Lathander wrote:I guess I misread it because of all the quoting nonsense. That crap really is tough to decipher sometimes.
...
Lathander wrote:I guess I misread it because of all the quoting nonsense. That crap really is tough to decipher sometimes.
Lathander wrote:In regard to Wikipedia, I usually like to use other sources. Wikipedia is a good "drive-by" source, but hardly what I would solely base something on.
avak wrote:And Llaaldara, I would just suggest the wikipedia article (and related references if you are so inclined), but to answer your question quickly:
Stratospheric ozone depletion observed since 1970 is caused primarily by increases in concentrations of reactive chlorine and bromine compounds that are produced by degradation of anthropogenic ODSs, including halons, CFCs, HCFCs, methyl chloroform (CH3CCl3), carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) and methyl bromide (CH3Br). [1.3 and 1.4]
That ozone depletion takes place is not seriously disputed in the scientific community.[31] There is a consensus among atmospheric physicists and chemists that the scientific understanding has now reached a level where countermeasures to control CFC emissions are justified, although the decision is ultimately one for policy-makers.
Observations and model calculations suggest that the global average amount of ozone depletion has now approximately stabilized (for example, see Figure SPM-3).
Llaaldara wrote:So the answer to my original question is yes? So we humans were able to make a difference in a global weather situation?
Which leads us to the surmise that humans can have an effect on global weather conditions?
Yay/Nay?
Lathander wrote:Heh, there's our Sarvis, arguing about arguing, how typical. Hope you never change or you'd actually get a clue.
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.
Furthermore, we do not know if the weather/environment compensates for any contribution humans might make to it.
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.
Sarvis wrote: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.
Corth wrote: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..
Lathander wrote:You seem to have swallowed this hype hook, line and sinker, so arguing with you is pretty point less as you really can't think for yourself.
Lathander wrote:I could continue with the links, but the real problem with you sarvis is an inability to think and consider using common sense.
Lathander wrote: See, the fundamental problem with you, I believe, is that you are not intellectually curious. You simply latch on to what you hear or read without actually understanding it.
Corth wrote:And when are you going to quote some of your own messages that Lathander was replying to?
Not going to track down who started it. Fact is that you are participating, so don't be shocked about the type of response you get.
My Grandmother:
If it looks like a duck, and it acts like a duck, and it walks like a duck...
My Grandmother:
Better safe than sorry.
Corth wrote:IMHO, public money is best spent on things that benefit the public at large.
Corth wrote:As far as I can tell, reducing carbon emissions means reducing industrial activity, which will exact an economic cost.
Corth wrote:IMHO, public money is best spent on things that benefit the public at large.
As a number of case studies in this report show, companies enhance their competitiveness by applying the power of energy innovation to their processes and their products. Frito-Lay’s resource conservation efforts consistently earn 30 percent return on investment. Riverdale Mills grabbed the opportunity to cut its $800,000 electricity bill in half by operating a water-powered generator that paid for itself in 1.3 years. DuPont applied Six Sigma™ to more than 75 procedure-based energy improvement projects—each required no capital investment and on average saved $250,000 per year.
Lathander wrote:Sarvis, I don't know if you have your own home yet, or still live with your parents,
With a traditional light bulb, there is only the threat of the broken glass. With the compact fluorescent, you have a major problem with regard to cleanup of the mercury, and one that is likely to need professionals to clean.
I'm not demonizing anything.
I think it is important for people to understand the pro's and con's to this "environmental" movement of which fluorescent lighting is a component.
A good example is what happens to those spent fluorescent bulbs once they are used up? Will people take them to a hazardous waste disposal place or will them just throw them in their trash can where they are likely to break before they get to the dump?
Lathander wrote:There is a big difference between walking through a store where the bulbs are already up in the ceiling and having to handle and change the bulbs in your home. Mercury is a dangerous chemical, and many of us that change light bulbs can attest to breaking some whether during the changing or after throwing it into the garbage.
And barometers? Yea, everyone has one of those in their homes, heh. Only time I ever had one was for a science fair project and it was tucked away in a protective plastic package. Far more light bulbs are broken than barometers.
Everything has pro's and con's. The problem is the environmental movement is not truthful about the implications of the changes they propose. I'll ask again, those of you for changes, how would you go about it? How would you get rid of coal fired power plants? How would get people out of their cars? That's where the true nature of the environmental movement is. I look forward to seeing the answers.
