floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 1, 2011 11:31:35 GMT -5
While the US cannot (or maybe should not) force other countries to change we can lead by example. The idea is that any reduction will help slow the process, it does not make sense to throw up our hands and say "we can't control China so we don't need to make any changes". Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall one post saying that we should abandon all research on alternative energy and "do nothing". If nothing else, we need clean, renewable energy for our own national security.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jul 1, 2011 12:01:52 GMT -5
I was always intrigued by Tesla's ideals. Wireless electricity sounds really cool to me, too bad we didn't let him finish the project. You can blame that on the banks too.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:05:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2011 12:23:59 GMT -5
While the US cannot (or maybe should not) force other countries to change we can lead by example. The idea is that any reduction will help slow the process, it does not make sense to throw up our hands and say "we can't control China so we don't need to make any changes". Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall one post saying that we should abandon all research on alternative energy and "do nothing". If nothing else, we need clean, renewable energy for our own national security. I agree that we need to research alternative energy, but as far as clean renewable energy that is economically feasible and possible at our level of technology? It is probably as far away as the classic perpetual motion machine.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 1, 2011 12:48:06 GMT -5
First, I am a beliver..the educated, the knowlegable, the ones in the know have spoken in my opinion and i beelive them, not you all, sorry , just the way it is. As one loves to say here, insulting i agree, but it fits at times, "deal with it .[Ich, hate that phrase, another apology} , we are doing great damage to our environment by continuing to burn fossil fuels as we do, throughout the globe, possible irreversible so. "Al Gore was an alarmist for whatever reason that was important to him (fame, fortune, whatever)." one said above. It sure wasn't fortune, he is and was filthy wealthy before he started this, fame he had.. came so close..and the what ever , to me he was alarmed and possible felt he was able to get the information out because of his fame..[possible, he was ] and alarmist, hell he was/is alarmed. To take and give the pot shots of him, well I lost my temper last night, said what I said, still feel the same but won't insult anyone by repeating it, but NONE of the above arguments if that is what they are , are changing my opinion on the subject..it is happening, we are at fault, to what degree , I do not know, but believe firmly , to a great deal of it, in fact to such a responsibility for, that I can''t believe more folks are not so concerned. What to do? How the hell should I know beyond what is being proposed..new research into new ways to produce energy, and yes they are costly in $ but as oil continues to rise, it will, the cost for the new may become closer to what it is today with the fossil fuels. Obama , has spent $ toward new energies. As I posted on a different thread earlier, a billion dollars with a firm out of Spain , stimulus money, on wind farms through out the states, AZ for one, another in Tenn, and another one planned to start soon mid west I think,. . Go ahead and criticize him for that, I applaud him for it and whether he is here or not to see the payoff, I know because of that move he will be responsible for some help in that area, less oil used to produce electricity for years , as the wind does the job. The final solution? Of course not, but a start...and historians will applaud him for that so not a bad legacy. It won't hit us drastically in my life time but as a Senior I know I am approaching my end here, however with Grand Kids from eight to Fifteen, I know they will be seeing more of this problem..I do worry for them and even for those great and great, great ones not yet even thought of..surprised you here aren't thinking that way. Then again , knowing what to expect on these zones..thank god so small a sampling of the larger, I am not surprised. [oops, getting angry again, sorry, but the meds are working but the problem with the dental infection, still here, and it's still smarting, like the dull ache one gets with those, damn.} So to end this discussion from me, you all have fun with the poo pooing..I know what I believe. I am sorry that my feelings are closer to reality then yours, wish it was not so..but am glad I posted the article..really so sorry so few here don't see it my way, we are in big trouble. Gore has it more right then wrong..and to not fund this study for new energies by the country, private can't do it alone, it is a shame if they don't do so, we will pay terrible for our negligence on this matter.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 1, 2011 14:11:28 GMT -5
Maybe I missed it, but I don't recall one post saying that we should abandon all research on alternative energy and "do nothing". If nothing else, we need clean, renewable energy for our own national security. I agree that we need to research alternative energy, but as far as clean renewable energy that is economically feasible and possible at our level of technology? It is probably as far away as the classic perpetual motion machine. International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER): The ITER Agreement brings together the People's Republic of China, the European Atomic Energy Community (via EURATOM), the Republic of India, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the Russian Federation and the United States of America in an international collaboration to establish fusion as a new source of energy. Fusion research has increased key fusion plasma performance parameters by a factor of 10,000 over 50 years; research is now less than a factor of 10 away from producing the core of a fusion power plant. www.iter.org/sci/beyonditerI love the idea of nuclear fusion and, barring my early demise, I will see it in my lifetime. It is coming. Of course, this doesn't address transportation pollution issues unless they can figure out how to build a Tesla style wireless electric vehicle that draws power directly from a nuclear fusion reactor. Hey, 50-100 years from now, you never know. Gee dezi, I thought we were. GM just developed their EV's and several other manufacturers have as well. Not perfect, but it's a step forward. Like I said, we're working on it. I know...gotta have it now. Well, sorry to say, but we can't have it now. Actually I am. I also realize that we cannot reach in our back pocket and pull the solution out. It takes time. Remember, patience is a virtue. Sorry to say this dezi, but you really need to learn to discuss differing ideas a little better so you don't get so pissed off. Whether I believe in "man-made global warming" or not is a moot point unless we have an immediate solution. I do support cleaning up our environment and the best way to do that is through clean energy...which also parallels the goals of the global-warmers. Simply hollering that we're killing the planet means nothing without a solution because unless you want to return to the "little house on the prairie" days, we have no choice but to continue "killing the planet" until that solution is found and developed.
