Global Warming
#21
(11-03-2014, 01:43 PM)chuck white Wrote: Don't worry about the ten billion people, the CDC 'Center for Disease Creation' is working on new forms of Ebola to help with this problem of too many people.
Chuck, all you have to do is feed them some GMO corn, and they will self-destruct. Ebola was designed to eliminate the milk drinkers, and monkey meat eaters.

Are there really ten billion people on the planet? I must have just awakened from reality.
Reply
#22
(11-03-2014, 05:47 PM)tornado Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 01:43 PM)chuck white Wrote: Don't worry about the ten billion people, the CDC 'Center for Disease Creation' is working on new forms of Ebola to help with this problem of too many people.
Chuck, all you have to do is feed them some GMO corn, and they will self-destruct. Ebola was designed to eliminate the milk drinkers, and monkey meat eaters.

Are there really ten billion people on the planet? I must have just awakened from reality.

Not yet.

Quote:It had taken all of human history until around 1800 for world population to reach one billion, the second billion was achieved in only 130 years (1930), the third billion in less than 30 years (1959), the fourth billion in 15 years (1974), and the fifth billion in only 13 years (1987).

During the 20th century alone, the population in the world has grown from 1.65 billion to 6 billion.
In 1970, there were roughly half as many people in the world as there are now.
Because of declining growth rates, it will now take over 200 years to double again.

http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/
Reply
#23
(11-03-2014, 09:53 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 07:07 AM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 09:29 PM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 09:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Do we need to review?

"Climate change", the science folks tell us, is a fact. Already we are seeing the effects.

And we know that there have been periods of climate change in the past when there were not 7 billion people on the planet.

So, is climate change "man made"? Well...

Whatever cause the climate to change before (volcanoes?) we know this much: The billions of folks on the planet now are spewing lots of carbon into the air and science tells us clearly that it causes changes in the weather, and long term, the climate. So if nothing else it ADDS to our problem!

So we don't know what caused it before. We know now that carbon fuel is a huge problem.

So, this is not a political thing. It's a science thing. But the solution will have to come from political agreement. Political agreement can happen only when reasonable intelligent people accept facts and no longer deny reality.

Science talks. Dogma walks. (Cant' believe I even said that. Embarrassed)

I don't believe that the science is settled on the anthropogenic part.

The human population is at an all time high. Is it the all time high of all mammalian inhabitance ?
We knew the colocynth was extinct and witches float .
coelacanths The fishes.

Your right tv . It is front page news with the Clintons. 2011 figures for georgie were 110k per speech.

Smoke and mirrors.
Non-human mammals don't burn carbon fuel. Never did. People do.

"anthropogenic" indeed. Yes, the number of people producing CO2 does matter. If you don't believe that science is "settled" I suggest you live in a bubble.. You might well say that it's possible people burning carbon are not the ONLY problem we face, and you might even be right. But to deny the fact is to ignore a truth that matters to us all.

There was science...real science, offered in a link in a post above. I offer it here again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/...hange.html

Pick it apart. But when you do. please, in the name of good argument, try to stay on point and not drift off into who got how much for speaking fees.

We no longer stress about witches floating and we can thank science for eliminating that "truth" also. And yet, while debunking that myth we still acknowledge evil lives among us. The difference is we have used reason to define it.

There is a lot of information out there. Some good, some not so good, and our real chore is to parse it using some objective standard.

Let's assume you are a political "conservative".
Let's assume I'm a political "liberal"

It won't matter a bit when the truth of what we are CONTRIBUTING to climate change begins to degrade the quality of our lives and those who follow.

Argument is good. Only good argument is productive. Don't argue we me, argue with the scientist who are publishing the reports that alarm so many around the globe.

Wonky , Parroting the group of scientists that tell us GW is a fact is no different than mine of wait a minute.
The actual debate is about the policy of dealing with it. I am not for wholesale destruction. My stance is stewardship .
Many of the governmental geniuses have cost we the people billions on failed endeavors. Solyndra, A 123 systems , Fiskers , Bright Source , Solar trust of America , Abound Solar , Evergreen Solar. There are others too.

