Anyone feel guilty about flying to Atlanta?

Geez, it's about time. Can't have a general topic forum without heated discussion on politics now, can we. Personally, I have a different take on this. I have no children, so that means I can flush the toilet twice as much and pass gas for two people without feeling guilty about impacting the environment. I do painstakingly collect all of my paper garbage from PPUSA hotels and bring them home, so that I can recycle them, but I'm not a tree-hugger. They smell and have bugs crawling on them.
 
Meedleyx10 said:
:lol:thanks dude....you're probably the only person I've run across on UM that gets it
Click to expand...

If it weren't for Yardley's strongbad avatar, I wouldn't have been sure of what it is from either. I haven't really checked out the site in years but my livejournal is tehcheat (not that I actually use it these days).
 
MetalPrincess8 said:
Removing your catalytic converter is illegal. And if I did remove it, I wouldn't be allowed to get my tag renewed on my vehicle, because everyone here has to pass an emission test before they are cleared to get a tag.
Click to expand...

Doll, you don't seem to have picked up on the humor in irony of my explanation. :)

Of course removing your catalytic converter is illegal! Without it, your car would be pumping out harmful CO instead of harmless CO2. CO is not good for lungs and hangs low in the air (smog), especially in valleyed areas like Mexico City or Los Angeles. But guess what? CO pollution doesn't harm the planet. It is a local environmental concern (i.e. smog in LA doesn't affect smog in Chicago).

CO2 is billed as a much greater environmental concern, however. If you're worried about huricanes, mass extinction, rising sea levels engulfing coast lines, and the end of human life as we know it, CO2 would seem to be a more serious industrial pollutant than CO. CO affects the lungs of life forms in a finite area; CO2 (supposedly) impacts the health of "the planet."

Yet, if that were true, why is 1/3 of humanity's output of CO2 a result of CO conversion from catalytic converters? That was the point I was trying to get across. :)

In sum: carbon dioxide is a natural gas, critical to the existence of life on planet earth.

A.) CO2 makes up 0.038% of the earth's atmosphere. That 0.038% stays constant because plant life converts CO2 into O2 (which is also a greenhouse gas by the way). 95% of CO2 emissions are from the oceans, decaying vegitation (its fall now, lots of CO2 is coming from those leaves on the ground), volcanic activity, and carbon based life forms breathing. The remaining 5% is human industry (chiefly power plants and catalytic converters on automobiles converting CO to CO2).

The greenhouse affect is one of numerous factors that affect temperature on planets. CO2 absorbs a few microns of UV bandwith along with O2 (AKA that stuff we breathe), O3, and Methane. 95% of UV bandwith is absorbed by atmospheric water vapor. The portions where CO2 absorbs UV radiation are mostly overlapped by water vapor (by the way, you can't absorb more than 100% of something).

In sum sum: CO2 affects temperature about as much as staring at your food helps you lose weight. Yes, focussing your eyeballs to stare at your food does expend calories. And yes, expending calories will help you lose weight. :) This is all very true. Industrial pollution causes global warming; staring at your food helps you lose weight.

The Michael
 
My amusement, so we're spewing too much CO2 into the environment, but environmentalists want us to compost (which spews CO2 into the environment during decomposition). On top of that, well, down here, we're in a drought. Which means we've been suggested to do things that don't require much water - e.g. using paper plates and plastic silverware. Doesn't that suck?

CO2 is always going to be part of the environment, the problem, is that we have areas with not enough greenery to soak it up, and we've managed forests to the point where they can't fully function the way they were intended to function (trees eventually go boom, make room for baby trees. Fire is natural and allows for the soil to be enriched for more trees to grow, etc. etc). Problem with humans, we don't like to admit we're one component of nature, the Earth will always be able to heal itself, with or without us, which is one thing the politicians count on - us being stupid enough in masses to think we have that much control over the forces of nature and are so removed from HS physics that we can't recall Newton's laws of motion and be able to apply them to our daily life.
 
freakchylde said:
My amusement, so we're spewing too much CO2 into the environment, but environmentalists want us to compost (which spews CO2 into the environment during decomposition). On top of that, well, down here, we're in a drought. Which means we've been suggested to do things that don't require much water - e.g. using paper plates and plastic silverware. Doesn't that suck?

CO2 is always going to be part of the environment, the problem, is that we have areas with not enough greenery to soak it up, and we've managed forests to the point where they can't fully function the way they were intended to function (trees eventually go boom, make room for baby trees. Fire is natural and allows for the soil to be enriched for more trees to grow, etc. etc). Problem with humans, we don't like to admit we're one component of nature, the Earth will always be able to heal itself, with or without us, which is one thing the politicians count on - us being stupid enough in masses to think we have that much control over the forces of nature and are so removed from HS physics that we can't recall Newton's laws of motion and be able to apply them to our daily life.
Click to expand...