|
|
|
Post by BeenThere...DoneThat... on Jul 1, 2011 14:34:57 GMT -5
[quote author=floridayankee board=politics thread=10721 post=433931 time=1309547488 Sorry to say this dezi, but you really need to learn to discuss differing ideas a little better so you don't get so pissed off. Whether I believe in "man-made global warming" or not is a moot point unless we have an immediate solution. I do support cleaning up our environment and the best way to do that is through clean energy...which also parallels the goals of the global-warmers. Simply hollering that we're killing the planet means nothing without a solution because unless you want to return to the "little house on the prairie" days, we have no choice but to continue "killing the planet" until that solution is found and developed. [/quote] ...agreed... ...dez, I'm sorry to see that you're dealing with health concerns... been there, done that... and I'm also sorry to see you "check out" in this way from your thread... ...I, for one, am concerned... but, in my estimation, some things are currently reachable while some things we just currently reach for... and as saddening and maddening as the damage we leave behind to our environments is, we (in the USA) have more pressing issues to keep on the front burner... imo...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:05:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2011 14:46:42 GMT -5
FY, going by a factor of performance basis is not linear. I wish nuclear fusion was a usable possibility. That last factor of "one "will be the biggest hurdle.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 1, 2011 14:47:33 GMT -5
"Sorry to say this dezi, but you really need to learn to discuss differing ideas a little better so you don't get so pissed off. Whether I believe in "man-made global warming" or not is a moot point unless we have an immediate solution. I do support cleaning up our environment and the best way to do that is through clean energy...which also parallels the goals of the global-warmers. Simply hollering that we're killing the planet means nothing without a solution because unless you want to return to the "little house on the prairie" days, we have no choice but to continue "killing the planet" until that solution is found and developed." --------------------------------------
I guess I didn't get my thoughts across to some or you...my complaiont is not that we don't have it now, my disappoiontment was in the comments being posted after the article and my op, that so many, seemed all of the respionses were disses of , it isn't happening, Gore was doing his propaganda for financial gain, {Ha },..guy is almost a billionaire..for fame..he was that close ..the scientests in the studies are doing all this yadda, yadda for grant money..then came the asking me what to do, like I have a clue..no one seemed concerned about it, accept the fact it is happening and we are a big part of the problem, I do believe that..even if they are off on the figurs by 50 % [I don't beleive they are } , possible less, who knows it may be WORSE correct..as much that way as the other..in other words from the posts here, no concern, playing the 'sky is not falling and all who say it is is Chicen little "..my complaint is not that we don't have ity now, my feeling is we have to work on it now and we have to yes INVEST $ in it now , even though we are in financial straits, we probably will always be in financial straits, and who knows , possible by investing in these industrys now we will even get to the point we are employing people in new industrys for the 21st century and beyond as a side gain..Jobs again..not a bad thing to happen.
So no, I am not expecting immediate results at all..just the disinterest and the not wanting to believe the problem is man made, or if believing it , just like to say the opposite for waht ever the reason, it's cooler to do so possible, be tha anti is more the way to impress people people possible, even a major part of mankinds endeavers, there I do, possible you and othes feel it's not..here I just feel it is..I go with those who say it is so..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:05:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2011 14:57:22 GMT -5
When you eliminate all the fluff and posturing and the years it would take to discuss the problem in depth you're left with this.<<<<< I know what I believe. I am sorry that my feelings are closer to reality then yours,>>>>> Dez, what do you base this statement on, and how does it relate to the physics of energy transfer?