I want the people given our trust to be responsible with our money .

I do not think the Pubs are any better. These are career politicians.

As a side note if the R's put forth another Bush or Mc same or Romney I might just vote for Nader.
Reply
#24
(11-03-2014, 10:57 PM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 09:53 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 07:07 AM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 09:29 PM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 09:08 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Do we need to review?

"Climate change", the science folks tell us, is a fact. Already we are seeing the effects.

And we know that there have been periods of climate change in the past when there were not 7 billion people on the planet.

So, is climate change "man made"? Well...

Whatever cause the climate to change before (volcanoes?) we know this much: The billions of folks on the planet now are spewing lots of carbon into the air and science tells us clearly that it causes changes in the weather, and long term, the climate. So if nothing else it ADDS to our problem!

So we don't know what caused it before. We know now that carbon fuel is a huge problem.

So, this is not a political thing. It's a science thing. But the solution will have to come from political agreement. Political agreement can happen only when reasonable intelligent people accept facts and no longer deny reality.

Science talks. Dogma walks. (Cant' believe I even said that. Embarrassed)

I don't believe that the science is settled on the anthropogenic part.

The human population is at an all time high. Is it the all time high of all mammalian inhabitance ?
We knew the colocynth was extinct and witches float .
coelacanths The fishes.

Your right tv . It is front page news with the Clintons. 2011 figures for georgie were 110k per speech.

Smoke and mirrors.
Non-human mammals don't burn carbon fuel. Never did. People do.

"anthropogenic" indeed. Yes, the number of people producing CO2 does matter. If you don't believe that science is "settled" I suggest you live in a bubble.. You might well say that it's possible people burning carbon are not the ONLY problem we face, and you might even be right. But to deny the fact is to ignore a truth that matters to us all.

There was science...real science, offered in a link in a post above. I offer it here again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/...hange.html

Pick it apart. But when you do. please, in the name of good argument, try to stay on point and not drift off into who got how much for speaking fees.

We no longer stress about witches floating and we can thank science for eliminating that "truth" also. And yet, while debunking that myth we still acknowledge evil lives among us. The difference is we have used reason to define it.

There is a lot of information out there. Some good, some not so good, and our real chore is to parse it using some objective standard.

Let's assume you are a political "conservative".
Let's assume I'm a political "liberal"

It won't matter a bit when the truth of what we are CONTRIBUTING to climate change begins to degrade the quality of our lives and those who follow.

Argument is good. Only good argument is productive. Don't argue we me, argue with the scientist who are publishing the reports that alarm so many around the globe.

Wonky , Parroting the group of scientists that tell us GW is a fact is no different than mine of wait a minute.
The actual debate is about the policy of dealing with it. I am not for wholesale destruction. My stance is stewardship .
Many of the governmental geniuses have cost we the people billions on failed endeavors. Solyndra, A 123 systems , Fiskers , Bright Source , Solar trust of America , Abound Solar , Evergreen Solar. There are others too.

I want the people given our trust to be responsible with our money .

I do not think the Pubs are any better. These are career politicians.

As a side note if the R's put forth another Bush or Mc same or Romney I might just vote for Nader.

As aways 067, you make good points.
But I think in this case you may have shot at the wrong target.
You point to: "Solyndra, A 123 systems , Fiskers , Bright Source , Solar trust of America , Abound Solar , Evergreen Solar. There are others too."
These were failed industrial programs promoted by government to test the efficacy of attempting to make products that did not need fossil fuel. Often, initial programs embracing new science flounder in the begging. These failed. Others are showing more promise but seem to be a long way from being implemented.
The scientific study referred to in posts above was in no way connected the the programs you mentioned. It was science subjected to peer review and restricted only to the effects of excess CO2 in our atmosphere. What we do with that information is in no way connected to "policy" although one would hope that industry (and governments) would take note and do whatever is possible to correct what seems to be a real problem.

