An inconvenient truth

Archived discussion from Toril-2.
Ashiwi
Sojourner
Posts: 4161
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 5:01 am

Postby Ashiwi » Sun Jul 15, 2007 8:53 pm

My warped fantasies on how I would deal with the problem don't have anything to do with reality. In reality I understand that the outcome of this battle is all about personal choice. I choose to make some sacrifices of convenience so that I can conserve. I choose to drive a cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicle. I choose to teach my children the potential consequences of wasteful behavior today. I choose to stay at home on one day of the weekend and consolidate my trips into town. I choose to follow my own common sense when it comes to fuel, energy, pollution and environmental toxins. I make active choices that reduce the negative impact of my presence on the environment. I make active choices with my buying power and the companies I choose to support. I make active choices with the non-profit agencies I give my charitable dollars to. I make active choices in joining clean-up committees in the same way I give blood to the Red Cross.

I also make active choices in the way I speak out against doing nothing, or against doing something that actively contributes knowingly to a growing problem. You may not respect everything I have to say, and I understand that, because this world is all about perspective, but I would respect myself less if I said nothing.

After all... I may be dead before the world of tomorrow gets here... I'm older than most here, and may be gazing at the distant horizon sooner than some of you... but I have children, too. Next month I will have a grandchild, as well. If the outcome of this debate is "Yes," and it is my personal belief that it will be, I want them to know that I actively tried to make a better life for them, instead of throwing their futures away for my own convenience while I waited on somebody else to tell me what to see with my own eyes.
Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'
Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Inama ASSOC:: 'though it may suit your fantasies to think so, i don't need oil for anything.'

Haley: Filthy lucre? I wash that lucre every day until it SHINES!
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Sun Jul 15, 2007 11:04 pm

6. Expand Renewable Energy Development: Diversify energy sources by promoting existing technologies in solar, biomass and wind while setting ambitious but achievable goals for increasing renewable generation, and promoting state and local policy innovations that link clean energy and jobs.

First, all three of these are already in use. Many companies and individuals who work in fields that create biowaste use biomass. The problem is that unless this is used at the location of the biomass, it is not economical. Many landfills for example simply burn off their methane rather than capture it and try to process it.

Wind is the renewable which is experiencing the fastest growing use. As wind has become accepted though, many environmentalists are turning against it. There are concerns about air layer mixing resulting in drier conditions downwind from the windmill. Also, wind generation is except from regulations on other power plants making it easier to build them. Many want to force regulator compliance on wind mills to prevent their use. Finally, they are considered an eye sore and suffer from NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) concerns.

Solar is still too immature. The amount of land needed for an equal amount of power to their current use is enormous. Disneyland in Florida looked at it and they would have to triple the size of the park (not only the tourist area, but the entire area owned by Disney) and cover that extra space with solar panels. Continued research into solar by companies that are involved (chemical makers, silicon makers and solar panel makers) is going on and someday it might be viable. Also, there is increasing concerns over the large scale use of solar because it hurts the environment by using sunlight that would be striking plants.

There are two renewables which are not mentioned: tidal and nuclear. Some tidal plants is exist, but they are still in the concept stage. They have enormous potential. Tides always exist and most plants should be able to be operational almost around the clock. Their only downtime would be at the middle of a tide turn.

Nuclear is probably the best renewable. It is possible to have no nuclear waste, but to do that would mean you would have to accept the creation of weapons grade material through different reactor designs. Even with the restrictions on creating weapons grade material, nuclear waste is not that hard to get rid of. Of course, that depends on political action to create a long term storage site such as in Nevada far underground. Other countries are doing this, so storage of waste could be solved. Heck, there is even some research into the idea of dumping into subduction zones which would slowly take the material back into the earth.

Nuclear energy is here today, and it is in far greater use internationally. It emits far less pollution than coal, natural gas, oil. In addition, it creates more energy for the area the plant sits on unlike solar and wind.






7. Improve Transportation Options: Increase mobility, job access, and transportation choice by investing in effective multimodal networks including bicycle, local bus and rail transit, regional high-speed rail and magnetic levitation rail projects.

