:31 AM
Post #60 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2002
Posts: 1852
|
wow, this topic has been going on forever! Is there a list of longest-enduring topics somewhere?
|
|
|
|
|
climber_chick
Aug 2, 2002, 1:01 AM
Post #61 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2001
Posts: 278
|
i'm sure we can HELP with adding to the global warming, although i'm sure you people wouldn't want that. with the cutting down of the rainforests, it certainly helps. since the rainforests help with alot of our oxygen, if the oxygen supply depletes, then the greenhouse effect will take place and then global warming will occur. yup yup. a school project has done me some good.
|
|
|
|
|
crimpinfool
Aug 2, 2002, 5:14 AM
Post #62 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2002
Posts: 16
|
I think we've all lost the point of this thread. Langford wanted "proof" that we are causing global warming. I stand by what I said earlier, that no scientific evidence can grant certainty. Indeed, uncertainty is inherent in science. If you look at any peer-reviewed article you will notice the extensive use of STATISTICS, which are an expression of PROBABILISTIC CONCLUSIONS. In the case of gravity, the rock falling on my head is the observable data, and we posit a mystical force called gravity as the cause of this phenomena. However, since we cannot see gravity itself, only the supposed effects of it, we can only theorize that it exists with some probability. My apologies to those who are unable to wrap your mind around this. Likewise, just because we know the Earth is warming does not mean we can automatically know that humans are causing this. We must advance theories base on which ones best describe the data. Currently, most atmospheric scientists agree that human-generated pollutants play an important role in global warming. However, nothing is ever "proven" or certain because we cannot directly observe the effects on the scale we are measuring. That should not, and cannot stop us from taking steps in what we believe is the best direction. If the best data and the best models point to human activity as contributing significantly to global warming, then get off your high horse (or your mile-high SUV) and get to work. To those of you who get 15 mpg or less in your vehicle (and it is less than 5 year old), would you honestly prefer to NOT get better gas mileage? Do you realize that a more renewable energy source would be cheaper to operate on in the long run? The problem as I see it is perspective. If we look only 5 years into the future, then energy conservation is not as important as reducing taxes. However, when we decide to look further into the future, say 25 years, then taxes seem trivial compared to taking steps to control global warming. Also, to those who want to wait for more solid science, know that you are in the esteemed company of the CEO of Exxon/Mobil and Pres. Bush, whereas the CEO's of the other major oil producers have already acknowledged the role fossil fuels play in global warming.
[ This Message was edited by: crimpinfool on 2002-08-01 22:17 ]
|
|
|
|
|
wildtrail
Aug 2, 2002, 5:33 AM
Post #63 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 6, 2002
Posts: 11063
|
To answer one of Eric's questions, no I would not prefer better gas mileage. I may be one of the few, but I like power. I also like lots of room, so it is an SUV or 4X4 pickup for me. I also own an old muscle car, so again, the power thing. Its not a "penis envy" thing either. I was born in a family that likes powerful or luxury cars. I have owned a "effecient" vehicle once. It was the worst. I had no room for anything, it couldn't pass itself, and I just hated it. I do as much as I can for the environment, but I'm not giving up everything. I will always own something with "balls", so to speak. Besides, my SUV makes a great road-trip vehicle and I can carpool like a madman (it seats eight). When I go across country with friends it is more effecient. One vehicle using 150 bucks in gas is better than three using 100 bucks, isn't it? Well, that may be a moot point, but I'm still not giving up the HP. If it can't fly, I won't buy. I can strap two kayaks, a bunch of bikes and gear to the darn thing, plus carry a group of people.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 2, 2002, 5:47 AM
Post #64 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
Okay, I can't answer everything at once so, bit by bit, I'll try.
Quote #1 from crimpinfool:The overwhelming number of geologists, climatologists, biologists, etc. would disagree with Dr. Michaels.
Quote #2 from crimpinfool:jmlangford,
Unfortunately, pollsters have not conducted any comprehensive surveys of opinions in the scientific community
Well, I did a little research and the Gallup organization(a neutral pollster, wouldn't you agree?) conducted a poll of scientists that are actually involved in global climate research. Here are the results:
53 percent do not believe that global warming is occurring.
30 percent say they don't know
17 percent say they believe it is occurring.
I rest my case on that point.
|
|
|
|
|
coldclimb
Aug 2, 2002, 7:07 AM
Post #65 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 14, 2002
Posts: 6909
|
hmm, lots of long posts on this topic. I'll keep mine to one subject that bugged me as I read through them.
The U.S. citizens driving their suburbans are not the main cause.
