Worried about Global Cooling...

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

Those that have it, don't want to give it up. They put it ahead of everything else, including their future, the future of their children, the future of the species, the well being of the ecosystem, etc.

So long as there is money invested in something, you'll never EVER hear the absolute truth about anything. I like to think of it as Darwinism for the Human race.

alright you need to explain that comment cause it makes no sense.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Dan02

and without mines like that we wouldn't have your supposedly super clean and all powerful electricity.

Yeah, we would. Electricity can be generated from almost any fuel available, including solar and wind, which is polutant free.

Do you honestly think we could replace all our cars, planes(don't ask me how) and ships(unless you want a nuclear reactor on each one) with electric vehicles?

I guess you missed the part where I said "consumer" power needs. There will always be situations where we need other sources of power. For the most part, we can replace the vast majority of our poluting devices with electric vehicles. The majority of the goods in Canada are shipped coast to coast using electricity. Trains use deisel electric plants to drive the trains, because the electric motors offer more torque and pulling power. Industrial and commercial applications would still have the ability to use gas p0wer where required, but for the most part electricity would become the standard. The idea of nuclear in oceanm going vessels certainly is an interesting one. Imagine fueling up once every 20 years. Wow, what cost savings and what a boon to the environment. Great idea!

Not to mention how unfeasible it is both economically and sensibly, but how much more electricity would we need to produce to run everything on power?

Again, I guess you missed the point where that fossil fuel that would be used to power our inefficient cars is instead used to generate electricity. Using fossil fuel to generate electricity is magnitudes more efficient than using it in combustion engines that drive vehicles. The energy production increases so the consumption for fossil fuels goes down. And meet the exact same energy consumption point.

When did the majority of people become black and white thinkers? How hard is it to see the obvious transitions and benefits? Does change really scare the crap out of people that much?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Yeah, we would. Electricity can be generated from almost any fuel available, including solar and wind, which is polutant free.

To power the current US needs for electricity you would basically need to cover all of texas in solar panels, is that really a viable option? Not to mention alot of areas have to much cloud cover to be suitable for large solar projects, further more, did used solar panels suddenly become biodegradable? Winds turbines are a even worse option on a scale large enough to provide a large chunk of the US energy requirements.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Dan02

To power the current US needs for electricity you would basically need to cover all of texas in solar panels, is that really a viable option?

Or cover all of North America with windmills.

Wonder how many resources we're going to waste producing those.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by Dan02

alright you need to explain that comment cause it makes no sense.

Well, Darwinism simply states that the smartest and strongest of a species survive, right?

That rule doesn't necessarily apply to Human beings, because in our contained environment, we can pretty much control who lives and dies, albeit to a certain extent. We're the only creature in the world that is self aware of their future.

Our global refusal to prevent the destruction of our ecosystems will inevitably produce health problems, continue to kill people in heavily populated (and polluted) areas throughout the globe, and we'll probably see things like Cancer and other various disease begin to increase as a result of contamination. Refusal and outright denial to prevent and act upon preparing for climatic catastrophes in the future, regardless of whether or not they're man made or not will inevitably result in many more meeting an early death, ala Katrina, (New Orleans still hasn't been rebuilt enough to withstand another hurricane,) and etc. Seems to me these are exactly the kinds of things you want to act against in order to have the species succeed. But that's just all fear mongering. Those things are just brought up to spend money on stuff we don't need, right? Because nothing is going to happen, ever. It's all periodical, and therefore we're immune and don't need to do anything.

So long as a select few stay rich, mind you.

Hence, why I look at it as Darwinism for the Human race... because obviously we're neither strong or smart enough, at this moment in time, to desire to adapt, in this case, at the cost of the bottom dollar.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Azure

Or cover all of North America with windmills.

Wonder how many resources we're going to waste producing those.

And where are we going to get the metallic materials to build the solar panels, wind turbines and transfer grid if we can't mine?

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Y
When did the majority of people become black and white thinkers?

When did all the environmentalists lose their sensibility, it has nothing to do with black or white.

To suggest that we could replace all our electricity needs through either solar or wind or geothermal or any combination of those 3, is in a word, ######ed.

For electricity the only viable replacement for fossil fuels at this moment is nuclear power, and look what the environmentalists did with that one, even the former leader of greenpeace is backpeddling from his old anti-nuclear stance.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

Well, Darwinism simply states that the smartest and strongest of a species survive, right?

That rule doesn't necessarily apply to Human beings, because in our contained environment, we can pretty much control who lives and dies, albeit to a certain extent. We're the only creature in the world that is self aware of their future.

Our global refusal to prevent the destruction of our ecosystems will inevitably produce health problems, continue to kill people in heavily populated (and polluted) areas throughout the globe, and we'll probably see things like Cancer and other various disease begin to increase as a result of contamination.

So long as a select few stay rich, mind you.

Hench, why I look at it as Darwinism for the Human race... because obviously we're neither strong or smart enough, at this moment in time, to desire to adapt, in this case, at the cost of the bottom dollar.

