Feds finally starting to act on global warming

Originally Posted By vbdad55

<"Why was it hotter in the 1930's than it is now?"

It isn't.
<

that's a good answer -- LOL !

 

Originally Posted By DlandJB

Nuclear power isnt' going to be the answer. There is only enough sources of uranium on the planet to support 100% of the planets energy needs to 4 year. Nuclear isn't going to be the answer.
>>>>>>>>>.

I work with engineers who believe that nuclear has a lot more to offer yet and the answer is proper disposal of the waste. I'll have the opportunity to learn more about it in the coming year. I'm interested in hearing what they have to say.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"There is only enough sources of uranium on the planet to support 100% of the planets energy needs to 4 year. Nuclear isn't going to be the answer."

Even if true, that is kind of an odd figure, in that we don't need to use nuclear power for 100% of the world's power. Nuclear does not have the sole source, but it should be considered a viable source, and one that will help rid us of our use of fossil fuels.

"I imagine you could still find a cadre of scientists who would insist that no real link exists between cigarrette smoking and cancer. "

Maybe you could even find 17000 of them.

"I fail to understand why you have to believe in global warming in order to comprehend the significance of using our nations energy resources more wisely?"

You don't have to "believe in" it to want to use our resources more wisely.

However, there really is nothing to believe in at this point. It is an understood phenomena that is happening, and denying it does not help anyone. But accepting the fact that it is going on does give us a very important reason to reduce fossil fuel use and to spur on research into alternate energy resources.

"Do you have to believe in global warming to be part of the solution to our country's dependence on foreign oil?"

No, they are separate issues. But they are both tied to our use of fossil fuels.

By reducing fossil fuel use, we reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We also reduce our generation of greenhouse gasses. In either case, either for national security or for environmental concerns, it is vitally important to reduce fossil fuel use.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"They are regarded as *THE* most respected climatological and atmospheric research communities in the world. "

Why are you even reading his posts? What he has to say is of no value. He keeps repeating the same stuff as if this were a radio show, and this wasn't a conversation with people who can remember back more than thirty seconds.

His comments have already been debunked at least twice over, and yet he continues to make them. This is likely because he simply doesn't know what else to say, yet feels compelled to support the right wing viewpoint.

He also doesn't respond to whatever is said to him because, and you have to follow this very closely: HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING SAID TO HIM. He has a high school education, if that, and is simply unable to follow. He thinks that the NSF and the various other agencies are out for political monies or what have you, because he was told this on the radio, and is not capable of much independent thought.

He's a waste of time. Worse, he's uninteresting because he simply says the same couple of things every time for every single issue that comes up.

He has nothing to add.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

More evidence of political nonsense in an issue of science:

<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/09/26/national/w134739D57.DTL&type=science" target="_blank">http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/
article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/09/26/national/w134739D57.DTL&type=science</a>

 

Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom

I remember reading somewhere that the greatest producer of CO2 in California is from grass fires not automobile exhausts.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"I remember reading somewhere that the greatest producer of CO2 in California is from grass fires not automobile exhausts."

I just did a quick scan and did not find anything like that, but I'll look after work. I did find that climate variations are causing wildfires to be worse, though.

And I also found this about volcanoes:

<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html" target="_blank">http://seattletimes.nwsource.c
om/html/localnews/2002105397_volcano01m.html</a>

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

Does this mean, however, that we should still not do anything about what we CAN control?

Just because one aspect of the problem is out of our control, that does not mean we should just sit back and do nothing about the things we may be able to do something about.

And doing what we can may be enough. May not be, too. But sitting back and doing nothing certainly doesn't help.

If, on the slimmest possible chance, that those studying the problem are correct and we are causing this very critical problem, then we should be doing all we can to correct it.

The alternative is for us to have badly damaged our world needlessly.

Consider the alternatives. If the science is wrong, and we do stuff that tries to protect the atmosphere and reduce air pollution and fossil fuel use, who has that harmed? What have ended up doing? We'd end up with less air pollution and a reduction in foreign sources of energy.

If on the other hand they are correct, and we have done the above, we've not only reduced air pollution and a dependence on foreign oil, but also have done what we could to keep climatic disaster from happening. Not that we may succeed in stopping the climatic problems we are facing, but we at least did what we could, with these other side benefits as well.

