|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 9:52:32 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
But Algore is global warming's foremost spokesperson, as if you haven't noticed.
This is irrelevant. Global warming is not Al Gore's creation; discrediting him is pointless.
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephK
As far as Al Gore, he can't tell the truth to save his life. Once he uttered "I invented the internet" and "Love Story" was inspired by he and Tipper
And yet I keep being told over and over that no one is participating in an ad hominem campaign against Al Gore. Sorry, folks, but I can read . . .
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 9:55:55 AM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 70
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
And, yes, making an argument about global warming by discrediting Al Gore is by definition ad hominem.
What is interesting is how yourself and lizhanna feel justified in making just such ad hominems on enigneers (both of you) and in liz's case anyone who speaks out against global warming while at the same time decrying that anyone dare mention the fact that your poster boy isn't even remotely trained in the sciences. When an engineer (who once again is at least trained in the sciences) attempts to make a point you guys laugh it off since it doesn't come from the type of scientists that you would accept (although you guys seem to have no problem that much of the review of the "data" in the IPCC report wasn't performed by climatologists at all). Now when Al Gore spouts outright fabrications it is OK with you guys since he is supporting your cause even though he himself is not trained in the sciences.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 9:57:57 AM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 70
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
But Algore is global warming's foremost spokesperson, as if you haven't noticed.
This is irrelevant. Global warming is not Al Gore's creation; discrediting him is pointless.
But it is Al Gores embellishments that have assisted in whipping up the fury(as well as a boat load of carbon credit money for himself).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 9:59:37 AM
|
|
|
StephK
Posts: 1504
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Southwest Louisiana
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: StephK
As far as Al Gore, he can't tell the truth to save his life. Once he uttered "I invented the internet" and "Love Story" was inspired by he and Tipper nothing else he spews makes a difference to me. It's my opinion of the man based on his own words.
Politicians often make things up for the purpose of trying to get elected. While I am not trying to justify this, in the case of global warming, I think Al Gore is serious about his position (not that I agree or disagree with it).
More generally, I do think that we should take care of our environment (and I think most would agree). Unfortunately, I am not well versed enough on the subject to know what that really means. I do not know if the experts really have a clue either (I would say the question encompasses way too many factors for anyone to really know. I, and probably many here, have a general understanding about the theory behind global warming and how the CO2 cycle works, but I would say the environment encompasses many more factors than just a general understanding). I take the position, better safe than sorry. Even if we are not harming the environment (which I do not know), I would say that we shouldn't risk the possibility that we are. It is better to assume we are harming the environment and try to reduce CO2 emissions and other possible imbalances (at least in the long run) than to do the opposite. This reasoning kinda has to do with pascals wager. If we assume that we aren't negatively affecting the environment and we are and we do nothing about it, then that's really bad. If we assume that we are negatively affecting the environment and we act to prevent this and it turns out we aren't negatively affecting the environment, then the consequences aren't as bad. It's kinda like a type 1 verses type 2 error kinda thing.
That is, I think the possibility of man made environmental damage is great enough for us to consider taking precautions.
He's constantly saying things that are not 100% truthful in order to push his agenda. If he really wants people to take him at his word telling the truth goes a long way in that direction. His "documentary" had to have a disclaimer added to it when it was shown in the UK.
I have NEVER advocated trashing the environment. I have stated we should be good stewards and conservationists. I think we should hold industries feet to the fire in making sure they follow the law regarding emissions and how they dispose of the wastes. When those industries have to find a way to get rid of the wastes or face fines they are usually creative geniuses and come up with new products out of the wastes from refining.
Like this one.
About Gasification
Gasification offers the cleanest, most efficient method available to produce synthesis gas (“syngas”) from low or negative-value carbon-based feedstocks such as coal, petroleum coke***, high sulfur fuel oil or materials that would otherwise be disposed as waste. The syngas can be used in place of natural gas to generate electricity, or as a basic raw material to produce chemicals and liquid fuels.