There is one argument abut this that remains. Science is certain that CO2 is a major problem. If there is a legitimate argument it centers around the question about this problem being "man made" or simply another "earth cycle" that we should expect.

Most science points to made made carbon release as a major factor. The best rebuttal to this is to find and post a peer reviewed science paper that supports the argument that our problem is not "man made" but comes from "natural causes". The critical thing here is "peer reviewed". All kinds of "weather reports from TV stations, etc, have weighed in on this. That is NOT peer reviewed and never published in scientific journals.

Scientists from all point of the globe tell us we have a problem, but they don't make policy.

So, what's next?
Reply
#25
(11-03-2014, 01:43 PM)chuck white Wrote: Don't worry about the ten billion people, the CDC 'Center for Disease Creation' is working on new forms of Ebola to help with this problem of too many people.

It's scary that you might actually seriously believe that.
Reply
#26
(11-04-2014, 12:54 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 10:57 PM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 09:53 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 07:07 AM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-02-2014, 09:29 PM)oregon 67 Wrote: I don't believe that the science is settled on the anthropogenic part.

The human population is at an all time high. Is it the all time high of all mammalian inhabitance ?
We knew the colocynth was extinct and witches float .
coelacanths The fishes.

Your right tv . It is front page news with the Clintons. 2011 figures for georgie were 110k per speech.

Smoke and mirrors.
Non-human mammals don't burn carbon fuel. Never did. People do.

"anthropogenic" indeed. Yes, the number of people producing CO2 does matter. If you don't believe that science is "settled" I suggest you live in a bubble.. You might well say that it's possible people burning carbon are not the ONLY problem we face, and you might even be right. But to deny the fact is to ignore a truth that matters to us all.

There was science...real science, offered in a link in a post above. I offer it here again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/...hange.html

Pick it apart. But when you do. please, in the name of good argument, try to stay on point and not drift off into who got how much for speaking fees.

We no longer stress about witches floating and we can thank science for eliminating that "truth" also. And yet, while debunking that myth we still acknowledge evil lives among us. The difference is we have used reason to define it.

There is a lot of information out there. Some good, some not so good, and our real chore is to parse it using some objective standard.

Let's assume you are a political "conservative".
Let's assume I'm a political "liberal"

It won't matter a bit when the truth of what we are CONTRIBUTING to climate change begins to degrade the quality of our lives and those who follow.

Argument is good. Only good argument is productive. Don't argue we me, argue with the scientist who are publishing the reports that alarm so many around the globe.

Wonky , Parroting the group of scientists that tell us GW is a fact is no different than mine of wait a minute.
The actual debate is about the policy of dealing with it. I am not for wholesale destruction. My stance is stewardship .
Many of the governmental geniuses have cost we the people billions on failed endeavors. Solyndra, A 123 systems , Fiskers , Bright Source , Solar trust of America , Abound Solar , Evergreen Solar. There are others too.

I want the people given our trust to be responsible with our money .

I do not think the Pubs are any better. These are career politicians.

As a side note if the R's put forth another Bush or Mc same or Romney I might just vote for Nader.

As aways 067, you make good points.
But I think in this case you may have shot at the wrong target.
You point to: "Solyndra, A 123 systems , Fiskers , Bright Source , Solar trust of America , Abound Solar , Evergreen Solar. There are others too."
These were failed industrial programs promoted by government to test the efficacy of attempting to make products that did not need fossil fuel. Often, initial programs embracing new science flounder in the begging. These failed. Others are showing more promise but seem to be a long way from being implemented.
The scientific study referred to in posts above was in no way connected the the programs you mentioned. It was science subjected to peer review and restricted only to the effects of excess CO2 in our atmosphere. What we do with that information is in no way connected to "policy" although one would hope that industry (and governments) would take note and do whatever is possible to correct what seems to be a real problem.

There is one argument abut this that remains. Science is certain that CO2 is a major problem. If there is a legitimate argument it centers around the question about this problem being "man made" or simply another "earth cycle" that we should expect.