I can not see any rational argument that would indicate why we should not do everything in our power to do as much as we can to stop global warming.

 

Originally Posted By DlandJB

He also doesn't respond to whatever is said to him because, and you have to follow this very closely: HE DOES NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT IS BEING SAID TO HIM. He has a high school education, if that, and is simply unable to follow. He thinks that the NSF and the various other agencies are out for political monies or what have you, because he was told this on the radio, and is not capable of much independent thought.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.

A high school education shouldn't be a barrier to understanding and I think it is an insult to play the education card on anyone. Instead, I think it is a prejudice against anyone or anything that doesn't fit into a pre-determined world view.

There is something sadly ironic about the cherrypicking of which government agencies are deemed worthy of trust.

No, to twist an old cliche' - don't explain away through ignorance, that which can easily be explained by hate.

 

Originally Posted By vbdad55

<A high school education shouldn't be a barrier to understanding and I think it is an insult to play the education card on anyone. Instead, I think it is a prejudice against anyone or anything that doesn't fit into a pre-determined world view<

absolutely agree. I can't stand when he bashes higher education as unnecessary or left wing some how, but the fact he did not go to college means nothing.

I belong to Mensa ( and another 1% org )- and I occasionally go to meetings which sometimes are fun and sometimes are painful. ( I really like the road ralleyes though - real brain stumpers) - but the point is...in this group who measures by 'one standard' ( and one standard only) of being intelligent, are people like me with multiple degrees and people who did not finish high school. There are doctors and truck drivers. Attorneys and bikers. You really couldn't get a more diverse group and there are people who have in depth knowledge of certain topics that one would never expect.

Never sell anyone short because of their education level...now of course I do believe more formal education helps in many ways...but it is does not by default, because one attended, make them any smarter necessarily than the next person. In general yes, without exceptions, no.

 

Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom

I think many of us already successfull pointed out that regardless of what your beliefs are regarding "global warming" there are plenty of good reasons to use our nations energy resources in a more responcibily manner.

I also agree that even if there are natural causes of CO2 in our world. That doesn't mean we can't all be part of the solution of our nations energy resources problems.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"A high school education shouldn't be a barrier to understanding"

But it can be. Sorry. If that's all you can barely attain, and you think that college is a waste of time, then yes. Quite definitely, yes.

I've dealt and deal with people who have high school diplomas, gone to college, having college degrees, and having graduate degrees. There is a difference. It's not always true, but in this case, it's painfully obvious.

"There is something sadly ironic about the cherrypicking of which government agencies are deemed worthy of trust."

They are all saying basically the same thing. NOAA is now even starting to say the same thing, which is what the article was about that I posted from SFGATE.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"I also agree that even if there are natural causes of CO2 in our world. That doesn't mean we can't all be part of the solution of our nations energy resources problems."

Everyone should be on the same page as to what to do, even if they may have or follow different reasons. They all point to one policy that we should be following: Reduction in fossil fuels, and reduction in air pollution.

There is really no valid argument against it. Even if you say "what about all the money spent on methods to decrease pollution?" Well, the answer to that is what about all the money spent to buy foreign oil, for example? Instead of spending cash here on research and development of products to help solve the issue and enrich ourselves, we instead spend money on enriching countries who want to see us dead.

There is no losing scenario in trying to stop fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas creation.

 

Originally Posted By DlandJB

I've dealt and deal with people who have high school diplomas, gone to college, having college degrees, and having graduate degrees. There is a difference. It's not always true, but in this case, it's painfully obvious.
>>>>>>>>

We will have to disagree on this one. Not finishing a degree doesn't mean you don't have the capacity to. When I married my first husband he was a college drop out. He didn't go back until his 30s, then got a B.A. a Masters and an MFA. You are never too old to learn. Even without the degrees he could be brilliant in some areas. In other areas he was a total disaster.

I've met as many jerks who are college graduates as not. You can still have intellectual curiousity and not have a degree. I will grant you that in this case, what is lacking is intellectual curiousity. There is no cure for that.

 

Originally Posted By jonvn

"Not finishing a degree doesn't mean you don't have the capacity to."

No, it doesn't. But if you do have one, it certainly shows that you do.

This is the thing: You can have just a high school diploma and be an intelligent and thoughtful person. However, if you have simply a high school diploma, and see college as a waste of time, or are constantly displaying an inabilitly to grasp even the simplest of ideas without resorting to sloganeering, then that's another thing entirely.