Here’s another watch out one. First, America is a very mobile society. We enjoy the ability to go where we want to when we want. I was at a political function for a democrat last year before the election in Montgomery country Maryland. He spoke about this kind of thing. Of course, I had to ask a question on how he would get people to use these if they were built. He talked about increasing the gasoline tax, traffic enforcement, and preferred routes for buses. I was mortified. This is the “howâ€
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:43 am

Sarvis wrote:If this is how you interpret everything you read, no wonder we can't believe a thing you say.

...

At least Teflor is probably just trolling.


Ho hum.

corth to sarvis wrote:You lose credibility resorting to ad hominem attacks. Stick to the facts.


lathander to sarvis wrote:Sarvis, instead of saying nonsense, what, in what I said, is actually wrong?


lathander to sarvis wrote:Heh, there's our Sarvis, arguing about arguing, how typical. Hope you never change or you'd actually get a clue.


corth to sarvis wrote:Just another couple weeks or so and Sarvis will have his hissy fit and leave for 6 months...

Listen Sarvis... if you continue to act nasty towards people, you will eventually have to get used to people acting that way towards you in return..


But don't take just my word for it.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:26 am

Lathander wrote:9. Plan For A Hydrogen Future: Invest in long term research & development of hydrogen fuel cell technology, and deploy the infrastructure to support hydrogen powered cars and distributed electricity generation using stationary fuel cells, to create jobs in the industries of the future.


I always found this option to be the most amusing.

"Teflor, the only exhaust is water!"

Today, the temperature will be in the high 80's, with 100% humidity.

I see air-cooled engines making a comeback.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:31 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:If this is how you interpret everything you read, no wonder we can't believe a thing you say.

...

At least Teflor is probably just trolling.


Ho hum.

corth to sarvis wrote:You lose credibility resorting to ad hominem attacks. Stick to the facts.


lathander to sarvis wrote:Sarvis, instead of saying nonsense, what, in what I said, is actually wrong?


lathander to sarvis wrote:Heh, there's our Sarvis, arguing about arguing, how typical. Hope you never change or you'd actually get a clue.


corth to sarvis wrote:Just another couple weeks or so and Sarvis will have his hissy fit and leave for 6 months...

Listen Sarvis... if you continue to act nasty towards people, you will eventually have to get used to people acting that way towards you in return..


But don't take just my word for it.


Wow, Corth, Teflor and Lathander agree on something. That's so earth shattering everyone should just sit up and pay attention! Nevermind they were the ones who led in with personal attacks in the first place...

Next maybe you can claim anyone who is poor emits CFCs!
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:37 am

Sarvis wrote:Wow, Corth, Teflor and Lathander agree on something. That's so earth shattering everyone should just sit up and pay attention! Nevermind they were the ones who led in with personal attacks in the first place...


I'm just going to go ahead and post this:

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Wait... what's that, Science? The polar caps are thickening and the temperatures at the south pole are lowering every year since measurements were taken?



If there's one thing I've learned, it's to not believe a single thing you say.



It looks like on this thread, you seem to have started it with me. Not a direct rebuttal of your attack, but a point I would like to raise nonetheless.


But, I will forgive you if you can tell me which town in America emits the vast majority (some say up to 93% of the CFCs emitted in the whole country!)
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jul 16, 2007 1:46 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Wow, Corth, Teflor and Lathander agree on something. That's so earth shattering everyone should just sit up and pay attention! Nevermind they were the ones who led in with personal attacks in the first place...


I'm just going to go ahead and post this:

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:Wait... what's that, Science? The polar caps are thickening and the temperatures at the south pole are lowering every year since measurements were taken?



If there's one thing I've learned, it's to not believe a single thing you say.



It looks like on this thread, you seem to have started it with me. Not a direct rebuttal of your attack, but a point I would like to raise nonetheless.


But, I will forgive you if you can tell me which town in America emits the vast majority (some say up to 93% of the CFCs emitted in the whole country!)


Oh Teffie, the only problem is you started insulting me years ago and never stopped.

Also, I wasn't insulting you as much as making a statement of fact... Most of what you write is garbage you won't cite because nothing could possibly back it up.