Most science points to made made carbon release as a major factor. The best rebuttal to this is to find and post a peer reviewed science paper that supports the argument that our problem is not "man made" but comes from "natural causes". The critical thing here is "peer reviewed". All kinds of "weather reports from TV stations, etc, have weighed in on this. That is NOT peer reviewed and never published in scientific journals.

Scientists from all point of the globe tell us we have a problem, but they don't make policy.

So, what's next?

Solar power generation has been around for a long time ... Look at the space program.
My problem with the studies is that to get funding you have to get grant money from the gov't. or big industry. either side is looking for their outcome . As a hypothetical: Giving a conservative presentation to a roomful of progressive equals . The information presented would be panned and rejected, even if valid.

I am for new and innovative ways (stewardship) . If we can find a way to leave the arabs with their oil and not our money great.

I look at the "scientists" the same way I look at those professing to be "Christians"
There are those that may be true and just, I just don't buy the song and dance. Altruism Seems a dead virtue.
Sorry I'm jaded and skeptical.
Reply
#27
(11-04-2014, 07:24 PM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-04-2014, 12:54 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 10:57 PM)oregon 67 Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 09:53 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 07:07 AM)oregon 67 Wrote: coelacanths The fishes.

Your right tv . It is front page news with the Clintons. 2011 figures for georgie were 110k per speech.

Smoke and mirrors.
Non-human mammals don't burn carbon fuel. Never did. People do.

"anthropogenic" indeed. Yes, the number of people producing CO2 does matter. If you don't believe that science is "settled" I suggest you live in a bubble.. You might well say that it's possible people burning carbon are not the ONLY problem we face, and you might even be right. But to deny the fact is to ignore a truth that matters to us all.

There was science...real science, offered in a link in a post above. I offer it here again.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/world/...hange.html

Pick it apart. But when you do. please, in the name of good argument, try to stay on point and not drift off into who got how much for speaking fees.

We no longer stress about witches floating and we can thank science for eliminating that "truth" also. And yet, while debunking that myth we still acknowledge evil lives among us. The difference is we have used reason to define it.

There is a lot of information out there. Some good, some not so good, and our real chore is to parse it using some objective standard.

Let's assume you are a political "conservative".
Let's assume I'm a political "liberal"

It won't matter a bit when the truth of what we are CONTRIBUTING to climate change begins to degrade the quality of our lives and those who follow.

Argument is good. Only good argument is productive. Don't argue we me, argue with the scientist who are publishing the reports that alarm so many around the globe.

Wonky , Parroting the group of scientists that tell us GW is a fact is no different than mine of wait a minute.
The actual debate is about the policy of dealing with it. I am not for wholesale destruction. My stance is stewardship .
Many of the governmental geniuses have cost we the people billions on failed endeavors. Solyndra, A 123 systems , Fiskers , Bright Source , Solar trust of America , Abound Solar , Evergreen Solar. There are others too.

I want the people given our trust to be responsible with our money .

I do not think the Pubs are any better. These are career politicians.

As a side note if the R's put forth another Bush or Mc same or Romney I might just vote for Nader.

As aways 067, you make good points.
But I think in this case you may have shot at the wrong target.
You point to: "Solyndra, A 123 systems , Fiskers , Bright Source , Solar trust of America , Abound Solar , Evergreen Solar. There are others too."
These were failed industrial programs promoted by government to test the efficacy of attempting to make products that did not need fossil fuel. Often, initial programs embracing new science flounder in the begging. These failed. Others are showing more promise but seem to be a long way from being implemented.
The scientific study referred to in posts above was in no way connected the the programs you mentioned. It was science subjected to peer review and restricted only to the effects of excess CO2 in our atmosphere. What we do with that information is in no way connected to "policy" although one would hope that industry (and governments) would take note and do whatever is possible to correct what seems to be a real problem.

There is one argument abut this that remains. Science is certain that CO2 is a major problem. If there is a legitimate argument it centers around the question about this problem being "man made" or simply another "earth cycle" that we should expect.