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 1, 2011 15:00:00 GMT -5
FY, going by a factor of performance basis is not linear. I wish nuclear fusion was a usable possibility. That last factor of "one "will be the biggest hurdle. Did you read the link JMA? They are finally borderline plasma energy breakeven point with their reactor. It's coming..... Steady progress has been made since in fusion devices around the world. The Tore Supra Tokamak that is part of the Cadarache nuclear research centre holds the record for the longest plasma duration time of any tokamak: six minutes and 30 seconds. The Japanese JT-60 achieved the highest value of fusion triple product—density, temperature, confinement time—of any device to date. US fusion installations have reached temperatures of several hundred million degrees Celsius.
Achievements like these have led fusion science to an exciting threshold: the long sought-after plasma energy breakeven point. Breakeven describes the moment when plasmas in a fusion device release at least as much energy as is required to produce them. Plasma energy breakeven has never been achieved: the current record for energy release is held by JET, which succeeded in generating 70% of input power. Scientists have now designed the next-step device—ITER—which will produce more power than it consumes: for 50 MW of input power, 500 MW of output power will be produced.
ITER will begin writing the chapter on 21st century fusion. As I said...it takes time.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 1, 2011 15:05:34 GMT -5
When you eliminate all the fluff and posturing and the years it would take to discuss the problem in depth you're left with this.<<<<< I know what I believe. I am sorry that my feelings are closer to reality then yours,>>>>> Dez, what do you base this statement on, and how does it relate to the physics of energy transfer? jma , have no clue as to what your talking about..I think I explained my feeling on this topic fairly well, how i feel, not here to discuss what i don't know anything about, how and what we get to be more non fossil energy efficient...haven't a clue...tha's for those who are in the business of and the scientists who are studying what is happening and letting us know what they feel is happening. if you don't want to believe them, that's your call..for me..i believe they are correct...now how to stop it, that's not my expertise in any way or form.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 1, 2011 15:15:15 GMT -5
I guess I didn't get my thoughts across to some or you...my complaiont is not that we don't have it now, my disappoiontment was in the comments being posted after the article and my op, that so many, seemed all of the respionses were disses of , But you also have to consider, there is scientific evidence being presented that disproves man-made global warming as well as proves it. It's not really fair to say one has to agree with the science that supports your argument and refuse to even acknowledge the science from the opposition argument. Obviously, both cannot be totally correct, but refusing to look at issues like this from all angles leads to closed minds and stalls progress to find the real truth...which likely lies somewhere in between. And? Rich and famous don't want to become richer and even more famous? Is it only evil, greedy CEO's that want more money, power and fame? Who do you mean by "we"? Clean/green tech is a growing industry with huge money making potential. It's simple human nature to tend to follow the money and that is what's happening. As more money is made, more peopel are attracted to the industry and it grows. Growth leads to advances, advances lead to innovation, innovation leads to improvements. Like I keep telling you, we're working on it. It's not going to happen overnight no matter how many alarms are rung about killing the planet. Be patient. Whether people believe in man-made global warming or not, clean/green technologies are coming.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 1, 2011 15:15:48 GMT -5
I just did a quick google on China what they are doing on renewable and clean energy..and i could fill the page with all types of links, heres just one, from near the top of the list i went to..seems they are becoming the leader of..which means they not us are going to be where the world looks for solutions to this problem. kinda sucks to me..they are spending their $ there..they have almost five times the population of the US, they will be dropping the emissions of fossil fuels by 40/50 % if all goes well by 2020, their use of wind power for energy is hugh, even their hydro over shadows the rest of the world..give a gander..what can we do, well just start to follow their example possible as much as we can..they must think it's important.. -------------------------------------------- www.renewableenergyfocususa.com/view/13579/chinas-growth-in-clean-energy-matches-ambition/I also thought i read they were going big into nuclear too, though after the japan disaster, they may have cooled on that , not sure...
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jul 1, 2011 15:16:49 GMT -5
Anthropogenic global warming is a faith-based concept, and it's adherents are practicing a religion. It should be treated like all religions...separate from governmental policy...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:05:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2011 15:17:57 GMT -5
Sorry FY, I tried several times and kept getting sent a blank page. As I understand it confining the reaction at it's break even point operating temperature is where lies the problem, I still stand by my factor of performance statement. I'm not trying to be a wise guy. I wish I could link to the ITER details. Time to search off board.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 1, 2011 15:18:05 GMT -5
Anthropogenic global warming is a faith-based concept, and it's adherents are practicing a religion. It should be treated like all religions...separate from governmental policy... Ahh a edism..thank you ed..
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jul 1, 2011 15:18:52 GMT -5
Anthropogenic global warming is a faith-based concept, and it's adherents are practicing a religion. It should be treated like all religions...separate from governmental policy... Ahh a edism..thank you ed.. Your stalking is creepy...
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:05:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2011 15:19:34 GMT -5
Sorry FY, I tried several times and kept getting sent a blank page. As I understand it confining the reaction at it's break even point operating temperature is where lies the problem, I still stand by my factor of performance statement. I'm not trying to be a wise guy. I wish I could link to the ITER details. Time to search off board.