Should I be petty and post quotes from others saying the same thing? Nah... you're just not worth the effort.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Jul 16, 2007 2:12 am

Sarvis wrote:Also, I wasn't insulting you as much as making a statement of fact... Most of what you write is garbage you won't cite because nothing could possibly back it up.



Why, Sarvis, I cite you.



Sarvis wrote:Somehow, I doubt that he will.


Sarvis wrote:1) Sure, you probably just made it up.


Sarvis wrote:I questioned the existence of the data that you still refuse to show.


Sarvis wrote:I've cited articles which say they are not. Who should we believe, you or NASA?


Sarvis wrote:it's bullshit that we have pages and pages of debate where you do the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and shouting


Sarvis wrote:So maybe the ice is getting "thicker"


I'm sure you come well recommended as a legitimate source.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:01 am

teflor the ranger wrote:
Sarvis wrote:Also, I wasn't insulting you as much as making a statement of fact... Most of what you write is garbage you won't cite because nothing could possibly back it up.



Why, Sarvis, I cite you.



Sarvis wrote:Somehow, I doubt that he will.


Sarvis wrote:1) Sure, you probably just made it up.


Sarvis wrote:I questioned the existence of the data that you still refuse to show.


Sarvis wrote:I've cited articles which say they are not. Who should we believe, you or NASA?


Sarvis wrote:it's bullshit that we have pages and pages of debate where you do the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and shouting


Sarvis wrote:So maybe the ice is getting "thicker"


I'm sure you come well recommended as a legitimate source.


Yeah, you missed the point entirely there didn't you? All that time I was trying to get a citation from you, Lathander finally gave some and I accepted the new information.

Amazing, that.

Of course, they are still losing mass so the whole issue just rose from you being disengenous.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Corth
Sojourner
Posts: 6002
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 6:01 am
Location: NY, USA

Postby Corth » Mon Jul 16, 2007 3:46 am

And on that note this thread has officially, really, jumped the shark.
Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Goddamned slippery mage.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Mon Jul 16, 2007 5:48 am

Sarvis wrote:All that time I was trying to get a citation from you

Sarvis wrote:it's bullshit that we have pages and pages of debate where you do the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and shouting

Sarvis wrote:the whole issue just rose from you being disengenous.


Laff.

Next time, try googling <"antarctic ice" thickening>. It takes 5 seconds. It'll save you 30 minutes of writing BS, save us 2 minutes of reading your BS, and help us all avoid "pages and pages of debate where you do the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears and shouting." Talk about being disingenuous.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Mon Jul 16, 2007 12:09 pm

Why you insist that your opponent do your research for you in a debate truly boggles my mind.

Asking for citation is not being disengenous, it's pretty much how debate works. You don't make claims without backup.

In fact, every once in a while you try to accuse me of not citing things... which shows that you know that. Of course, since I actually do cite things it also just shows how dishonest you are.

Oh, and again we are "arguing about arguing" because in the complete lack of valid points you have you are trying to attack my style of argument instead, just as Lathander has been doing for the last couple pages with his "out of context" crap. Again, this seems to be my fault somehow. :roll:
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Tue Jul 17, 2007 4:44 am

1) You don't have to provide sources for readily confirmed facts.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:37 am

teflor the ranger wrote:1) You don't have to provide sources for readily confirmed facts.


What do readily confirmed facts have to do with you?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Wed Jul 18, 2007 5:49 am

Sarvis wrote:
teflor the ranger wrote:1) You don't have to provide sources for readily confirmed facts.


What do readily confirmed facts have to do with you?


google "antarctic ice" thickening

and you will find out.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Wed Jul 18, 2007 3:03 pm

Sadly, after you google you still have to read.

One study showed that while other continents are warming, major parts of Antarctica are cooling. The other demonstrated that the glacial "ice streams" that feed the Ross Ice Shelf in West Antarctica appear to be growing, not shrinking.

To the scientists involved, the studies suggest that the effects of global warming on Antarctica may prove harder to forecast than anticipated. But to their dismay, some newspaper editorial writers interpreted the reports as evidence that the global warming theory itself is in trouble -- even though that was the furthest thing from the scientists' minds.