Anyone is welcome to tell me where my analysis and facts are wrong on the topic. To me, it's pretty obvious that industrial CO2 does not impact climate. I don't buy into the argument that "all scientists agree, and therefore you should too." I believe in thinking for myself, as we all should be.

Climate Science is a 3+ billion dollar industry. People's jobs literally depend on the theory that CO2 impacts climate. Next to research into curing diseases like Cancer, no area of science has as much money flowing into it. To deny CO2 impacts climate is to deny research grants. People have families to feed.

A lot of people don't know this, but if you go to a School of Journalism
in a lot of major universities, you can specialize in "environmental journalism." That means, your job will be dependent on reporting stories that the earth is in peril.

Most energy companies profit from global warming theory as well. A lot of people don't know this, but Enron actually lobbyed for the Kyoto protocol. Why? The coal power industry (which now removes most sulfer dioxide emissions harmful to lungs), Enron's chief competitor, would be at a severe disadvantage (coal burning produces the most CO2 out of any energy). Energy companies like BP are marketing "green alternatives" for you (like ethanol) you see on TV every day. The benefits? Tax credits, good public relations, and ultimately a way to market more expensive (profitable) energy products.

Yet if we are to believe that CO2 production impacts sea levels (theoretically through thermal expansion of the oceans, not from melting ice caps, as water has more volume in a frozen state than liquid - try melting an ice cube in your drinking water and measure the fluid level), change will need to be legislated. What I fear is mandated car pooling (enforcable by fines); government audits of the types of lightbulbs you use; and mandated cohabitation (i.e. nobody allowed to live alone). If enough buy into the theory that CO2 is heating our planet and causing environmental chaos, attempts will be made to take away our freedoms. And I'm not cool with that. I recognize this is a slippery slope argument I'm putting forth... but the science has been corrupted by 3 billion in government funds; corporations have used it as propaganda to market energy alternatives; and environmental journalists specialize in these stories.

Anyway, The Michael isn't usually serious about anything he posts :) This is totally weird for me.

I hope I didn't offend anyone (what I'm saying is tough to swallow if you're a believer in manmade global warming). I hope I've encouraged you all to think for yourselves and come to your own conclusions on this topic.

Peace and love,
The Michael
 
Michael TEOF said:
snipping for brevity
Click to expand...

Thing is, Michael, I don't disagree with you. I just like to make fun of the fact that various environmentalists, who buy into the mane-made global warming theories, are also the ones who will tell you to do things that (by their theories) will contribute to further global warming. Not to mention, their version of forest management, leads to the degradation of said forests. :p
 
Meedleyx10 said:
where is it that you're getting your info?

(I ask because I'd like to check it out for myself, not because I disagree)
Click to expand...

This is a topic I've been studying for 15 years. I doubt you'd be interested in buying books or going to the library, so I'll just point to some great electronic media you can read. On my myspace, there are a few slide presentations you can watch and listen to.

First watch Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (if you haven't already)... and then watch this movie on Google:

The Great Global Warming Swindle
[ame]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-31944410825346433&q=Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&total=155&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=5[/ame]

If you watch both documentaries, let me know what you think. The documentary I've posted is the best made, most accurate one I've seen. You'll enjoy it! Trust me :)

Peace,
Michael
 
thanks man. You're right, I'm not all that interested in researching it on the level you clearly have, but I'll definitely take a look at that video you posted.
 
Also, read Michael Crichton's State Of Fear. Yep, it's a novel, but there are a lot of fascinating temperature graphs embedded therein. Interestingly, the average temperature in smaller cities has actually decreased, not increased....implying that the rise in temps at larger places is due more to concrete and steel and leaky buildings than any sort of climate change.

Crichton's 'afterword' is an amazing read in itself.



EDIT: I'm watching the documentary you posted above.... The destruction of Al Gore's primary evidence (CO2 and temp), at around 20 minutes in, is positively damning.

Further edit: seeing the co-founder of Greenpeace itself (!) refer to the global warming movement as "basically, anti-human" is perhaps even more damning.

Thanks for posting that! Despite intending to just watch a little of it, I sat and watched it all the way through. :kickass:
 
fuck...you wouldn't believe the reaction I got when I tried to talk to my "green" friend about this. The description in that video of people being treated like "holocaust non-believers" for not jumping on the bandwagon is pretty fuckin' accurate:erk:
 
Meedleyx10 said:
fuck...you wouldn't believe the reaction I got when I tried to talk to my "green" friend about this. The description in that video of people being treated like "holocaust non-believers" for not jumping on the bandwagon is pretty fuckin' accurate:erk:
Click to expand...