Most science points to made made carbon release as a major factor. The best rebuttal to this is to find and post a peer reviewed science paper that supports the argument that our problem is not "man made" but comes from "natural causes". The critical thing here is "peer reviewed". All kinds of "weather reports from TV stations, etc, have weighed in on this. That is NOT peer reviewed and never published in scientific journals.

Scientists from all point of the globe tell us we have a problem, but they don't make policy.

So, what's next?

Solar power generation has been around for a long time ... Look at the space program.
My problem with the studies is that to get funding you have to get grant money from the gov't. or big industry. either side is looking for their outcome . As a hypothetical: Giving a conservative presentation to a roomful of progressive equals . The information presented would be panned and rejected, even if valid.

I am for new and innovative ways (stewardship) . If we can find a way to leave the arabs with their oil and not our money great.

I look at the "scientists" the same way I look at those professing to be "Christians"
There are those that may be true and just, I just don't buy the song and dance. Altruism Seems a dead virtue.
Sorry I'm jaded and skeptical.

O/67, you disappoint met. I have enjoyed and learned from so many of your posts here.
Now this.
I going to disagree. I'm not suggesting I'm smarter, or more informed than you, but I sincerely feel you have missed something really important.

You say, "I look at the "scientists" the same way I look at those professing to be "Christians". There are those that may be true and just, I just don't buy the song and dance".

O/67, how CAN you, with a straight face, say that? To compare science and christianity is too bizarre to consider! Science is peer reviewed. It's often wrong, but when another truth is shown to be true, that becomes fact. (Newton/Einstein for instance). That is, it's self corrupting, the truth being the thing know to be factual until a new truth is found by investigation.

And altruism plays no part in this particular discussion. We are talking here about finding the essential truth of a system that may effect the lives of billions of people. Science has clearly proven that burning carbon effects our weather/climate. There can be some discussion about the significance of how much of this man made problem compares to the natural cycle of our planet, but there is no doubt about the science. CO2 DOES effect our atmosphere. Period. Is that TOTALY responsible for our problem? Most scientists think it is. But, we remain open: Show us a model that is rational that suggests continuing to add CO2 by our conduct is not a problem and we may embrace it.

And then you say, Solar power generation has been around for a long time ... Look at the space program.
My problem with the studies is that to get funding you have to get grant money from the gov't. or big industry. either side is looking for their outcome . As a hypothetical: Giving a conservative presentation to a roomful of progressive equals . The information presented would be panned and rejected, even if valid."


That argument simply does not hold water. To get funding for what? It takes very little funding to know that CO2 is a problem. That is now a simple fact accepted by all legitimate science. Any your hypothetical is just veers completely away from the point in my opinion.

The argument goes, "is climate change caused by man's actions or is it an "earth cycle" event. No one is suggesting (anymore) that burning carbon is not a problem, but only if it is a SIGNIFICANT problem.

The scientific report mentioned in this Topic is saying that we are in trouble. Be it man made or not, we are in trouble.

The only question is how we are going to deal with it.

I was hoping this thread would lead to a discussion about that.
Reply
#28
(11-04-2014, 07:24 PM)oregon 67 Wrote: Solar power generation has been around for a long time ... Look at the space program.
My problem with the studies is that to get funding you have to get grant money from the gov't. or big industry. either side is looking for their outcome . As a hypothetical: Giving a conservative presentation to a roomful of progressive equals . The information presented would be panned and rejected, even if valid.

I am for new and innovative ways (stewardship) . If we can find a way to leave the arabs with their oil and not our money great.

I look at the "scientists" the same way I look at those professing to be "Christians"
There are those that may be true and just, I just don't buy the song and dance. Altruism Seems a dead virtue.
Sorry I'm jaded and skeptical.

Quote: Giving a conservative presentation to a roomful of progressive equals . The information presented would be panned and rejected, even if valid.