Antarctica's "weight gain" is due to extra snowfall, caused by rising temperatures, the US-UK team thinks.

However, the scientists worry the overall mass of the Antarctic may be decreasing because ice near the coasts is melting, possibly at a greater rate.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Fri Jul 27, 2007 10:44 pm

avak wrote:Sadly, after you google you still have to read.


I don't see what's so sad about having to read. This bolsters my only point: that we know very little about the mechanisms that cool and heat the earth.

It's not only the effects of global climate change that are difficult to forecast, but also the causes.

It makes all of those efficiency studies on so called 'solutions' to global warming quite difficult to read. (Nevermind that credible ones don't exist.)

Gotta love the absolute, clearly proven science. Yes, the science is settled. wrote:However, the scientists worry the overall mass of the Antarctic may be decreasing because ice near the coasts is melting, possibly at a greater rate.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:11 am

Sorry to ress a dead thread, but I noticed Teflor got the last word, so I gotta step up for my buddy Sarvis :)

Interesting read on MSN:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... Shine.aspx

I'll admit right now, I didn't put any effort at all into researching the researchers who researched the research. Some of it makes sense on a gut level though (i.e. solar cells harvest the sun's energy more efficiently than plants) other parts make me wonder if the researcher granulated from the same schools as Bush.




Sadly, I am going to have to either explain this now, or explain it in 20 different posts later: I used the word "granulated" as a bit of a jab due to our supreme leader's inability to read a dictionary.

Sigh... I did it again. I used the term "supreme leader" as an allusion to the belief that Bush has been trying to consolidate more power within the executive branch than the constitution intended. If we let him (or any other president for that matter) keep it up, we might as well stop having a president and instead have a supreme leader... Ya know, like them evil folks up North.

I'm a cynic, I'll admit it. One of the crowning moments of my college career was debating (successfully) that the 2 party politics practiced today is what will cause the U.S. to lose its place as the world's foremost superpower.

I've probably gone on a bit too long already. After I get a few posts (you and I both know they are coming) telling me how ignorant I am, or how just plain wrong I am *My Political Party is the BESTEST cuz daddy told me so* I'll see about posting more thoughts.

Good Luck and Good Night.
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'

Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
Ragorn
Sojourner
Posts: 4732
Joined: Mon Jan 29, 2001 6:01 am

Postby Ragorn » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:37 am

It's cool Vigis, don't worry about it. You're dealing with people who think that Al Gore "flying in a plane" discredits 20 years of activism and a Nobel Peace Prize. You can't argue with that... or rather you can, but ramming your head into an iron girder will be equally effective and satisfying.

Just let it go.
- Ragorn
Shar: Leave the moaning to the people who have real issues to moan about like rangers or newbies.
Corth: Go ask out a chick that doesn't wiggle her poon in people's faces for a living.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:12 am

Ragorn wrote:It's cool Vigis, don't worry about it. You're dealing with people who think that Al Gore "flying in a plane" discredits 20 years of activism and a Nobel Peace Prize.


Interestingly enough I don't see any of those people on this thread. However, I do take issue of two seemingly correlated charts used as the sole presented 'proof' that one causes the other.

I'm not alone.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:42 am

Vigis wrote:Sorry to ress a dead thread, but I noticed Teflor got the last word, so I gotta step up for my buddy Sarvis :)

Interesting read on MSN:
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... Shine.aspx

I'll admit right now, I didn't put any effort at all into researching the researchers who researched the research. Some of it makes sense on a gut level though (i.e. solar cells harvest the sun's energy more efficiently than plants) other parts make me wonder if the researcher granulated from the same schools as Bush.




Sadly, I am going to have to either explain this now, or explain it in 20 different posts later: I used the word "granulated" as a bit of a jab due to our supreme leader's inability to read a dictionary.

Sigh... I did it again. I used the term "supreme leader" as an allusion to the belief that Bush has been trying to consolidate more power within the executive branch than the constitution intended. If we let him (or any other president for that matter) keep it up, we might as well stop having a president and instead have a supreme leader... Ya know, like them evil folks up North.