Several posts on here from americans have pointed at America as a huge cause of polution. I'll admit that there is a lot here, but our laws also limit it quite a bit. I have been to places overseas where even the citizens who live there all their lives could not breath because of the exhaust from the constant streams of junky, old cars in extreme cases of disrepair. It struck me that some of you have your thoughts centered on Americans and how much they are poluting. Look at how our laws limit polution, especially through automobiles.
American polution is nothing when compared even to tiny, third world countries!
I'll not go into the other aspects of this as it would be a waste of typing energy, but this subject just struck me. My opinion is with Jim.
|
|
|
|
|
osho
Aug 2, 2002, 10:50 AM
Post #66 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 16, 2002
Posts: 69
|
Quote:
Well, I did a little research and the Gallup organization(a neutral pollster, wouldn't you agree?) conducted a poll of scientists that are actually involved in global climate research. Here are the results:
53 percent do not believe that global warming is occurring.
Well I wonder what kind of definition they're using for "global warming," cause the dictionary definition, "An increase in the average temperature of the earth's atmosphere" is measurably happening, so I wonder what these scientists aren't believing in?
|
|
|
|
|
taxexile
Aug 2, 2002, 12:18 PM
Post #67 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 97
|
I just bought shares in a company that manufactures sun cream. I urge you all to buy more SUVs and continue your gaseous emissions. After all, it's my God-given right to profit from the suffering of future generations, right?
|
|
|
|
|
taxexile
Aug 2, 2002, 12:54 PM
Post #68 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2002
Posts: 97
|
Er...thanks for the insights into Switzerland Rico. Obviously you live in a different country, which just happens to be also called Switzerland, to the one that financed the Nazis in WW2, is home to the some of the world's most repugnant corporations, who's banks stole Jewish money, and which gets rich making money from both sides in many wars. But at least your streets are clean.
It's not your English that's poor Rico, just your grasp of reality.
|
|
|
|
|
madscientist
Aug 2, 2002, 2:14 PM
Post #69 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2002
Posts: 159
|
This tread is long so I did not get a chance to read everything, but I don't think this has been stated before.
I talked to a scientist from NOAA about a year ago about the effect of pollution on the environment. His belief that Global Warming was an over simplification. Most of the world's pollution occurs in large industrial areas, and does not distribute itself uniformly over the earth. Down wind of these areas, large clouds of gases form which warm up the earth downwind of the industrial area. Upwind (because of some mechanism I did not understand thus I forgot) the temperature actually got cooler. Thus the average temperature of the whole earth did not change much. I'm sorry I can't quote any sources, but this theory is speculation. Fortunately, they can run large scale computer simulations that predict this effect, and all availiable data seems to support the simulations. There needs to be much more data collected, as of a year ago, to say anything for sure.
There was also someone who talked about a Hydrogen fueled car, i.e. a feul cell car. Honda is talking about releasing a model within the next ten years. They are easy enough to make, but there are two problems. Cost, and the fuel. People will have to get the fuel, so some kind of large scale changing of gas stations will have to occur. Also, the last quote I saw was that one would cost about $500,000. Personally, I will have to wait for the cost to come down. Honda seems to think they can do it though. There might be some Constuction equipment and Trucks built sooner. The nice thing about a fuel cell car is that the waste is water. We could use a little more water here in Colorado.
|
|
|
|
|
stewbabby
Aug 2, 2002, 2:46 PM
Post #70 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2002
Posts: 802
|
Ok, im too lazy to read all of each post on topic, so im not sure if this has already been stated, but i will say it anyway. FACT-MORE DAMAGE IS DONE TO THE ATMOSPHERE IN ONE YEAR BY VOLCANIC ERUPTIONS AND METHANE GAS FROM COWS FARTING, THAN ALL OF THE POLUTANTS THAT HUMANS HAVE PRODUCED THROUGHOUT TIME.
stewart
|
|
|
|
|
dmon
Aug 3, 2002, 2:14 AM
Post #71 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2002
Posts: 216
|
Hey Wildtrail, my post containing the word CANCER and your reference to your wives cancer are completely seperate. My reference to cancer came BEFORE yours.
I was not, and would not be so insensitive as to suggest that your wife's cancer was caused by by UV. It was not my intention to offend you, or your wife.
I hope that both you and your wife are OK.
Sincerely,
Duncan
PS. I will PM this to you so that I know you get it.
|
|
|
|
|
dmon
Aug 3, 2002, 2:32 AM
Post #72 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 6, 2002
Posts: 216
|
On a slightly less friendly note...