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 1, 2011 15:28:38 GMT -5
jma , have no clue as to what your talking about..I think I explained my feeling on this topic fairly well, how i feel, What JMA is asking is how your belief, which is based off scientific evidence is any more or less valid then someone else's belief based on opposing scientific evidence. He wants to know if there is any reasoning beyond "my guy is right" / "your guy is wrong" Ok...imagine this. You convinced me. We're killing the planet. I imagine most of us are going to still drive our carbon spewing death machines this weekend and fire up some sort of dead greenhouse gas emitting animal on the grill this weekend, drink too many liquid libations in garbage producing (but 100% recyclable) glass bottles and/or aluminum cans while we watch lots of pretty things blow up in the sky. Been a pleasure debating with you all. I'm heading out to start now. Have a great Independence Day everyone!
|
|
floridayankee
Junior Associate
If You Don't Stand Behind Our Troops, Feel Free to Stand in Front of Them.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:56:05 GMT -5
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by floridayankee on Jul 1, 2011 15:33:18 GMT -5
Sorry FY, I tried several times and kept getting sent a blank page. As I understand it confining the reaction at it's break even point operating temperature is where lies the problem, I still stand by my factor of performance statement. I'm not trying to be a wise guy. I wish I could link to the ITER details. Time to search off board. I know JMA. I know I said it will be here in my lifetime...it's more of a hope. I love interesting puzzles like the one nuclear fusion presents. It brings out the best in man's abilities to conquer the unknown. Have a great Independence Day...I'm out.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jul 1, 2011 15:38:12 GMT -5
First, I am a beliver..the educated, the knowlegable, the ones in the know have spoken in my opinion and i beelive them, not you all, sorry , just the way it is. As one loves to say here, insulting i agree, but it fits at times, "deal with it .[Ich, hate that phrase, another apology} , we are doing great damage to our environment by continuing to burn fossil fuels as we do, throughout the globe, possible irreversible so. "Al Gore was an alarmist for whatever reason that was important to him (fame, fortune, whatever)." one said above. It sure wasn't fortune, he is and was filthy wealthy before he started this, fame he had.. came so close..and the what ever , to me he was alarmed and possible felt he was able to get the information out because of his fame..[possible, he was ] and alarmist, hell he was/is alarmed. To take and give the pot shots of him, well I lost my temper last night, said what I said, still feel the same but won't insult anyone by repeating it, but NONE of the above arguments if that is what they are , are changing my opinion on the subject..it is happening, we are at fault, to what degree , I do not know, but believe firmly , to a great deal of it, in fact to such a responsibility for, that I can''t believe more folks are not so concerned. What to do? How the hell should I know beyond what is being proposed..new research into new ways to produce energy, and yes they are costly in $ but as oil continues to rise, it will, the cost for the new may become closer to what it is today with the fossil fuels. Obama , has spent $ toward new energies. As I posted on a different thread earlier, a billion dollars with a firm out of Spain , stimulus money, on wind farms through out the states, AZ for one, another in Tenn, and another one planned to start soon mid west I think,. . Go ahead and criticize him for that, I applaud him for it and whether he is here or not to see the payoff, I know because of that move he will be responsible for some help in that area, less oil used to produce electricity for years , as the wind does the job. The final solution? Of course not, but a start...and historians will applaud him for that so not a bad legacy. It won't hit us drastically in my life time but as a Senior I know I am approaching my end here, however with Grand Kids from eight to Fifteen, I know they will be seeing more of this problem..I do worry for them and even for those great and great, great ones not yet even thought of..surprised you here aren't thinking that way. Then again , knowing what to expect on these zones..thank god so small a sampling of the larger, I am not surprised. [oops, getting angry again, sorry, but the meds are working but the problem with the dental infection, still here, and it's still smarting, like the dull ache one gets with those, damn.} So to end this discussion from me, you all have fun with the poo pooing..I know what I believe. I am sorry that my feelings are closer to reality then yours, wish it was not so..but am glad I posted the article..really so sorry so few here don't see it my way, we are in big trouble. Gore has it more right then wrong..and to not fund this study for new energies by the country, private can't do it alone, it is a shame if they don't do so, we will pay terrible for our negligence on this matter. The educated and the knowledgeable once believed the world was square too and they had proof. Those educated and knowledgeable that said the aerosol was causing global warming and it ended up being the exact opposite, that the aerosol caused cooling. lol
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 6, 2024 11:05:05 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2011 15:42:14 GMT -5
It was closer to like, how does he "know" his feelings on the subject are closer to reality. Yet in the same post claim to not "know" much on the subject? Once again, I'm not trying to attack anyones feelings or beliefs, but how do "feelings" relate to the physics of energy transfer, to him?