Lathander wrote:There is a big difference between walking through a store where the bulbs are already up in the ceiling and having to handle and change the bulbs in your home. Mercury is a dangerous chemical, and many of us that change light bulbs can attest to breaking some whether during the changing or after throwing it into the garbage.
And barometers? Yea, everyone has one of those in their homes, heh. Only time I ever had one was for a science fair project and it was tucked away in a protective plastic package. Far more light bulbs are broken than barometers.
Everything has pro's and con's. The problem is the environmental movement is not truthful about the implications of the changes they propose.
I'll ask again, those of you for changes, how would you go about it? How would you get rid of coal fired power plants? How would get people out of their cars? That's where the true nature of the environmental movement is. I look forward to seeing the answers.
Ashiwi wrote:Here, I'll quote one of the best resources I've ever found:My Grandmother:
If it looks like a duck, and it acts like a duck, and it walks like a duck...
Or this one:My Grandmother:
Better safe than sorry.
It never ceases to amaze me that adults can literally see a problem, yet continue to argue against its existence as if it doesn't matter.
Here, let's break it down into understandable language for everybody who isn't getting the points being made here...
Yes, the pollution in major cities is so thick you can see it. Yes, it's obvious that in those cities on the days when pollutants are particularly bad the rate of illness climbs markedly. Yes, it's obvious that merely driving into a city from the country on a summer day will show a noticable increase in surrounding temperature. Yes, yes... heat escapes to areas where it's not so hot, simple natural laws, and all that rot. Sure, the smell of a large city is putrid. Okay, so the exhaust from vehicles is poisonous to us. Yeah, okay, when air is thicker it's going to retain heat longer. Sure, some of these chemicals we release into the air break down the natural composition, retain heat , lead to unnatural destabilization of a billions-years-old system, increase population sickness, smell bad, are poisonous, darken the atmosphere, and lead to increased temperatures... BUT UNTIL YOU SHOW ME PROOF THAT WILL CONVINCE ME THAT I'M LESS IMPORTANT THAN ANY SILLY ENVIRONMENT IT'S A MOOT POINT. After all, within sixty years I'll probably be dead, and it'll be somebody else's problem. Until that time, if I can't drive to the store two or three times a day, buy everything in conveniently double-wrapped individually-portioned packages, and walk out of Wal-mart with a nailfile, a tiny bottle of dish detergent, a half-pound package of chemically injected beef in a one-pound package of plastic, and a six-pack of water, each item in its own gallon-sized plastic bag, then life just isn't worth living, so back off while I snack on this half-dollar-sized cheeseburger from McDonald's that came packaged in what amounts to half a Sunday newspaper!
Sorry, not a single scientific reference quoted in this post.
Lathander wrote:Sounds like hate prosperity and love poverty to me.
People want choices. Of course there is a market for environmentally friendly items. When you buy a computer power supply that is highly efficient, you are making a choice that helps the environment. Also, it is higher quality than the lower efficient junk out there. It costs more, but the buyer's perception is that the cost is worth it.
We have an SUV.
I prefer safety of a larger car.
See, I believe that that green lobby is really red inside.
The Greens replace everyone getting only what they need
It is especially galling when most of the environmental messages are really not any better for the environment than what they would be replacing.
If you want to talk about solar, then talk about the shortage of silicon which is a major component for this technology. Also, solar is exceptionally space intensive. It's not there yet. Maybe some day...
By the way, what the heck is a self-sustaining good? It sounds cool, but sounds to me like having to reuse crap over and over like taking my own shopping bags to the store.
Also, you could be talking about the idea of locally produced goods I suppose. That's bad too. Why should someone pay a whole lot more for a good than buying a much cheaper good made somewhere else. From a resource perspective, using cheaper inputs that would yield the same quality makes more sense.
And using the tobacco industry is a bad example. The government, both state and federal, are paid off by the industry to make a bad product. The tobacco settlement a few years ago guarantees that the tobacco industry goes nowhere because the states have already spent the money through issuing bonds against those cash flows. No tobacco industry, no cash flows.
Some of you guys really think humans are parasites.
Return to “General Discussion Archive”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 32 guests