Don't be discouraged, Meedley. Don't state your opinion to your friends; just ask questions. Inevitably you'll get a response along the lines of "the scientists are all in agreement and I trust them more than you."

Climate science isn't differential equations or advanced physics. Anybody with a basic high school education in chemisitry can understand the "science" of it.

I was first given global warming propaganda in grammar school in the early '90s. They said by the end of the '90s, we'd all be in trouble. I was scared to death. The polar ice caps were supposed to have melted away 10 years ago. They didn't in 1997. They haven't in 2007. And they won't in 2107. Actually, yes, the polar ice caps do melt... in the summer. We just forget that they refreeze in the winter. From winter to summer, the arctic ice caps expands while the antarctic ice cap shrinks (3x in size). Yet, every time the ice caps melt, we're told it's "global warming." Which is true... it's just that the warming is seasonal based; it's not from CO2 absorbing UV radiation and trapping extra heat in the troposphere. Also, remember that H20 is one of the only fluids to have more volume in a frozen state than liquid. Melted polar ice caps would result in receeding sea levels; not rising. Don't believe me? Put an ice cube in a glass of water and measure the fluid level before and after it melts.

If you guys want something truly entertaining, watch this debate on the topic:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
thanks for that one too...

I'm 100% with you on the idea that global warming isn't a mad-made probelm, so in your opinion (andyou've already stated your views on most of this on some level, but just to get them concisely stated in one spot...)...

do you think it's something that people can even have any effect on in terms of changing it? (my thought so far is 'no', based on the same logic that has convinced me that we haven't caused it)?

do you think it's something that is a legitimate thread to life? and if so, to what degree and what kind of time scale are we looking at? (as in, if it is indeed a threat to the life on earth, should I quit school and start partying 24/7 or should I plant a time capsule for my great-great-great-great-great grandchildren with a note that says "haha bitches...in your face"?)



sorry to seem so inquisitive....but I can't help that 'm a curious young person with a desire to be informed on current topics:)
 
If the average global temperature goes up a few degrees, life on earth will benefit. There are two periods in human history substantially warmer than it is now. One was the medieval warm period:

nwarm05.gif


There was a controversy where UN scientists deleted data sets for the medieval warm period to produce consistant historical temps (where the famous hockey stick graph comes from, now defunct). The lower data set is the now accepted historical climate chart.

History proves this temperature variation. The Vikings used to colonize and farm Greenland; an area now covered in permafrost If we revert to the medieval warm period, crop yields will increase (food will cost less), sea levels will not rise (water has less volume as liquid than ice), and greenland will become usable land again.

Warmer yet, was a period called the Holocene maximum during the Egyptian, Greek, and Ottoman empires. It was almost twice as warm as the medieval warm period.

So, I hope we continue to have global warming. Warming has many benefits. Cooling has none. Just remember, the sea levels are not going to rise. More warmth does not produce more droubt (depsite what environmental journalists are screaming about regarding the situation in Georgia now).

I'm sure others are sick of reading about this by now. If you have any other questions or want some more links to check out or books to read, send me a private message.

Always stay independent and continue to think for yourself!

The Michael
 
Rick Pierpont said:
We are making the 732 mile trip in a Prius (3 people). When I drive we typically get 48-50 MPG! Much better than my 17 MPG SUV that I brought down last year (4 people)! Either way, at least we have carpooled the past two years.

As far as the whole global warming thing, it really doesn't matter to me if the scientific commnuity has agreed on its reality or not. What I do know, is that spitting chemicals into the air is NOT natural and therefore not a good thing. While it may not be the lion's share of emissions, it is still something that we can control. I try to do my part at protecting our natural resources.
Click to expand...

Global Warming is a natural phenonemon(I cant spell it :( )
 
rms said:
Global Warming is a natural phenonemon(I cant spell it :( )
Click to expand...

CO2 emissions are completely harmless (I would like to remind everyone that CO2 is a natural gas and essential for life on planet earth). In fact, fuel cells cars would emit H20 (water vapor) from their tail pipes. Fuel cell vehicles would be FAR more dangerous for the environment than gas powered ones. Check out how many microns H20 absorbs:

spectra.png


Actually, even fuel cell automobiles would not produce enough water vapor to make an impact on tropospheric temperature. We would probably have more rain though :lol:

The Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back