I'm a cynic, I'll admit it. One of the crowning moments of my college career was debating (successfully) that the 2 party politics practiced today is what will cause the U.S. to lose its place as the world's foremost superpower.

I've probably gone on a bit too long already. After I get a few posts (you and I both know they are coming) telling me how ignorant I am, or how just plain wrong I am *My Political Party is the BESTEST cuz daddy told me so* I'll see about posting more thoughts.

Good Luck and Good Night.


Vigis,

I tried very hard to divine what argument you were making, but ended up concluding that what you need is a sandwich.

I will, however, affirm that solar power is a MUCH better idea than growing corn for ethanol, something that was stupid to begin with.

I recall there is even a thread somewhere on the boards in which we bashed ethanol due to its inefficiency even compared to producing gasoline.

edit: http://www.torilmud.org/phpBB2/viewtopi ... nefficient

And if you want to be paranoid about the guberment coming to get you... well, be my guest. As a conservative, all I'm allowed to do is support you and suggest that you also be wary of the legislative branch. They are trying to do the same thing, if they're winners, anyway.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Vigis
Sojourner
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Postby Vigis » Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:54 am

TBH, I wasn't trying to make an argument. Sometimes I just throw a thought out there to see what might come back.

It's kind of like fishing :) And just like when I am actually fishing, I don't expect much.

I just can't quite break into the ranks of the people who can argue on the internet :)



P.S. Was it Salen who posted that E*Thug pic a long time ago?
Nerox tells you 'Good deal, the other tanks I have don't wanna do it, and since your my special suicidal tank i figure you don't mind one bit!'



Alurissi tells you 'aren't you susposed to get sick or something and not beable to make tia so i can go? :P'
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:08 pm

Nice ress Vigis.

What I find amusing about this award for Gore is the fact that the conspiracy theorists now have another prominent scientific/social community that they have to discredit to make their argument against anthropological climate change.

The most striking thing imo is that the award is the peace prize. The implications should be fairly obvious. The -vast- majority of informed people
have moved well past questions of legitimacy to WTF do we do now? What the award has legitimized are the methods and proposals that the IPCC and Gore have laid out. Now be fair, Gore is a spokesperson. Cute, but ineffective to make Gore a scientist that you can attack. Apparently about the best the wingnuts can do is to attack the first generation of research that has since been replicated ad nauseum. I'd lol if I didn't fear for the security of my unborn children.
Last edited by avak on Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:29 pm

Well, wasn't much of a thought really.

In terms of legitimacy, the Nobel prize doesn't give you that. For pete's sake, Arafat won it. It really just means some Norwegians agree with you.

I like the fact that a court in Britain, which is not known for being conservative, decided that Gore's movie was biased and had inaccurate information.

Nothing has really changed, there is no proof that global warming exists, and if it does, that it is caused by humans. Furthermore, even if one does decide that global warming exists, none of the proposals from the fringe left even affects stopping global warming.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:03 pm

Lathander wrote:Nothing has really changed, there is no proof that global warming exists, and if it does, that it is caused by humans.


Didn't you say pretty much the same thing about the hole in the ozone layer before I proved you wrong?

Give it 20 years, when our changes have started making a difference... and I'll probably be able to prove this one too.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:09 pm

Uh, what exactly did you actually prove about the ozone hole? I would like to see that. Feel free to quote yourself to show it.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:14 pm

avak wrote:What I find amusing about this award for Gore is the fact that the conspiracy theorists now have another prominent scientific/social community that they have to discredit to make their argument against anthropological climate change.


Lathander wrote:In terms of legitimacy, the Nobel prize doesn't give you that. For pete's sake, Arafat won it. It really just means some Norwegians agree with you.