Humans will adapt, they are not required to at this moment, but will be required to in the future and they will. All other species only change and adapt when they are required to do so. When the world cannot support more humans, there will be change. Or if we are lucky, we may be able to leave this planet before that happens and expand out.

If humans didn't focus so much resources on war, we could have had the moon populated by now and on the way to changing the atmosphere on mars to a breathable one.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

If humans didn't focus so much resources on war, we could have had the moon populated by now and on the way to changing the atmosphere on mars to a breathable one.

No kidding, what is it good for?? absolutely nothing.

Well okay maybe not nothing.

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

If humans didn't focus so much resources on war, we could have had the moon populated by now and on the way to changing the atmosphere on mars to a breathable one.

Precisely the point I am trying to make. Our natural instinct is so short-sided, that all we focus on is continued gain of resource through any means necessary, because that will insure the survival of the species. Unfortunately, that's all for not if we don't have an survivable environment to live in.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Dan02

To power the current US needs for electricity you would basically need to cover all of texas in solar panels, is that really a viable option? Not to mention alot of areas have to much cloud cover to be suitable for large solar projects, further more, did used solar panels suddenly become biodegradable? Winds turbines are a even worse option on a scale large enough to provide a large chunk of the US energy requirements.

First of all, I don't think your calculations are correct. California, the 5th largest economy in the world, could have all if its present electrical energy needs met with a 10 square mile section of land, already identified by PG&E by the way, in Death Valley. As well, solar cells have improved to where they don't need bright sunny days to generate electicity. Now, what does the biodegradeable factor of solar cells have to do with anything? Another red herring to inject into the discussion? Turbine technology has also improved dramatically and is almost on par with natrual gas for efficiency in electricity generation. All are viable solutions for augmenting the grid and meeting the need as our energy needs increase.

Originally Posted by Dan02

When did all the environmentalists lose their sensibility, it has nothing to do with black or white.

To suggest that we could replace all our electricity needs through either solar or wind or geothermal or any combination of those 3, is in a word, ######ed.

For electricity the only viable replacement for fossil fuels at this moment is nuclear power, and look what the environmentalists did with that one, even the former leader of greenpeace is backpeddling from his old anti-nuclear stance.

And where did I say we are completely replacing a damn thing? Is your reading comprehension that freaking terrible? I said, repeatedly, that we would shift using fossil fuels from the highly inefficient combustion engines to highly efficient power plants. By doing that we see a net power gain, and massive step forward in reducing greenhouse emissions. What is so difficult to grasp about this concept?

There is no single silver bullet to the problem or energy. The solution to controlling the polution is to restrict emissions in as many places as possible. By moving to a system where remove millions of tail pipes we reduce the number of points where we have to control emissions. That is the best solution to limiting the polution we pump into the atmosphere. Again, is this such a difficult concept to grasp?

[Azure]

Strange how nothing has been mentioned of nuclear power.

But hey, lets fill up the whole country with windmills.

[HOZ]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Do you bother to source check ANY of the crap you post? Do you bother to check where these groups get their funding??? Jesus, in the age where anyone with $10 can register a domain and put up a website you have to be extremely careful the sources you use and what their history is.

You quote a conference established and sponsored by the Heartland Institute. The Hartland Institute is a lobby front for those who take on issues for their corporate benefactors. Heartland is more known for being a Tobacco industry lobbiest with direct ties to Phillip Morris. Their board of directors also features ties directly to big oil and the automotive industry. First a front for the tobacco industry and now a front for the oil industry.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...land_Institute

CO2science.org is an organization founded by the Keith Idso, who was a paid witness for the Western Fuels Association during a Minnesota Public Utilities commission hearing, is funded by Exxon Mobil.

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24

You really know how to pick them.

Again Lanny we go back in a circle. I refer to my original post towards you. Without evidence that their data is biased or has been manipulated then this is just another dingbat post of yours.

James "There is a conspiracy against me" Jansen and David Diesel Suzuki may be right.

BUT to discount evidence to the contrary of their beliefs due to their sources of funding leaves you with these options due.

1. The opposition are pure Evil. They are out to destroy the earth. Leave nothing behind for their offspring and get rich off of their funding while manipulating data.


That defies logic. So.....that leaves us with these options

1. They are right. Jansen and Suzuki due to their exuberance have exaggerated the conclusions from existing data, or have errors in their data and have chosen to ignore them.

2. They are incorrect.

3. More data is needed an the current media driven hysteria is unwarranted and talking heads like Jansen and Suzuki should shut up.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

If humans didn't focus so much resources on war, we could have had the moon populated by now and on the way to changing the atmosphere on mars to a breathable one.