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 1, 2011 15:47:22 GMT -5
First, I am a beliver..the educated, the knowlegable, the ones in the know have spoken in my opinion and i beelive them, not you all, sorry , just the way it is. As one loves to say here, insulting i agree, but it fits at times, "deal with it .[Ich, hate that phrase, another apology} , we are doing great damage to our environment by continuing to burn fossil fuels as we do, throughout the globe, possible irreversible so. "Al Gore was an alarmist for whatever reason that was important to him (fame, fortune, whatever)." one said above. It sure wasn't fortune, he is and was filthy wealthy before he started this, fame he had.. came so close..and the what ever , to me he was alarmed and possible felt he was able to get the information out because of his fame..[possible, he was ] and alarmist, hell he was/is alarmed. To take and give the pot shots of him, well I lost my temper last night, said what I said, still feel the same but won't insult anyone by repeating it, but NONE of the above arguments if that is what they are , are changing my opinion on the subject..it is happening, we are at fault, to what degree , I do not know, but believe firmly , to a great deal of it, in fact to such a responsibility for, that I can''t believe more folks are not so concerned. What to do? How the hell should I know beyond what is being proposed..new research into new ways to produce energy, and yes they are costly in $ but as oil continues to rise, it will, the cost for the new may become closer to what it is today with the fossil fuels. Obama , has spent $ toward new energies. As I posted on a different thread earlier, a billion dollars with a firm out of Spain , stimulus money, on wind farms through out the states, AZ for one, another in Tenn, and another one planned to start soon mid west I think,. . Go ahead and criticize him for that, I applaud him for it and whether he is here or not to see the payoff, I know because of that move he will be responsible for some help in that area, less oil used to produce electricity for years , as the wind does the job. The final solution? Of course not, but a start...and historians will applaud him for that so not a bad legacy. It won't hit us drastically in my life time but as a Senior I know I am approaching my end here, however with Grand Kids from eight to Fifteen, I know they will be seeing more of this problem..I do worry for them and even for those great and great, great ones not yet even thought of..surprised you here aren't thinking that way. Then again , knowing what to expect on these zones..thank god so small a sampling of the larger, I am not surprised. [oops, getting angry again, sorry, but the meds are working but the problem with the dental infection, still here, and it's still smarting, like the dull ache one gets with those, damn.} So to end this discussion from me, you all have fun with the poo pooing..I know what I believe. I am sorry that my feelings are closer to reality then yours, wish it was not so..but am glad I posted the article..really so sorry so few here don't see it my way, we are in big trouble. Gore has it more right then wrong..and to not fund this study for new energies by the country, private can't do it alone, it is a shame if they don't do so, we will pay terrible for our negligence on this matter. The educated and the knowledgeable once believed the world was square too and they had proof. Those educated and knowledgeable that said the aerosol was causing global warming and it ended up being the exact opposite, that the aerosol caused cooling. lol Your beating a dead horse here...I think I explained my thoughts on this problem and what I got back from posters here , now yours too..you , many , feel no problem..just yadda , yadda from ones seeking grant money, the ex VP needs to make a few bucks[ ] and all the rest..so believe or not , your business..I really think I explained my feelings on the subject , the responses back to a tee and if I still haven't made my self understood. Ok won't give you that other not nice comment on dealing with things, but sorry, I couldn't have been more clear in my feelings on it...
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 1, 2011 15:50:11 GMT -5
Ahh a edism..thank you ed.. Your stalking is creepy... Stalking? My thread, it's been my responses to...and all it was was a response to your post..stalking? Naaaaa
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jul 1, 2011 16:16:16 GMT -5
The educated and the knowledgeable once believed the world was square too and they had proof. Those educated and knowledgeable that said the aerosol was causing global warming and it ended up being the exact opposite, that the aerosol caused cooling. lol Your beating a dead horse here...I think I explained my thoughts on this problem and what I got back from posters here , now yours too..you , many , feel no problem..just yadda , yadda from ones seeking grant money, the ex VP needs to make a few bucks[ ] and all the rest..so believe or not , your business..I really think I explained my feelings on the subject , the responses back to a tee and if I still haven't made my self understood. Ok won't give you that other not nice comment on dealing with things, but sorry, I couldn't have been more clear in my feelings on it... I was not saying you can't have an opinion and I wasn't saying that you can't base your opinion off of any information you have. I was simply showing that the highly educated or mass populace are not always right. You can believe in whatever you want to, but being open-minded to other peoples opinions is always good. Usually in an discussion/debate you bring in counter points not the " I see what you guys are saying, but I believe in the same opinion without any counter information other than the experts say so" point of view.