The project will gasify petcoke to produce substitute natural gas (“SNG”) and hydrogen (and other products) for sale to utilities and industrial customers. SNG is pipeline quality gas and is indistinguishable from natural gas produced from regional geological formations. Construction and fabrication services are to be provided by the Turner Industries Group, LLC of Baton Rouge, LA with design engineering and procurement services being provided by KBR Corporation of Houston, TX. GE Energy (USA) LLC is scheduled to provide the primary technology mover for the project through its proven quench gasification technology.
The plant will use 7,500 tons per day of petroleum coke as its fuel source to convert the petroleum coke into SNG. The Port will provide the handling and storing of the petroleum coke for the plant and will make a $40 million upgrade of its fuel handling system funded by LCC as part of the project overall cost. The SNG produced from the petroleum coke will be transported through third party-owned pipelines to Louisiana utilities and other industries which use large amounts of the SNG to produce electricity and other products. Long term contracts to be negotiated with utilities will provide a hedge against volatile natural gas prices and provide diversity to Louisiana purchasers of electricity by using a low grade solid fuel such as pet coke to produce SNG.
*** There are tons of this left over after refining crude oil into gasoline. Because of the costs of having to deal with it the engineers went to work and figured out a solution.
_____________________________
Stephanie
"If one starts with an impersonal beginning, the answer to morals eventually turns out to be the assertion that there are no morals." ~Francis Schaeffer
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 10:02:19 AM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3300
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: online
|
I miss the spay cans of Goof off, seriously do arts and crafts at church, and they took it off the shelf. The kids get paint on things no matter how hard I try. You can buy it at Home Depot, but you have to pour it from the can. It smells strong, though I like the smell (LOL), it bothers those who are chemical sensitive. That is my main gripe, let people have a pro-choice stance, on what product they want to buy, and if they want to go green. Green is ok, to a limit, but I feel forced into this lifestyle I would rather choose. It is my choice to buy or not buy things, someone may feel is harmful to the enviroment. I told you I do things in balance, reasonable, but I do not go unbalanced with it. What is it going to get to? Everything manafactured and sold is " Green" only.
Most do not want to have anything to do with the whole subject because Big AL he influences to many goofballs, like Sheryl Crow and other oddities. People did not get all fanatical about it until Big Al " named and claimed it", so why would people not think it is a bunch of crock? Big Al, has claimed so many things, I think he may have some form of mental illness, of attention seeking, making things up. Al Gore is probaly the last person who should have been the spokes person for this cause.
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 10:07:42 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
What is interesting is how yourself and lizhanna feel justified in making just such ad hominems on enigneers (both of you) and in liz's case anyone who speaks out against global warming while at the same time decrying that anyone dare mention the fact that your poster boy isn't even remotely trained in the sciences.
What you fail to recognize is that I don't have a "poster boy." I do not plead from the authority of Al Gore, or a host of engineers. I don't even like Al Gore, nor have I read his book or seen his movie.
But if you are going to argue global warming, make it about the data, not about personalities.
And quote appropriate experts. If we are discussing bridges, ships, or electric motors, then we can call in the engineers.
quote:
But it is Al Gores embellishments that have assisted in whipping up the fury(as well as a boat load of carbon credit money for himself).
Global warming is not about Al Gore.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 10:12:38 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
Al Gore is probaly the last person who should have been the spokes person for this cause.
Well, at that meeting of the Leftist's Union when we held the election of who would take our evangel of global warming (designed to undermine America, btw) to the people, I warned them to pick someone else.
"Pick someone with some credibility," I pleaded, "someone with a nice, solid engineering degree."
Oh, I warned them . . . did they listen? Nooooooo! No one ever listens to ol' Mike . . . .
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 5/10/2008 10:35:37 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 10:21:13 AM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3300
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: online
|
Well, I do not like him either so we agree. The point is until he won a prize, people may have known a little about it, but, are turned off now being forced into something like I mentioned in above post. I am thinking it is something we should have pro-choice on. I do the things I do not because of Global Warming, I do things, because I love God, and his gift of creation. So maybe if that attitude could be adopted, instead of forced down peoples throat, it could make a big difference. Like or not Al is the Poster Boy, for GW, and he gathers wierdos around him, and if he were out of the who thing. People would give GW more respect or atleast do things simple like recycle or use a tote bag. People just do not want this crammed down their throats, and both sides have interesting views, though I tend to think much of GW is hype and blown out of proportion.