Those people, barely making it out of high school, just don't have the capacity to understand things. They resort to short bits of information that sound good when you first hear them, but fall apart upon any deeper inspection because they just can't follow along.

That's what we have here, and it's why trying to explain anything is a waste of time.

Simply put, some people simply have no capacity for understanding their own ideas, let alone someone else's.

 

Originally Posted By DlandJB

I see your point, but I disagree with how you got there. It is no matter in this thread, at least. I do apologize for my part in derailing the topic at hand.

As I stated before, you can probably find people who would still dispute that cigarrettes cause cancer. Just so there will always be people who are so tied to political partisanship that they will refuse to see that climate change is a reality. Thank goodness at least that they are not the ones running the show. Even some forward movement in this area is better than none.

 

Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom

During my younger years I use to play Dungeons and Dragons. I always found it curious that under personal trains of your character, Intelligence and Knowledge were two seperate charagories. I have to admit. I have met a lot of very intelligent people who have no common sense and are not very knowledgable. On the other hand I have met plenty of people who are not very intelligent but have a lot of common sense and are very knowledgable.

Having a college degree doesn't make you intelligent or knowledgable. It just means you have a degree. A couple of years ago The Atlanta Journal Constitution published the final exam given to the University of Georgia's mens basketball team. It was a joke. One of the questions was; draw the half court mark on a basketball court. Now I may not know anyting about basketball. But even I can get that question right.

Oh I found it on the web!

<a href="http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/quiz?event_id=600" target="_blank">http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/
sportsnation/quiz?event_id=600</a>

 

Originally Posted By Kennesaw Tom

<<Everyone should be on the same page as to what to do, even if they may have or follow different reasons. They all point to one policy that we should be following: Reduction in fossil fuels, and reduction in air pollution.>>

This is where the problem lies. And lets face it. Everyone isn't going to argee on how to solve the nations energy resources problems. For example, in Georgia we would rather have 12 lane highways than actually exploring commuter rail or other alternative mass transportation systems. Other national "biggie" issues include, drill for oil off the coast of Florida or in Alaska? Where to dump nuclear waste?

 

Originally Posted By Beaumandy

<<His comments have already been debunked at least twice over, and yet he continues to make them. This is likely because he simply doesn't know what else to say, yet feels compelled to support the right wing viewpoint>>

Jon, you can keep saying what I say was debunked all day long if it makes you feel good, but you din't debunk anything. What you do is start talking in circles and acting like you are Rainman. Douglas pointed this out about you in another thread.

I produced a link to a very detailed study that proves CO2 gas is not causing the earth to warm up as you say it is. I provided proof that the models they use today to push man made global warming are flawed.

Also, if I have 17000 or more scientists backing me up how many do you have?

Until you can produce a petition or some other list of scientists that are MORE than 17000 you are in the kook minority.

As far as college goes, I went 2 years and decided I could make money more by leaving. Guess what?? For what I do I make plenty of money without getting some degree and I have no problem putting elite liberals who say they are so smart in their place.

I can also tell you that some of the most powerful and wealthy people in America never went to college.

If going to college means listening to some liberal professor tell me how Bush caused 9-11 to happen on purpose I think I will pass.

 

Originally Posted By vbdad55

<The Atlanta Journal Constitution published the final exam given to the University of Georgia's mens basketball team. It was a joke. One of the questions was; draw the half court mark on a basketball court. Now I may not know anyting about basketball. But even I can get that question right.
<

Understand that 99.9999999999% of people graduating from college do not see anything like that....and schools that do that for their 'revenue producing' student- athletes ( and I use that term loosely for them) - should lose their squads - period.

I can tell you from fist hand knowledge ( me) that college athletes for the most part are NOT taken care of and some professors hate you and make your life even harder. My daughter who is a senior in college now and a volleyball scholarship athlete - travels about 8 - 9 weekends - leaving by Noon Thursday and returning Sunday many times - there are professors who will give them a zero for class on Friday, even though they have to go to fulfill their scholarship. Also if there is a paper due on Friday, it's due on Friday even if you're representing the school 2000 miles away. It's not all of them, but it's surely some.

Good to know U of Georgia plays by the rules. ;-(