|
|
reasonfreedom
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 8:50:21 GMT -5
Posts: 1,722
|
Post by reasonfreedom on Jul 1, 2011 16:19:21 GMT -5
jma , have no clue as to what your talking about..I think I explained my feeling on this topic fairly well, how i feel, What JMA is asking is how your belief, which is based off scientific evidence is any more or less valid then someone else's belief based on opposing scientific evidence. He wants to know if there is any reasoning beyond "my guy is right" / "your guy is wrong" Ok...imagine this. You convinced me. We're killing the planet. I imagine most of us are going to still drive our carbon spewing death machines this weekend and fire up some sort of dead greenhouse gas emitting animal on the grill this weekend, drink too many liquid libations in garbage producing (but 100% recyclable) glass bottles and/or aluminum cans while we watch lots of pretty things blow up in the sky. Been a pleasure debating with you all. I'm heading out to start now. Have a great Independence Day everyone! Have a great weekend
|
|
kadee79
Senior Associate
S.W. Ga., zone 8b, out in the boonies!
Joined: Mar 30, 2011 15:12:55 GMT -5
Posts: 10,805
|
Post by kadee79 on Jul 1, 2011 19:02:22 GMT -5
I would be interested to learn how much today's farming practices are contributing to earth's warming. I know the soils are warmer every year as more weeds are killed...those that used to shade the soil, more ground is turned into crops/fields also reducing shade, more houses with just lawns & not many trees...also adding to the warmth, all those new streets being built, etc., etc., etc.! But what about the farm fields? ?? Anyone got any statistics on that? Serious!
|
|
Mad Dawg Wiccan
Administrator
Rest in Peace
Only Bites Whiners
Joined: Jan 12, 2011 20:40:24 GMT -5
Posts: 9,693
|
Post by Mad Dawg Wiccan on Jul 1, 2011 19:31:56 GMT -5
Dezi and other GW advocates, may I suggest you watch a documentary called The Greenhouse Conspiracy? It methodically and scientifically knocks down the pillars of the "facts" surrounding global warming.
Sorry, but I can't tell you where to find it.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 1, 2011 20:06:50 GMT -5
Dezi and other GW advocates, may I suggest you watch a documentary called The Greenhouse Conspiracy? It methodically and scientifically knocks down the pillars of the "facts" surrounding global warming. Sorry, but I can't tell you where to find it. ----------------------------------- Thanks I did some gopogling, read some articles..will try to watch it, found a site, my problem is most fliks on the computer, mine, just don't play well..did some otbher readiong , a lot, see below, as you can see, i read it all..there are two schools of thought here, two conspiracy theories..Greenhouse conspiracy is one side of it ..then there is the other.. --------------------------------- 7 Notes [edit] ClaimsThe suggestion of a conspiracy to promote the theory of global warming was put forward in a 1990 documentary The Greenhouse Conspiracy broadcast by Channel Four in the United Kingdom on 12 August 1990. The program was part of the Equinox series,[1] and it asserted that scientists critical of global warming theory were denied funding.[5] Although the program uses the word conspiracy in its title, Patrick Michaels downplayed the idea, saying, "It may not quite add up to a conspiracy, but certainly a coalition of interests has promoted the greenhouse theory; scientists have needed funds, the media a story, and governments a worthy cause".[6] In a speech given to the US Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works on July 28, 2003, entitled "The Science of Climate Change",[7] Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla) concluded by asking the following question: "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?" He has claimed "some parts of the IPCC process resembled a Soviet-style trial, in which the facts are predetermined, and ideological purity trumps technical and scientific rigor."[8] Inhofe has suggested that supporters of the Kyoto Protocol such as Jacques Chirac are aiming at global governance.[9] A Washington Post article describing the views of global warming skeptics quotes retired hurricane researcher William M. Gray as having "his own conspiracy theory," saying, "He has made a list of 15 reasons for the global warming hysteria. The list includes the need to come up with an enemy after the end of the Cold War, and the desire among scientists, government leaders and environmentalists to find a political cause that would enable them to 'organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!'" In this article, Gray also cites the ascendancy of Al Gore to the vice presidency as the start of his problems with federal funding. According to him, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration stopped giving him research grants, and so did NASA.[10] The March 1, 2007 issue of Whistleblower magazine, a publication of the conservative WorldNetDaily website, is titled "HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming," and asserts that "all the main players –- from politicians and scientists to big corporations and the United Nations –- benefit from instilling fear into billions of human beings over the unproven theory of man-made global warming". Commenting on criticism of the Lavoisier Group by Clive Hamilton, the Cooler Heads Coalition notes that "Hamilton accuses the Lavoisier Group of painting the UN's global warming negotiations as "an elaborate conspiracy in which hundreds of climate scientists have twisted their results to support the 'climate change theory' in order to protect their research funding" and adds, "Sounds plausible to us."