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
What is interesting is how yourself and lizhanna feel justified in making just such ad hominems on enigneers (both of you) and in liz's case anyone who speaks out against global warming while at the same time decrying that anyone dare mention the fact that your poster boy isn't even remotely trained in the sciences.
What you fail to recognize is that I don't have a "poster boy." I do not plead from the authority of Al Gore, or a host of engineers. I don't even like Al Gore, nor have I read his book or seen his movie.
But if you are going to argue global warming, make it about the data, not about personalities.
And quote appropriate experts. If we are discussing bridges, ships, or electric motors, then we can call in the engineers.
quote:
But it is Al Gores embellishments that have assisted in whipping up the fury(as well as a boat load of carbon credit money for himself).
Global warming is not about Al Gore.
< Message edited by lightshineon -- 5/10/2008 10:27:39 AM >
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 10:29:35 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 394
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
So maybe if that attitude could be adopted, instead of forced down peoples throat, it could make a big difference.
Force what down people's throats?
quote:
Like or not Al is the Poster Boy, for GW, and he gathers wierdos around him, and if he were out of the who thing.
This is not an argument against global warming. This is a repudiation of a man.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 10:35:22 AM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3300
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: online
|
Ok, I will give you those points, but see it through others eyes, and opinions. What I stated I do not like my favorite products removed from shelves, because of the " Green" issue. It is over done because of PC attitudes, and Al Gore. Can't you admit that atleast.
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
So maybe if that attitude could be adopted, instead of forced down peoples throat, it could make a big difference.
Force what down people's throats?
quote:
Like or not Al is the Poster Boy, for GW, and he gathers wierdos around him, and if he were out of the who thing.
This is not an argument against global warming. This is a repudiation of a man.
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 11:32:45 AM
|
|
|
timf
Posts: 793
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth?
If you wanted to model the Earth to simulate the factors that would bear on what is called "global warming" you would create a rotating sphere suspended in a vacuum and irradiated from one side. In addition the sphere would be heated internally to represent the internal, presumably fission, at the core which produces heat from within. The sphere would have to be coated with 70% water and have an atmosphere that conveys moisture to further complicate the model.
The problem is even further complicated in that we have no historical idea of how much the radiation from the sun varies. In fact, we are not completely sure how to measure the energy of the sun today. We also have no idea of how to measure the energy from inside the Earth and if it varies.
We are also at a loss to measure how much received energy and generated energy reradiates back into space each day as long wave radiation.
The act of humans adding directly to thermal energy by burning coal and oil does contribute thermal energy to the surface. However, we do not know how much of this additional heat is also reradiated back into space.
Another wrinkle to this subject is that since the Earth has an atmosphere and is 70% water, "warming" is most often translated into the kinetic movement of water and water vapor. Thermal energy can be converted into mechanical energy. We also do not know if thermal energy increases clouds and reflects back solar energy such that we might even have global cooling.
The idea that warming is caused by carbon in the atmosphere is not very scientific. It may be that over fishing has allowed smaller fish populations to increase and subsequently phyto plankton (plants) in the oceans to decrease. Without these plants to take up carbon dioxide, the levels in the atmosphere would rise. To declare that this increases the earth's temperature, well serves those who promote hysteria to further the goals of government seizure and control of every aspect of our lives. It does not serve real science, but then "real" science has almost been taken over by the political operatives working to advance global socialism.
The people who do not believe in God are the ones who see a hostile universe and feel that we need a god. Since there is no god, they feel that they need to take the job on themselves. This is done through using the government as a substitute god. The illusion that the universe is under the control of legislation provides the soporific to sleep well knowing that they have achieved peace and safety.
If we remember that wisdom is from God and that those who reject God do not drink deeply from that well, we can understand why such strange ideas are propagated. Those who reject God and worship the creation receive reprobate minds. It is from these minds that these ideas flow. It is such a sad testimony to the poverty of our churches that Christianity in America has almost faded and that the hysterical ravings of the fearful substitute for science.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 11:38:18 AM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3300
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: online
|
Tim, my husband said thesame thing this morning. About God.