Woof, everyone welcome Pavlov's dog to the forum.
Adriorn Darkcloak
Sojourner
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2003 7:11 pm

Postby Adriorn Darkcloak » Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:21 pm

As a teacher of literature, all I can say is that for many, many years, the Nobel prize for literature has been meaningless. The award goes out typically to communist writers, and those that truly change literature, impact a vast number of writers, etc., do not get the prize. Jorge Luis Borges, the Argentinian writer, is said to be the most influential writer Hispanicamerica ever saw, not just by Hispanics, but by almost everyone in the literary field. He changed literature. He never won the prize. Carlos Fuentes, a Mexican writer, has written so many influential pieces, historical television programs, the works. He didn't win the prize, instead, his friend Octavio Paz won it, a less prolific author, who was just more communist than he was socialist. It's pretty sad really.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:07 pm

Adriorn, I would certainly not dispute what you have said about the prize for literature. I have no idea, honestly. However, I don't think that is the point. My point, at least, was that the Nobel award is just another confirmation in a litany of evidence.

I honestly think there will be naysayers until past the point of the absurdly obvious just like there are still people who deny the holocaust. Ironically, both from political motivations.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:10 pm

Vigis wrote:Sorry to ress a dead thread, but I noticed Teflor got the last word, so I gotta step up for my buddy Sarvis :)


HEh, thanks. I had decided to let him have the last word so as not to feed the troll... ;)



Err... so let me commit the unpardonable sin of cutting up an article here:

Article wrote:states with large reservoirs of natural gas, like Montana, will seek ways to avoid sharing with less-advantaged neighbors like Oregon.

*snip*

For transportation, most energy experts agree that compressed natural gas, or CNG, is an ideal long-term choice.


Umm... am I missing something there? If natural gas is going to become scarce like oil, how is using compressed natural gas to replace oil going to make a difference?


Anyways, from what I hear corn is the least efficient plant for ethanol production. Saw grass is better, as is sugar cane... but there are also interesting new technologies in the works:



But, be careful... all of these people are against technological progress along with the rest of us "greens."
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:14 pm

This is quoted for Lathander, who asked me to quote something which was already in this same thread for him to believe it exists. Apparently presenting information to Lathander is useless, because he will simply edit it out of his brain within a couple months. Anyone else considering arguing with him may want to keep that in mind.

Sarvis wrote:
Lathander wrote:Heh, there's our Sarvis, arguing about arguing, how typical. Hope you never change or you'd actually get a clue.


The funny thing is I get the same responses whether I try or not. Why should I bother to try?

At least Teflor is probably just trolling. You're seriously this incompetent.

In regard to the ozone hole, I believe that the fall '06 was the worst ever, defined as the widest and deepest. It seems more an effect of cold temperatures in the stratosphere than anything else.


Earlier you asked what was wrong with what you said. Well, let's go with it. I'll try to avoid quote blocks, I know how it confuses you:

<a href="http://gtresearchnews.gatech.edu/reshor/rh-f06/sunshield.html">CONCENTRATIONS OF atmospheric ozone – which protects Earth from the sun’s ultraviolet radiation – are showing signs of recovery in the most important regions of the stratosphere above the mid-latitudes in both the Northern and Southern hemispheres, a new study shows. *snip* The research results were published Sept. 9, 2006,</a>

Of course, you could have cited something but I know we're all supposed to just believe everything you say. Right?

How about this, in the interest of fomenting ACTUAL discussion rather than your "it's so obvious" blather I'll post a source for you:

http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2006.htm

So we have the ozone hole shrinking in general over the last decade, but a sudden hole that seems to open up every fall.

Further digging reveals this tidbit: <a href="http://www.theozonehole.com/recordoz2006.htm">During the southern hemisphere winter, the atmospheric mass above the Antarctic continent is kept cut off from exchanges with mid-latitude air by prevailing winds known as the polar vortex. This leads to very low temperatures, and in the cold and continuous darkness of this season, polar stratospheric clouds are formed that contain chlorine.</a>

Mystery solved! So the only question now is are those chlorine containing clouds a natural phenomenon?

Ah, here we go: <a href="http://www.atm.ch.cam.ac.uk/tour/psc.html">Polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) are the medium on which reservoir chlorine compounds are converted into ozone-destroying chlorine radicals.</a>

That's pretty succinct I think. So we have a giant hole form in the antarctic ozone layer every year because the temperatures lower enough to form polar stratospheric clouds which are the catalyst for CFC's breakdown into the chlorine which actually depletes the ozone layer.