WHY would you presume that the room full of people this conservative is giving a presentation too are all "progressives" ?? Isn't that just another word for libtards?
Quote:It seems to me the room If we can find a way to leave the arabs with their oil and not our money great

Where have you been? We only import 16% of our oil from the Saudi's and 6% form Iraq. And as far as I'm concerned those imports will most likely decrease the MORE we vote for democrats.
TOO many republicans have turned Global Warming in to something political and their arguments that it is not human caused are ludicrous.





[Image: ut_energy_poll.png]
Reply
#29
(11-04-2014, 08:05 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: It's often wrong, but when another truth is shown to be true, that becomes fact. (Newton/Einstein for instance). That is, it's self corrupting, the truth being the thing know to be factual until a new truth is found by investigation.

Laughing An accidental truth.
Reply
#30
(11-04-2014, 08:07 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-04-2014, 07:24 PM)oregon 67 Wrote: Solar power generation has been around for a long time ... Look at the space program.
My problem with the studies is that to get funding you have to get grant money from the gov't. or big industry. either side is looking for their outcome . As a hypothetical: Giving a conservative presentation to a roomful of progressive equals . The information presented would be panned and rejected, even if valid.

I am for new and innovative ways (stewardship) . If we can find a way to leave the arabs with their oil and not our money great.

I look at the "scientists" the same way I look at those professing to be "Christians"
There are those that may be true and just, I just don't buy the song and dance. Altruism Seems a dead virtue.
Sorry I'm jaded and skeptical.

Quote: Giving a conservative presentation to a roomful of progressive equals . The information presented would be panned and rejected, even if valid.

WHY would you presume that the room full of people this conservative is giving a presentation too are all "progressives" ?? Isn't that just another word for libtards?
Quote:It seems to me the room If we can find a way to leave the arabs with their oil and not our money great

Where have you been? We only import 16% of our oil from the Saudi's and 6% form Iraq. And as far as I'm concerned those imports will most likely decrease the MORE we vote for democrats.
TOO many republicans have turned Global Warming in to something political and their arguments that it is not human caused are ludicrous.





[Image: ut_energy_poll.png]

This argument is beside the point.
The scientific report posted here addressed the problem with our changing climate NOW.
We (all) must first find if we can agree that this change is the result of of man's burning fossil fuel. If so, we must find ways to deal with that. (And it matter little where the stuff comes from).

This report suggest we are already facing changes that will impact people all over the globe. It's what we do about that, that is important. If we can find energy sources not requiring burning fossil fuels we might have a chance to slow the process. But we still have a problem and finding answers to living with that reality seems to be a major concern of the scientists who issued this report.
Reply
#31
If it is a truly natural phenomenon . Than it would be narcissistic to believe we as humans can change it.

While weather patterns might change. What would that change be. The Sahara no longer a desert ? If the patterns stayed within the same latitudes wouldn't the growing seasons actually longer?

I have a little driving mare. I could hitch her and offer green service calls. Only mammalian co2 and some organic exhaust. I doubt that people would pay for the drive time. Getting parts would be a bitch. and ladders beyond a step would be really tough.

On the practical side LED lighting. really cool stuff. ODOT is swapping out HPS for LED that in itself is a HUGE energy savings.
While I have reservations about the capitol expenditure ,I get doing one area at a time. I would do it on a maintenance basis ( when the hps burn out) but I also get one area at a time.
Water heating is another area.
Reply
#32
(11-04-2014, 08:49 PM)oregon 67 Wrote: If it is a truly natural phenomenon . Than it would be narcissistic to believe we as humans can change it.

While weather patterns might change. What would that change be. The Sahara no longer a desert ? If the patterns stayed within the same latitudes wouldn't the growing seasons actually longer?

I have a little driving mare. I could hitch her and offer green service calls. Only mammalian co2 and some organic exhaust. I doubt that people would pay for the drive time. Getting parts would be a bitch. and ladders beyond a step would be really tough.

On the practical side LED lighting. really cool stuff. ODOT is swapping out HPS for LED that in itself is a HUGE energy savings.
While I have reservations about the capitol expenditure ,I get doing one area at a time. I would do it on a maintenance basis ( when the hps burn out) but I also get one area at a time.
Water heating is another area.