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 12:07:12 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Yeah, I know what you said. My answer is still the same. If it isn't about Al Gore, then there is no point bringing him up.
Perhaps many people subscribe to Al Gores position and websites that disagree with him bring him up in order to bring up counter arguments to his position. There is nothing wrong with doing this.
quote:
Not just "disagree": they try to discredit him.
Even if some do, that doesn't mean all conservative sites do. Some probably try to counter his position. There is also nothing wrong with mentioning that Al Gore does not have a relevant degree in the field if this is true. That's not to say that their entire position is based on "discrediting" Al Gore.
quote:
If they bother to try to discredit Al Gore, then their point is about Al Gore and not about global warming.
That could be one aspect of their argument, but not necessarily their entire argument. Again, there is nothing wrong with mentioning that Al Gore does not have relevant credentials. That's not to say they are trying to discredit his position solely on this fact, they may also bring up other arguments as well.
quote:
I don't believe that you are actually having a hard time understanding this. You are just nitpicking semantics with me as another ruse. That's fine; it's all part of the game. But I do see what you are doing.
No, I am asking you to be fair to the conservative position. What you said was, "Conservative websites disagree with Al Gore; therefore, they need not deal with the scientific merits of global warming. Instead they seek only to discredit Al Gore." and I am telling you that it is not fair to make such stereotypes.
quote:
Again, disagreeing with Al Gore by attempting to discredit him personally is a duplicitous tactic.
but what you said was, "Conservative websites disagree with Al Gore; therefore, they need not deal with the scientific merits of global warming. Instead they seek only to discredit Al Gore." and this is not a fair stereotype to make. What you asserted was, just because conservative websites disagree with him, they are trying to discredit him personally.
quote:
Intellectual honesty is far better than, say, ad hominem and emotional appeals that reflect a distaste for the truth just because the truth is too- dare I say it?- inconvenient, or simply because "Rush says so."
I think both sides would claim to be intellectually honest. While neither side should be considered better at discerning truth than the other side, neither side should reflect a distaste (or intolerance) for the opposing side.
quote:
Nope, I want to see you admit it right in full view of everyone: I have personally presented arguments and evidence for which I then claimed to be right.
Can you admit this, or not?
Just because someone presents an argument does not mean the argument is correct. Asserting the correctness of ones arguments in the manner you did (ie: with this "you're wrong because I'm right" attitude) does not make for good argumentation.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/10/2008 12:15:56 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 12:12:28 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 530
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I know where to find the reports. I don't get all of my information from one source. I simply stated that the one forum that was posted did post all sides of the issue. I can tell the difference between posters offering their opinion from the articles, studies, etc posted.
As far as Al Gore, he can't tell the truth to save his life. Once he uttered "I invented the internet" and "Love Story" was inspired by he and Tipper nothing else he spews makes a difference to me. It's my opinion of the man based on his own words.
StephK,
I posted links from our OWN governments EPA, NASA, NOAA, as well as the internatiaonl IPCC, the UN, 113 countries from ALL over the WORLD - ALL of whom and their scientists concede that global warming is upon us, and that humans play a part. If you deny this - I will be forced to repost them.
I am not here to reply to your diss on Al Gore - he got his information from the aforementioned. If you are dissing his research, then you are dissing the scientists from: our OWN governments EPA, NASA, NOAA, as well as the internatiaonl IPCC, the UN, 113 countries from ALL over the WORLD.
Again, if you say these are biased sources, please explain why. While doing that, please keep in mind that these are US government organizations and international government organizations that could care less how one votes in America, as they have more important things to think about than silly mundane things like that.
Please DO let me know if you'd like more posts from scientists, and not blogs. There is plenty more where these links came from.
Peace and God bless,
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 12:17:17 PM
|
|
|
Lizahana
Posts: 530
Joined: 4/20/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: _jjp_
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
And, yes, making an argument about global warming by discrediting Al Gore is by definition ad hominem.