Now go on, accuse me of not citing sources again <b>Teflor. </b> You gotta take that shot at least once an argument, right?

And Lathander, you did catch all that right? No quote blocks, so hopefully you can read it.

Oh, and I'll stop the ad hominems when you bring a serious argument instead of half-truths and un-cited data.

Furthermore, we do not know if the weather/environment compensates for any contribution humans might make to it.


It probaly does, to an extent. We don't know that extent. We're seeing evidence we've surpassed it already.

By having a vibrant economy, we will have far more resources to adapt and counteract any environmental shift, natural or man made, than if we are economically weak.


If we work only for profit there will be no ability to counteract anything. People need to research and develop technologies which may not be profitable, and conduct pure research which is never profitable on it's own. All the money in the world won't help us if the height of our technological prowess is an iPhone. Yet the only people researching means to counteract environmental shifts are those you claim are against progress.
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:26 pm

avak wrote:Woof, everyone welcome Pavlov's dog to the forum.


Jihad Jihad, everybody welcome Arafat to the Nobel Peace Prize winners.

Sarvis wrote:At least Teflor is probably just trolling. You're seriously this incompetent.


Look everyone, a prime example of trolling - in the wild!

Sarvis wrote:If there's one thing I've learned, it's to not believe a single thing you say.


Sarvis wrote:So maybe the ice is getting "thicker"


Ho hum.

avak wrote:The -vast- majority of informed people have moved well past questions of legitimacy to WTF do we do now?


The vast majority of people think religion needs renters. It's tenets, not tenants.

You also have a very bad case of the can't see grays. If you were more intellectually honest, you would have said that the vast majority of informed people have noticed that climate change has a dramatic impact on human activity and society at large.

Very few people accept that global climate change is caused primarily by human produced CO2 emissions.

Most of us are well aware that the Earth's climate has changed many, many times in history - well before humans could contribute in a significant way, or, you know, at all.
Last edited by teflor the ranger on Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:28 pm

Avak,

I don't understand the Pavlov dog reference. I am simply continuing my effort to educate folks that this is not proven science. Global warming is a theory on our climate system that has no proof. To demand spending billions and trillions on something that may not be correct is a waste. Yes, it is politics. The left continues their assault on the economy with propoganda like Gore's movie. Personally, I see this Nobel prize as a cry FOR legitimacy rather than actually achieving it. Remember Arafat won the same thing.

Sarvis,

One your chart is nonsense. I believe 2006 was the biggest and deepest ozone hole ever. You posted that it is shrinking, and you are completely and continuing to be hopelessly wrong. Also, you are correct that PSC's do seem to have some big influence which may be the true issue. The trouble is we simply don't know. As to you proving something, I still fail to see you proving anything other than you do crappy research.
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:34 pm

"For their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

That's what the Nobel Peace Prize for the IPCC and Al Gore was for.

Disseminating greater knowledge -

And yes, they did indeed do that. They put a lot of good science and information out there.

As for its legitimacy or accuracy, or even its conclusions,


Take note that it's not a Nobel Chemistry Prize, or a Nobel Physics Prize, or even a Nobel Economics Prize.

"Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded for work in a wide range of fields including advocacy..."

Advocacy, something that the IPCC and Al Gore have done very well for their political views.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.
avak
Sojourner
Posts: 672
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 6:01 am

Postby avak » Sat Oct 13, 2007 6:58 pm

Very few people accept that global climate change is caused primarily by human produced CO2 emissions


Nonsense. "An average of 79% of respondents to the BBC survey agreed that "human activity, including industry and transportation, is a significant cause of climate change."

And. "Nine out of 10 people said action was necessary, with two-thirds of people going further, saying "it is necessary to take major steps starting very soon".

link

I don't feel like drawing this out further when I fully expect convoluted responses filled with tired rhetoric.
Lathander
Staff Member - Areas
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:18 pm

Postby Lathander » Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:20 pm

1. A poll does not make a fact. Many people used to believe in slavery, but many would argue they were in fact wrong.

2. Nice poll, 22,000 people in 21 countries. That means they polled 1,000 people roughly in each country. That is supposed to be proof of anything? The did not say what their methodology was, but based on the number, it is a extremely small sample size.