It just don't matter.
The science is clear.
Our climate is changing, for whatever reason, man made or not.
Can we make changes fast enough to slow it down?
Who knows.

The fact is, we are looking at weather/climate changes that will effect a lot of folks. Use all the LED's you want, but be prepared to see real changes in your life, or the lives of those younger than you.

Just on the off chance that WE have caused this stuff, it might be a good idea for industry and government to make MAJOR investments in whatever alliterative fuels sources are available.

Denying scientific reality is never a good option.
Reply
#33
(11-04-2014, 09:18 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-04-2014, 08:49 PM)oregon 67 Wrote: If it is a truly natural phenomenon . Than it would be narcissistic to believe we as humans can change it.

While weather patterns might change. What would that change be. The Sahara no longer a desert ? If the patterns stayed within the same latitudes wouldn't the growing seasons actually longer?

I have a little driving mare. I could hitch her and offer green service calls. Only mammalian co2 and some organic exhaust. I doubt that people would pay for the drive time. Getting parts would be a bitch. and ladders beyond a step would be really tough.

On the practical side LED lighting. really cool stuff. ODOT is swapping out HPS for LED that in itself is a HUGE energy savings.
While I have reservations about the capitol expenditure ,I get doing one area at a time. I would do it on a maintenance basis ( when the hps burn out) but I also get one area at a time.
Water heating is another area.

It just don't matter.
The science is clear.
Our climate is changing, for whatever reason, man made or not.
Can we make changes fast enough to slow it down?
Who knows.

The fact is, we are looking at weather/climate changes that will effect a lot of folks. Use all the LED's you want, but be prepared to see real changes in your life, or the lives of those younger than you.

Just on the off chance that WE have caused this stuff, it might be a good idea for industry and government to make MAJOR investments in whatever alliterative fuels sources are available.

Denying scientific reality is never a good option.

And I would argue that neither is carbon castration.
To simply focus one aspect is myopic. Water vapor and methane are greater greenhouse gasses than co2. I don't hear methane sequestration .
Reply
#34
The govt wants you to believe in global warming, and they, the big banks that own the govt, make money on carbon taxes. Enough said. IOW it's all BS.

The govt wants all of us peasants to live in dirt shack shantytowns, just like many third world hellholes that cover the planet right now, while the govt dictators live lavishly & wastefully in multiple armored mansions around the world and ride around in their STRETCH MRAP LIMOSINES with 50-cal's on the roof, as they cruise through the shantytowns and kidnap any kids they want for their body fluids (it's a life extension thing, they drink kids' blood for health benefits) or for genetic experimentation. While, get this, they suppress free energy technologies like permanent magnet motors, water-to-HHO gas devices, and motionless electromagnetic generators (MEGs, iow magnet motors that don't even spin but still produce electricity). Oh and nevermind the fact that astronomically the Earth is going into an ice age, a well known astronomical fact. But hey, who needs facts and truth in a world of over the top mind control?
Reply
#35
(11-04-2014, 08:49 PM)oregon 67 Wrote: If it is a truly natural phenomenon . Than it would be narcissistic to believe we as humans can change it.

I read that three times before I got it. You are Charlestons Heston's ghostRazz. You are one of those guys who just can't believe that it even possible that humans could change weather patterns. You , like Charlie think humans are arrogant to even come up with such an idea.Wink
Quote:[quote]While weather patterns might change. What would that change be. The Sahara no longer a desert ? If the patterns stayed within the same latitudes wouldn't the growing seasons actually longer?


Seriously? You are trying to make the point that global warming will be a good thing?




Quote:On the practical side LED lighting. really cool stuff. ODOT is swapping out HPS for LED that in itself is a HUGE energy savings.
While I have reservations about the capitol expenditure ,I get doing one area at a time. I would do it on a maintenance basis ( when the hps burn out) but I also get one area at a time.
Water heating is another area.