What is interesting is how yourself and lizhanna feel justified in making just such ad hominems on enigneers (both of you) and in liz's case anyone who speaks out against global warming while at the same time decrying that anyone dare mention the fact that your poster boy isn't even remotely trained in the sciences. When an engineer (who once again is at least trained in the sciences) attempts to make a point you guys laugh it off since it doesn't come from the type of scientists that you would accept (although you guys seem to have no problem that much of the review of the "data" in the IPCC report wasn't performed by climatologists at all). Now when Al Gore spouts outright fabrications it is OK with you guys since he is supporting your cause even though he himself is not trained in the sciences.
Um, no, jjp,
You are ignoring the fact that Al Gore got his information from our OWN governments EPA, NASA, NOAA, as well as the internatiaonl IPCC, the UN, 113 countries from ALL over the WORLD - you and others plain out ignore this - that is the problem.
Now, I posted links from our OWN governments EPA, NASA, NOAA, as well as the internatiaonl IPCC, the UN, 113 countries from ALL over the WORLD - ALL of whom and their scientists concede that global warming is upon us, and that humans play a part. THIS is a consensus. If you deny this - I will be forced to repost them.
I am getting the feeling that you, and others know this - and you don't care to address it because you are in denial.
Of course, I can't do anything about a person's refusal to acknowledge that our government and governments from ALL over the WORLD, and their scientists concede that global warming is upon us and that humans play a part in this.
Peace and God bless,
PS Here's a hint: if you bring up Al Gore, I will bring up the links from our OWN governments EPA, NASA, NOAA, as well as the internatiaonl IPCC, the UN, 113 countries from ALL over the WORLD - ALL of whom and their scientists concede that global warming is upon us, and that humans play a part. Because, Al Gore is saying the SAME exact thing as links from our OWN governments EPA, NASA, NOAA, as well as the internatiaonl IPCC, the UN, 113 countries from ALL over the WORLD - ALL of whom and their scientists concede that global warming is upon us, and that humans play a part. Understand?
< Message edited by Lizahana -- 5/10/2008 12:24:03 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 12:38:05 PM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3300
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: online
|
I wish someone would comment about products I and others find useful being taken off the shelf, because of the green thing. Is this fair in your opinion?
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 12:50:22 PM
|
|
|
blessedinnyc
Posts: 1105
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
Nothing wrong with cutting back a little, but when those who preach that the loudest still fly around in their private jets, still drive their SUVs, have monthly electric bills in the thousands of dollars........... They need to lead by example, not "do as I say, not as I do."
Teddy Kennedy is all in favor of wind power.....just not in HIS backyard. He makes me sick too!
-Dave
So? Al Gore has cut back on his lifestyle by about 20%- why can't we cut back on ours by 10%?
This sort of reminds me of what Lee Iacocca did with Chrysler back in the early '80s. He reduced his salary by 99%. He asked his executive team to reduce theirs' by 30%. He asked the unions to reduce theirs by 10%.
The unions made less money than the executives, but the executives gave up a larger percentage of their income than the unions. Most conservatives felt that this was fair in order to save a company- the executives didn't need to reduce their salaries to $20K/year to ask the workers to reduce theirs'.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 12:58:24 PM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3300
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: online
|
Most of have made choices that are reasonable. Please somebody pro-choice products queston. Ted kennedy looks full of toxins, I am serious he is green, he was on the news.
quote:
ORIGINAL: blessedinnyc
quote:
ORIGINAL: davemiller7
Nothing wrong with cutting back a little, but when those who preach that the loudest still fly around in their private jets, still drive their SUVs, have monthly electric bills in the thousands of dollars........... They need to lead by example, not "do as I say, not as I do."
Teddy Kennedy is all in favor of wind power.....just not in HIS backyard. He makes me sick too!
-Dave
So? Al Gore has cut back on his lifestyle by about 20%- why can't we cut back on ours by 10%?
This sort of reminds me of what Lee Iacocca did with Chrysler back in the early '80s. He reduced his salary by 99%. He asked his executive team to reduce theirs' by 30%. He asked the unions to reduce theirs by 10%.