Just to add to that off the wall thought, I saw this documentary about future energy systems and there is a new space race brewing, and its a result of the desire to replace fossil fuels. Fussion has supposedly been achieved in labs in both the United States and Russia, using helium3. The moon has an incredible amount of helium3 stored in the rocks on its surface, enough to power all of our planet for the next 100,000 years. Both the Americans and the Russians are supposedly racing to develop systems to get to the moon, mine the helium3, and ship it back to earth. They say that it is very viable and they hope to start production in the next decade. Interesting subject for discussion but I'm skeptical on this one.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Just to add to that off the wall thought, I saw this documentary about future energy systems and there is a new space race brewing, and its a result of the desire to replace fossil fuels. Fussion has supposedly been achieved in labs in both the United States and Russia, using helium3. The moon has an incredible amount of helium3 stored in the rocks on its surface, enough to power all of our planet for the next 100,000 years. Both the Americans and the Russians are supposedly racing to develop systems to get to the moon, mine the helium3, and ship it back to earth. They say that it is very viable and they hope to start production in the next decade. Interesting subject for discussion but I'm skeptical on this one.

Interesting, however, why is my post off the wall? I was responding to a post which stated that humans refuse to adapt to their environmental conditions, I posted saying that they can and they will but they haven't because they are not yet required to.

Is that really off the wall?

[TheDragon]

Originally Posted by HOZ

BUT to discount evidence to the contrary of their beliefs due to their sources of funding leaves you with these options due.

1. The opposition are pure Evil. They are out to destroy the earth. Leave nothing behind for their offspring and get rich off of their funding while manipulating data.


That defies logic. So.....that leaves us with these options...

That is a rather vague and misleading caricature you've disclosed.

Why does that defy logic? And why does that then discredit it as a valid argument? Who said anything we do as a society, as a species is logical?

We're actively involved in a war that isn't logical. Where is the logic is destroying scientific theories of our evolution as a species to replace it with religious dogma? Where is the logic in buying contaminated goods and feeding them to our pets? Or giving them to our children as toys? Better yet, where is the logic in producing said products? Where is the logic in filming yourself jumping off of a roof and breaking your back on a plywood table to post on the internet?

Although, I don't want to derail this thread with examples.

[MelBridgeman]

i laugh at the whole funding argument...
and it really is a moot point until someone can tell us if a scientist's opinion is because of funding or his funding is because of his opinion. why would an oil company fund someone who is on the other side of the fence. duh.
also all scientists are getting funding from somewhere....and it appears all the money is going towards the the "pro" we are solely responsible camp...a whole new industry is being created...its huge money....don't think there arent corporations pouring funding into that camp either....

But if you look at the history of science and theory....there is always a huge smear campaign to silence the minority..who may have evidence to suggest otherwise....just look up the clovis theory.

It is no different than what a certain self-righteous poster does to other people who disagree with him, and his disciples just mindlessly soak it up

Anyways there is an open invitiation on the Roy Green show (corus) for any scientist to come on and debate Dr. Ball....so far everyone has declined..some on the air.

Anyways back to watching some "unbiased" documentaries

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by HOZ

Again Lanny we go back in a circle. I refer to my original post towards you. Without evidence that their data is biased or has been manipulated then this is just another dingbat post of yours.

Dingbat post? Exactly what is "dingbat" about pointing out the legitimacy of the source you post your information from? Have you done any sort of education in research methodology? Validity of source is extremely important in the acceptance of research. But since that hasn't dawned on you, I guess it doesn't matter. Thankfully it matters to the scientific community and papers are peer reviewed. Crappy sources like the New York Times, the Washington Post, NASA, etc. all use scholastically peer reviewed papers as the sources of their information. Do those sourves you post from use peer reviewed papers published in association journals? I'm pretty sure they don't.

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Dingbat post? Exactly what is "dingbat" about pointing out the legitimacy of the source you post your information from? Have you done any sort of education in research methodology? Validity of source is extremely important in the acceptance of research. But since that hasn't dawned on you, I guess it doesn't matter. Thankfully it matters to the scientific community and papers are peer reviewed. Crappy sources like the New York Times, the Washington Post, NASA, etc. all use scholastically peer reviewed papers as the sources of their information. Do those sourves you post from use peer reviewed papers published in association journals? I'm pretty sure they don't.

We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong

Richard Horton -> Editor of the British Medical Journal

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/...on/horton.html

soak it up buttercup!!!

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

Richard Horton -> Editor of the British Medical Journal

http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/...on/horton.html

soak it up buttercup!!!

Wow, you really got me there. Dr. Horton's opinion on the peer review process, and he doesn't like the whole process. Poor guy, must have had several papers rejected. Fact of the matter is that the peer review process is all of those things that Horton says and more. Anyone who has submitted what they thought was a good paper only to see it rejected and torn to pieces is sure to be jaded. Its not a fun process to go through. Unfortunately it is the best and most accepted way of proving your data to be valid. If someone can suggest a better way of making scientists prove the validity of their work, feel free to post one. I'd certainly like to take it and forward it to my university for evaluation. Having said that, it is still the only process that identifies valid work in the scientific community. Cry all you want, but that's the way it is.

Now how did you put that? Soak that up buttercup.