Crimpinfool, your ID is at least half right. Having shown that the LAW OF GRAVITY is only a theory, what will your next trick be? Perhaps you will overturn the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS? Is a perpetual motion machine on its way?
As a self professed member of the "scientific community" you should know the very DISTINCT difference between a theory and a law. LAWS, SUCH AS THOSE OF GRAVITY AND THERMODYNAMICS ARE CALLED LAWS BECAUSE THEY CAN BE CONCLUSIVELY PROVED. THEORIES (EVOLUTION FOR EXAMPLE) ARE SO CALLED BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVELY PROVED, BUT DO FIT THE AVAILABLE DATA.
I am an undergraduate science student and I have known this since high school. What exactly is your position in the "scientific community". If you are presenting your views as those of a "scientist" then this is pertinent (as opposed to impertinent
)
One of my pet hates is people who spout "scientific" views about topics when in reality they do not know what they are talking about (please note I am no longer talking about my friend crimpinfool, but more generally). As a biotech student, I am constantly reading CRAP about genetically modified food and so on. I realise that this is off topic, and include it only to qualify my position.
Duncan
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 3, 2002, 5:17 AM
Post #73 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
A friend PM'd me this and I thought it was well put:
Saw your thread on Global Warming and thought I would drop a line. It is amazing how far spun up some people can get over something like this but it never ceases to amaze me how some of these eco folks can get worked up. I love the outdoors as much as the next climber and do what I can but I agree with you that it is not simply the Americans that are the problem. I also agree that we have bailed out the rest of the world too many times and then been kicked in the teeth. For those that asked when did we help out when there was nothing in it for us look to Ruwanda, Somalia, Bosnia and numerous other sites where we have worked, fought and died and got nothing out of it. I also find it interesting how the younger generation can point out all the evils but has few answers to solve the problems. I was always taught not to be quick to point out a problem unless you have a viable solution for it. Most of us are already aware of the problems, we just need solutions that are viable. To say stop driving your cars is not the solution! I have been to some areas in Eastern Europe where the air quality (because of high emission fuels (coal)) is terrible, South America is cutting forests at an unbelievable rate and Japanese fishing trawlers sweep vast areas clear of any fish. Everyone recognizes these problems but few have answers for emerging countries that need the income from trees, have no modern factories and need the fish to feed vast populations and sell overseas.
I guess I should get down off my soapbox now. I just wanted you to know that I agree with you. There are a lot more pressing problems than worrying about the .8 degree temperature increase. Particularly in light of evidence that does not support that we are the cause of it!
Thanks also to Russmanswife for her passionate post!
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-02 22:17 ]
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 3, 2002, 6:33 AM
Post #74 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
And here is another PM I think needs to be read:
Ok, I guess I'll put in my two cents.
On the issue of global warming, the heat islands we have created have more of an impact than the fossil fuel emissions. What is a heat island? Atlanta is a heat island,
New York, San Francisco, etc.... But science doesn't seem to address that issue.
How about that ozone layer, here we have "ozone depleting gases" being released at ground level, destroying the ozone layer so high above us (IN THEORY, there is still no actual proof of this), but it doesn't affect the ozone here at ground level. Ozone is a major ingredient in smog, so shouldn't all those "ozone depleting gases" actually be
helping the smog problem?
I drive a Sable wagon. When I can, I commute 20 miles to work on a bicycle. I just believe that you should not trust every talking head, just because the liberal press
puts them on TV. After all, TV is after ratings, so they'll put ANYTHING on that they think will get them ratings. Just look at the newspaper, they'll put any controversial
theory on the front page, but the correction will be on the last page.
I am not feeling so alone anymore!
|
|
|
|
|
jmlangford
Aug 4, 2002, 3:59 AM
Post #75 of 228
(14310 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 2, 2001
Posts: 1569
|
ergophobe...In checking your links I checked out the Pew Institute. A certain Ms. Claussen is the chief advocate and speaker for their 'global warming' agenda.
In Pew's profile of her I quote the following:
Ms. Claussen is also a member of the board of directors of the Environmental Law Institute.
In the Environmental Law Institute's statement of their mission, I quote the following:
Behind the attorney in the courtroom is the lawyer in the library searching for new arguments and precedents. The first resource and often the last resource needed by these lawyers is the Environmental Law Reporter (ELR) and the research reports of ELI.
Kind of tells me she has a vested interest in keeping those laws piling up. Has to keep those lawyers busy. Also discredits her "neutrality".
[ This Message was edited by: jmlangford on 2002-08-03 21:03 ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