The unions made less money than the executives, but the executives gave up a larger percentage of their income than the unions. Most conservatives felt that this was fair in order to save a company- the executives didn't need to reduce their salaries to $20K/year to ask the workers to reduce theirs'.
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 1:05:58 PM
|
|
|
Bettawrekonize
Posts: 1068
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
I wish someone would comment about products I and others find useful being taken off the shelf, because of the green thing. Is this fair in your opinion?
I heard (not sure if this is true) that they're going to outlaw burning wood in California. I then suspected the reason might be that those who make compressed sawdust want to sell their products more (but I don't know). Subsequently, I heard (in one of my classes) that the people who sell Duraflame and other forms of compressed sawdust have trouble selling their product. Supposedly, compressed sawdust is better for the environment (I don't know. I do know that nature causes forest fires sometimes though). Sometimes I wonder if, in the background, the companies who make compressed sawdust somehow influence the government to outlaw competing products for the purpose of boosting their sales. I don't know if this is true, there really isn't enough evidence to conclude it, but I think it's a possibility that we should not dismiss. Another possibility we should consider is the possibility that pharmaceutical companies lobby to outlaw drugs when their patents expire (supposedly for health reasons) in order to better sell competing drugs that are still under patent. One thing you can try and do is, if something is being outlawed, see whether or not it has a patent or whether or not the patent expired (or is about to expire). Then see if a competing product (or competing products) have patents or other intellectual property rights. While one can't make a direct inference from this, one can contemplate the possibility that more is going on in the background than meets the eye. I can give examples of products that I have seen being outlawed for environmental or other purposes where the competing products A: have patents B: Cost a lot more. C: Don't work nearly as well, but I do not want to go into a long discussion over this. Just something people should consider.
< Message edited by Bettawrekonize -- 5/10/2008 1:14:51 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 1:09:46 PM
|
|
|
lightshineon
Posts: 3300
Joined: 4/11/2005
Status: online
|
Thank YOU  .
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bettawrekonize
quote:
ORIGINAL: lightshineon
I wish someone would comment about products I and others find useful being taken off the shelf, because of the green thing. Is this fair in your opinion?
I heard (not sure if this is true) that they're going to outlaw burning wood in California. I then suspected the reason might be that those who make compressed sawdust want to sell their products more (but I don't know). Subsequently, I heard (in one of my classes) that the people who sell Duraflame and other forms of compressed sawdust have trouble selling their product. Supposedly, compressed sawdust is better for the environment (I don't know. I do know that nature causes forest fires sometimes though). Sometimes I wonder if, in the background, the companies who make compressed sawdust somehow influence the government to outlaw competing products for the purpose of boosting their sales. I don't know if this is true, there really isn't enough evidence to conclude it, but I think it's a possibility that we should not dismiss. Another possibility we should consider is the possibility that pharmaceutical companies lobby to outlaw drugs when their patents expire (supposedly for health reasons) in order to be able to sell competing drugs that are still under patent. One thing you can try and do is, if something is being outlawed, see whether or not it has a patent or whether or not the patent expired (or is about to expire). Then see if a competing product (or competing products) have patents or other intellectual property rights. While one can't make a direct inference from this, one can contemplate the possibility that more is going on in the background than meets the eye. I can give examples of products that I have seen being outlawed for environmental or other purposes where the competing products A: have patents B: Cost a lot more. C: Don't work nearly as well, but I do not want to go into a long discussion over this. Just something people should consider.
_____________________________
Remember, whenever you have pearls, there are always plenty of pigs nearby who would be glad to step on them.
F.T., 2007
Be sure you vote for those, whose views you want your children to emulate.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 2:04:52 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 70
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lizahana
Um, no, jjp,
You are ignoring the fact that Al Gore got his information from our OWN governments EPA, NASA, NOAA, as well as the internatiaonl IPCC, the UN, 113 countries from ALL over the WORLD - you and others plain out ignore this - that is the problem.
And then he EMBELLISHES to feed his own agenda and to fatten his pockets by selling carbon credits.
quote:
Now, I posted links from our OWN governments EPA, NASA, NOAA, as well as the internatiaonl IPCC, the UN, 113 countries from ALL over the WORLD - ALL of whom and their scientists concede that global warming is upon us, and that humans play a part. THIS is a consensus. If you deny this - I will be forced to repost them.