3. Many people, even in the States, may say they believe in global warming and that man is the cause. When you tell them what the environmentalists want to do, their opinion quickly changes. Also, when you tell folks that global warming’s effects may be thousands of years down the road, their opinion becomes even more against actions that impact their quality of life and finances.


Vigis,

I did read the article. While the author engaged in a lot of hyperbole about impending disaster, he is on the right path with the fact that ethanol is not the answer. Solar is also not the answer though as I posted a couple of pages ago. If we are serious about getting off of fossil fuels, nuclear is the only way to go on a large scale.


Avak,

I appreciate you not drawing this out with the same arguments we had months ago in this thread.
Sarvis
Sojourner
Posts: 6369
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2001 6:01 am
Location: Buffalo, NY, USA
Contact:

Postby Sarvis » Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:38 pm

Lathander wrote:Avak,

I don't understand the Pavlov dog reference. I am simply continuing my effort to educate folks that this is not proven science. Global warming is a theory on our climate system that has no proof. To demand spending billions and trillions on something that may not be correct is a waste. Yes, it is politics. The left continues their assault on the economy with propoganda like Gore's movie. Personally, I see this Nobel prize as a cry FOR legitimacy rather than actually achieving it. Remember Arafat won the same thing.

Sarvis,

One your chart is nonsense. I believe 2006 was the biggest and deepest ozone hole ever. You posted that it is shrinking, and you are completely and continuing to be hopelessly wrong. Also, you are correct that PSC's do seem to have some big influence which may be the true issue. The trouble is we simply don't know. As to you proving something, I still fail to see you proving anything other than you do crappy research.


That's funny, at the time you had nothing to say about it... and lately you've just joined Teffie in baiting me into arguments. Perhaps that's all you're doing now?

You can question the chart if you wish (while not providing any contrary evidence) but all the science and facts are there. We DO know. We know EXACTLY what is going on, and you are choosing not to listen. We know exactly what the process is that influences the ozone hole, and why it gets larger in winter. we know that it's because CFCs are broken down by the extreme cold of winter into chemicals that directly affect ozone... yet here you are still arguing that because I didn't find the Bestest. Chart. Evar the ozone hole must be a natural cycle.

Yeah. Shall I add this to the list of utter stupidity coming out of Lathander?
<a href="http://www.code-haven.com">Code Haven</a> - For all your programming needs.

I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write. - Some Guy Who Paraphrased Voltaire
teflor the ranger
Sojourner
Posts: 3923
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2002 5:01 am
Location: Waterdeep

Postby teflor the ranger » Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:45 pm

avak wrote:
Very few people accept that global climate change is caused primarily by human produced CO2 emissions


Nonsense. "An average of 79% of respondents to the BBC survey agreed that "human activity, including industry and transportation, is a significant cause of climate change."

And. "Nine out of 10 people said action was necessary, with two-thirds of people going further, saying "it is necessary to take major steps starting very soon".

link

I don't feel like drawing this out further when I fully expect convoluted responses filled with tired rhetoric.


Ahem:

avak wrote:The -vast- majority of informed people


I'll have to make a correction to what I stated, I seem to have left a word out:

teflor's correction in bold wrote:Very few informed people accept that global climate change is caused primarily by human produced CO2 emissions.


I'll further note that the BBC poll was not one of 'informed' people. You'll have a MUCH more difficult time making that argument.


And to further highlight a few semantics:

avak wrote: is a significant cause of climate change.

teflor the ranger wrote:caused primarily by human


I'm very sorry my friend, but tired old rhetoric flies from more than just one side.

Newsweek wrote:polls found that 64 percent of Americans thought there was "a lot" of scientific disagreement on climate change; only one third thought planetary warming was "mainly caused by things people do."


I can play let's use barely-relevant poll results too. This one even supports what I said? Gasp. And the information comes from somewhere all of a sudden :P

I don't feel like drawing this out further when I fully expect convoluted responses filled with tired rhetoric.
Teflor does. Teflor does not.

Return to “General Discussion Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 24 guests