[11] Retired geography professor Tim Ball wrote in a February 2007 interview, "You’ve got this incestuous little group that is controlling the whole process both through their publications and the IPCC. I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I hate being even pushed toward that, but I think there is a consensus conspiracy that’s going on." [12] A 2007 Minority Report of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (updated in 2009) originally citing support of 400 "dissenting scientists", and growing to 700 dissenting scientists. The report challenges man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.[13] In 2009 conservative journalist James Delingpole wrote of a powerful and very extensive body of vested interests opposed to geologist Ian Plimer..."governments like President Obama’s, which intend to use ‘global warming’ as an excuse for greater taxation, regulation and protectionism; energy companies and investors who stand to make a fortune from scams like carbon trading; charitable bodies like Greenpeace which depend for their funding on public anxiety; environmental correspondents who need constantly to talk up the threat to justify their jobs.".[14] The Lyndon LaRouche organization claims that a scientific conference in 1975 was the origin of the "Global Warming Hoax"[15][16] Former journalist Lord Monckton claims that the draft agreement for the United Nations Climate Change Conference 2009 would establish a communist[citation needed] world government. This claim has been endorsed by the right-wing[17] Australian opinion columnist Janet Albrechtsen.[18] Monckton appeared in an episode of Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura, in which he stated that a scientific paper submitted to the IPCC did not include the criticizing peer reviews, which were deliberately omitted.[19] He has also claimed a shortage of accounting for carbon dioxide fertilization and too heavy weighting compared to other proxies for tree ring data used to create the IPCC 1996 report's hockey stick graph.[20] [edit] Fictional representationsThe novel State of Fear by Michael Crichton describes a conspiracy by scientists and others to create public panic about global warming. The novel includes 20 pages of footnotes, described by Crichton as providing a factual basis for the non-plotline elements of the story.[21][22] [edit] ParticipantsMany of those claimed to be participants in a conspiracy to promote global warming theory appear prominently in other conspiracy theories. These include organizations such as The United Nations[23] The Bilderberg Group[24] The Club of Rome[25] Green Cross International[26] and individuals such as Al Gore[26] Ed Begley, Jr.[citation needed]. Jacques Chirac[7] Maurice Strong[27] George Soros[27] Mikhail Gorbachev[26] [edit] MotivesA number of different, and sometimes contradictory, motives have been claimed for a conspiracy to promote the idea of global warming A desire on the part of the United Nations and its supporters to promote a system of world government or global governance.[citation needed]. A desire on the part of climate science researchers to attract financial support[28] A desire by the government[which?] to raise taxes[citation needed] A desire on the part of left-wing political activists to promote an agenda described by Melanie Phillips[4] as a "left-wing, anti-American, anti-west ideology which goes hand in hand with anti-globalisation and the belief that everything done by the industrialised world is wicked." A desire on the part of conservative political leaders including Margaret Thatcher,[29] and Helmut Kohl[30] to promote nuclear power while attracting the political support of Green groups A desire on the part of leftwing individuals to garner financial gains for themselves through business dealings related to the global warming agenda.[citation needed]. A desire on the part of leftwing political leaders to promote socialism: According to a critical special contribution written by Lawrie McFarlane in Victoria's Times Colonist, "For socialism, at least in its early form, shared those same instincts—distrust of private enterprise, animus toward wealth, the urge to proselytize and faith in big government. And like environmentalism, it marched under the banner of a superior morality. (...) Environmentalism is neither religion nor science. It is a political mission, every bit as unquestioning as socialism in its heyday, and offering the same giddy promise to followers: The delicious prospect of being in the right, and better still, running things."[31] Czech President Václav Klaus said that "This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world"[32] Nick Minchin, Australian former leader of the Opposition in the Senate stated on the ABC program 4 Corners that "For the extreme left it [climate change] provides the opportunity to do what they've always wanted to do, to sort of de-industrialise the western world. You know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the left, and the, and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion." [33] Statements made or allegedly made by various supporters of climate change policies have been quoted as giving support to the idea that anthropogenic global warming may be used primarily for political purposes. According to a critical editorial written by Peter Menzies in the Calgary Herald, Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister for the Liberal Party of Canada, said in 1998 that "No matter if the science is all phoney, there are collateral environmental benefits.[34] According to the 1993 book Science under Siege by Michael Fumento, former US Senator Timothy Wirth, (D-Colo) said that "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing – in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.."[35][36] [edit] CriticismCritics of claims that scientists and others who promote anthropogenic (man made) global warming are propagating a fraud or hoax believe scientists are "data rigging" or fudging the numbers. On the other hand, those who describe the supposed scientific consensus on global warming as a "hoax", "fraud" or even "conspiracy" often object to the use of the terms "conspiracy theory" or "conspiracy theorists" to describe them and their views.