I you replaces the HPS fixture only after the bulb burned out then you would be exchanging one fixture for another one at a time.That means where ever the light pole happens to be.
But if you gear up and start replacing fixtures with your boom truck going straight down the line from one pose to another. That would be a LOT more efficient than doing the work willy nilly , one at a time all over the place.
Also the longer you use the old fixture the longer it is consuming more power.

Lighting retrofits are something I have done. I installed 260 Metal Halide fixtures at Harry and David and it wasn't very long before my company took the ALL down and replaced them with much more efficient t-5 fluorescents .

The energy/money saving is normally easily figured out with simple math.
Normally the break even point.... meaning when you have paid for the retrofit is a KNOWN figure. I would assume DOT knows the facts.

Having said all that I know exactly where you are coming from in some respects.

I think it's a pie in the sky notion that the USA can defeat global warming.Too Many people seem to believe this and don't even care what the monetary cost might be for we citizens.
We have the largest populated countries in the world coming in to the industrial age.
They are NOT going to sacrifice their growth by not using fossil fuels.
We have lots of problems, a very fragile and slowly healing economy.We need to do our best to use less electricity from coal.
But we simply can't just stop to "save the planet" we need to move with caution and common sense.
Reply
#36
Hey tv


Idk warming could be a good thing. Unless you live in a low laying area. Like most of our major population centers.


yep 260 ps mh with an occ sensor is not a good idea. IBZ led is better than t5ho IMO.

Slow and steady reasoned approach.
Reply
#37
I think this conversation has jumped the tracks.

I feel we are zeroing in on opinions and ignoring facts.

But, maybe as suggested I'm myopic and see only science reports issued by world class academics as the only truth. After all, "world science" as a body, thought they were on solid ground when they told Capricious to shut the hell up about the sun being the center of our universe.

So maybe the discussion should end. Soon, it will break down into bickering and personal attacks. I wouldn't like that because even when we differ I understand others come to their understandings of this stuff in good conscience.

All we can do is keep our ears to the ground, our eyes focused on information we trust, and hope for the best.

Because this is not an intellectual exercise, but a genuine and pragmatic understanding of the physical world in which we live. It matters.

We can only hope for the best.
Reply
#38
(11-05-2014, 06:05 AM)oregon 67 Wrote: Hey tv


Idk warming could be a good thing. Unless you live in a low laying area. Like most of our major population centers.

You clearly indicated that global warming could be advantageous because growing seasons could be longer.
Well sure somewhere it probably will be an advantage. So what when that is totally outweighed by the devastation we see already and that will only get worse.

Anyone else remember all the flack Gore took because he exaggerated the problem? Well since then I've read a lot of valid reports that show that in many cases GW is happening at a much faster rate than originally thought.



Quote: IBZ led is better than t5ho IMO.

Yes of course it is. I agree but at the time they didn't have LED lighting at a reasonable cost. Smiling
Reply
#39
(11-04-2014, 05:53 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 01:43 PM)chuck white Wrote: Don't worry about the ten billion people, the CDC 'Center for Disease Creation' is working on new forms of Ebola to help with this problem of too many people.

It's scary that you might actually seriously believe that.

Quote:Obama’s Ebola Czar Thinks There’s Too Many People in Africa

http://www.infowars.com/obamas-ebola-cza...in-africa/


Now you should really be scared
Reply
#40
(11-05-2014, 06:05 PM)chuck white Wrote:
(11-04-2014, 05:53 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-03-2014, 01:43 PM)chuck white Wrote: Don't worry about the ten billion people, the CDC 'Center for Disease Creation' is working on new forms of Ebola to help with this problem of too many people.

It's scary that you might actually seriously believe that.

Quote:Obama’s Ebola Czar Thinks There’s Too Many People in Africa

http://www.infowars.com/obamas-ebola-cza...in-africa/


Now you should really be scared

Yes I'm scared alright. I'm scared that you believe this horse shit. First red flag anyone should see... the link you sent me to had Alex Jones on the pageLaughing

So because the guy thinks Africa is overpopulated and he is also in charge of ebola.....OH lordy RazzRazz Who and why do they come up with this stuff?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)