I am getting the feeling that you, and others know this - and you don't care to address it because you are in denial.
The overstating of the facts is the problem. No one is denying that global warming happens, no one is denying that global warming does have a small part that is man made, THERE IS NO CONSENSUS however on the severity or even if it is bad and when we post data showing otherwise you will dig to find that Exxon the evil destroyer of the world put .5%of funding into the group so the data is irrelevant and you will not address that data. You also refuse to address the FACT that this type of global warming has happened in the past and ignore the fact that the past 150ish years of "warming" happened as we came out of the end of an ICE AGE. The facts do point to warming but it is neither greater than nor is it at a faster rate than what has happened in the history of the earth and that is of the utmost importance since there are some (not saying you) that want to destroy our quality of life in the name of stopping what is most probably a natural cycle.
quote:
Of course, I can't do anything about a person's refusal to acknowledge that our government and governments from ALL over the WORLD, and their scientists concede that global warming is upon us and that humans play a part in this.
global warming is happening and humans do play a part and the vast majority of studies i have seen rightly state that the anthropogenic part is a small part of the overall forcing cycle.
quote:
PS Here's a hint: if you bring up Al Gore, I will bring up the links from our OWN governments EPA, NASA, NOAA, as well as the internatiaonl IPCC, the UN, 113 countries from ALL over the WORLD - ALL of whom and their scientists concede that global warming is upon us, and that humans play a part. Because, Al Gore is saying the SAME exact thing as links from our OWN governments EPA, NASA, NOAA, as well as the internatiaonl IPCC, the UN, 113 countries from ALL over the WORLD - ALL of whom and their scientists concede that global warming is upon us, and that humans play a part. Understand?
HOW MANY ways do i have to say that yess the earth warmed as it left an ICE AGE and yes anthropogenic gases does play a part. However Al Gore consistently overstates the case and manufactures dangers that AREN'T there, that is the problem. If Al Gore bothered to stick to facts, like the FACT that in the decades since the doomsdayers called GW to our attention we have seen the horrendous rise of 0.6 degrees celcius when they predicted much worse. Or how about the fact that there IS NO CORRECT MEAN TEMPERATURE for the Earth to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 2:19:39 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 70
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
But if you are going to argue global warming, make it about the data, not about personalities.
And quote appropriate experts. If we are discussing bridges, ships, or electric motors, then we can call in the engineers.
I have tired myself of providing data, the vostock ice cores alone are sufficient data to realize that the current warming is nothing outside of the normal cyclical nature of earths climate. I have tired of having the scientists (yes climate scientists) who disagree called into question but their data never being addressed. I am tired of those who will not honestly debate because they know that they are right so no amount of data will suffice.
And if you are so intellectually dishonest as to not be able to realize that an engineer who is schooled in the sciences and most often by necessity is quite adept at reading scientific papers and studies and INTERPRETTING DATA is more apt to have a better understanding of global warming studies and data than would your average Joe then you are not at all concerned with the truth, only in being right. This was most evidenced by your outright attack on engineers earlier in this thread using baseles claims and innuendo. Let me put it another way for you, a guy who crunches numbers on thermodynamics of fluids all day everyday is less likely to be confused by the thermodynamic models of climate that are presented than would say the average person who buys global warming at the insistence of the mouthpieces who trot out their scripted backing of global warming. I can continue to make connections between engineers and the sciences that climatology are based on if you so desire since contrary to your belief engineering is not just bridges, ships, and electric motors. Engineering is thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, material balances, luminosity (think sunlight), entropies, radiative forcing,and the list goes on, all of which are relevant to the climate studies or at the very least in understanding the climate studies.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Global warming- do you know the truth? - 5/10/2008 2:21:46 PM
|
|
|
_jjp_
Posts: 70
Joined: 10/25/2007
Status: offline
|
I wonder how many of the scientists that are touting global warming are directly profiting from it in the form of Grants for projects/study or are in research at companies that are now offering "green" alternatives.
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