[12] Some claim terminology such as "conspiracy theorists" and "denialists" (previously used for Holocaust denial) is sometimes used to lump together criticism of hypothetical political influences on IPCC management with extremists.[37] Some opponents of the mainstream assessment believe media oversimplification is a risk, claiming scientific consensus about humans having some effect on climate is universal but with more disagreement existing about the quantitative magnitude of AGW relative to natural forcings.[37] Claiming to be concerned if encouragement of groupthink could occur, some believe that the influence of oil company funds could be popularly overstated while underestimating hypothetical improper influences within regular funding sources for research.[37] Roy Spencer, a climatologist working at UAH and NASA, does not believe in an universal conspiracy amongst scientists, not one with Illuminati-like connotations, but views as different a claim that "most of the scientific uncertainties and caveats are minimized with artfully designed prose contained in the Summary for Policymakers (SP) portion of the report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[37] According to him: "The public has the mistaken impression that a lot of climate research has gone into the search for alternative explanations for warming [...] If you submit a research proposal to look for alternative explanations for global warming (say, natural climate cycles), it is virtually guaranteed you will not get funded."[37] Steve Connor links the terms "hoax" and "conspiracy," saying, "Reading through the technical summary of this draft (IPCC) report, it is clear that no one could go away with the impression that climate change is some conspiratorial hoax by the science establishment, as some would have us believe."[38] In a piece headed Crichton's conspiracy theory, Harold Evans described Crichton's theory as being "in the paranoid political style identified by the renowned historian Richard Hofstadter," and went on to suggest that "if you happen to be in the market for a conspiracy theory today, there's a rather more credible one documented by the pressure group Greenpeace," namely the funding by ExxonMobil of groups opposed to the theory of global warming[39] The documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle received much criticism. George Monbiot described it as "the same old conspiracy theory that we’ve been hearing from the denial industry for the past ten years".[40] Similarly, in response to James Delingpole, Monbiot stated that his Spectator article was "the usual conspiracy theories [...] working to suppress the truth, which presumably now includes virtually the entire scientific community and everyone from Shell to Greenpeace and The Sun to Science magazine."[41] UK Secretary of State for Environment, Farming and Rural Affairs, David Miliband presented a rebuttal of the main points of the film and stated "There will always be people with conspiracy theories trying to do down the scientific consensus, and that is part of scientific and democratic debate, but the science of climate change looks like fact to me."[42] John Houghton, previously co-Chair of the IPCC, said, "The most prominent person in the programme was Lord Lawson, former Chancellor of the Exchequer who is not a scientist and who shows little knowledge of the science but who is party to the creation of a conspiracy theory that questions the motives and integrity of the world scientific community, especially as represented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."[2] Furthermore, despite the conspiracy theories revolving around climate change, there has been no successful attempt by these conspiracy theorists to scientifically falsify claims made and conclusions arrived at by climatologists in regard to global warming or climate change.[citation needed] [edit] Counterclaims of conspiracyMain article: Climate change denial Some who accept the scientific consensus that humans have been largely responsible for recent and projected warming have similarly accused their opponents of being motivated by financial or ideological interests, and in some cases have used the term "conspiracy" to describe this. Critics have also been labeled as "deniers" by climate scientists and the main stream media.[43][44] United States Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt stated in 1998 that: it’s an unhappy fact that the oil companies and the coal companies in the United States have joined in a conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts... the energy companies need to be called to account because what they are doing is un-American in the most basic sense. They are compromising our future by misrepresenting the facts by suborning scientists onto their payrolls and attempting to mislead the American people."[45] Further evidence of the energy industry funding climate change denial has been produced by Greenpeace with their Exxon Secrets project.[46][47] ExxonMobil announced in 2008 that it would cut funding to many of the groups that were denying the science behind global warming but continues to fund over "two dozen other organisations who question the science of global warming or attack policies to solve the crisis."[48] A survey carried out by the UK's Royal Society found that in 2005 ExxonMobil distributed $2.9m to 39 groups that the society said "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". ---------------------------------------------- There is a lot there and it's a shame in a way, because to say this is the correct theory, a hoak, no that is wrong this is the correct theory, there is nio conspiracy it is, warming, due to mans actions, is a truism, is the other.. I understand what you are saying..I am not a big one on world wide conspiracys never have been..secret organizations looking to push their will on all the others.. Possible but to me, just to much work, and I don't believe secrets like that can stay secret very long..
|
|