What are you doing against Global Warming
 

Just watched Bill Maher on HBO, and one of the topics on that show was the wildfires that are raging in Southern California right now, and how Global Warming can and did play a part in it [Not saying that's solely the reason the fires are raging, it was just one of many reasons]. But seeing as how Global Warming is pretty much a real thing and not a fantasy in any way, people just keep talking and talking about what should we do and what can we do.


So my question is, what are you doing to battle against Global Warming?



What I do isn't major by any means, but I am doing what I can. For instance, when i'm not in a room or using a TV or light, I will shut off whatever major power is in the room, like of course TVs...lamps...cable boxes...etc etc.. When i'm going to get off my computer and not use it, I put it on stand by or turn off the monitor. Also, I try and not use many paper towels, and use just towels to clean spills as they can be cleaned.


That is just some of what I do, what do you guys do?



[I personally dont feel this should be in the political palace, because this is not a political issue, it's a world issue that's real and general, so please don't move it.]

What did global warming have to do with the wildfires currently going on in California, anyway. Global warming is the earth heating up by a few degrees, not having fires set by jackasses spread by the unlucky combination of a late-season heat wave mixed with really strong winds.

Anyway, I try my best to recycle (the energy it takes to create one new aluminum is the same as the energy required to recycle ten old aluminum cans!) and conserve energy since most of our power comes from non-renewable sources, and I think conservation for the sake of conservation should be a good enough reason not to waste.

I distinctly remember voting for Al Gore.

I did my part. Florida fucked it up for everyone, though.

Easy; I avoid using air conditioner as much as possible, and save as much electricity and water as I could.

Too bad some people still think that this issue is not urgent.

I don't have a driver's license. I did my part.

In primary school some guy talked to us about water convservation. He explained that how we can all save massive amounts of water was by filling the bathtub up with only an inch of water, then soaping up and doing BARREL ROLLS. This thread makes me wonder if he is still out there, rolling around in his tub thinking he's making a difference.
"Who cares?! This is FUN!"

Although, now that I'm older, I enjoy the thought of people all over the world rolling around naked in their tubs all at pretty much the same time.



Anyway, considering I can look out onto my backyard and see the largest ExxonMobil oil refinery in the United States over a line of trees, the only option I really have to fight against the global warming crisis here at home is to die from several types of cancers simultaneously.

Well, not using electrical power as I used to helps I guess. Recycling, like RR previously posted is another option too, though it doesn't really happen often. I also like walking from place to place, most of the time, since I'm in a very central area, and everything else is really close.

Doubt smoking helps, but that's another story.

Apart from recycling, walking a helluva lot (I just got home from a bar halfway across town ; it took me roughly 2 hours...) and using the least water/electricity possible, I try to buy the least amount of things possible. It's amazing how much waste people produce by consuming stuff that is either over packaged or disposable when they could just buy something that is reusable or more durable (cutlery, dishes, razor blades, etc, etc.). Also, I try to buy locally produced goods as much as possible (even though it can be hard to by a locally made pair of shoes these days) as the transport of merchandise also causes a great deal of unnecessary pollution.

Eh, the things I do are usually quirks to keep my light, water, and gas bills down. I open windows during the day instead of turning on lights, rarely use the heater/air conditioner, I turn off my monitor when not at the PC and I take shortcuts, walk or just stay home instead of being on the road. Unfortunately, whenever I fart it counter acts all of those things.

I try my best to always be conscious about the environment. I'm just grateful my Fiance and I share the same views when it comes to the environment.

In our house we have a very fuel efficient 2005 Hyundai Elantra and once we have that vehicle paid off we're going to be getting a smart car for ourselves.

We constantly recycle whatever material we can all the time. Hopefully when I get back home full time. We plan on doing as much bicycling as humanly possible.

We use energy efficient lightbulbs for the majority of our light fixtures and we always make it a point to have all lights turned off when we don't need them on in the first place.

We're in the process of cutting down our heating costs for the upcoming winter by fully insulating the basement so hopefully that'll reduce the amount of power we have to use over the winter.

My Environmental Studies Degree focused upon one basic premise throughout the entire 5 years and that was sutainable development. So it is through that degree and the things that I have learned from it that I try my best to help keep this planet alive a little bit longer.

Its just kind of strange at the moment, because I'm working up in Northern Alberta where there is an oil refinery every 20 kms and it probably does contribute to amount of emissions that are being emitted into the atmosphere on a large scale.

Being an environmental field inspector in this area does have its challenges, especially being in a place that has one of the highest rates of juvenille cancer and is probably one of the leading areas in terms of amount of emissions.

It just makes me realize that we have to do more to protect this planet that we live on.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3...CKTHISSHIT.jpg
I laughed out loud as I read this little tidbit right here. It is HARDLY a real issue nor substantiated by concrete proof. What we're seeing are folks screaming a statement over a loudspeaker wherein everyone not involved in the field (or possessing common knowledge within it) practically gets brainwashed. "Oh the TV says it every day so it must be true. Some dude with a Phd said it was happening. What field? Oh, Engineering but he's a smart dude anyhow."

I've been on a soap box many-a-time on these forums and in real life. I'll refrain from going much further on the subject unless someone wants to try me on this.

On another note, recycling in itself is a good practice. I separate my plastics, paper, and glass typically.

What am I doing to stop nature? Blood sacrifices to the Moon God that he might bless us with tides.

Also I use public transport.

I open all of my windows and doors then turn my air-conditioner on as high as it can go. Sometimes I leave my fridge door open too. I can't imagine global warming lasting much longer if everyone else joined in.

Surely if we blotted out the sun then things would be cooler.

I actually read an article recently about some guy in Europe who's research suggested that it was the sun's rays being more/less intense during different periods of history that affected the earth's surface temperature. According to his research there is a specific type of radiation emmited by the sun which causes cloud formation and thus increases/decreases the number or size of clouds. To him, it is a variation in this pattern which is the biggest cause of the planet heating up. In a interview, he said how people were calling him anti-green or whatever because they were saying he was diverting attention to the real cause of the problem aka green house gases.

Wether this is actually what has happened I cannot say, for I haven't really read every study on the subject of global warming that exists, and in any case there are many which were written by people being paid off by oil companies trying to buy themselves a way out of losing part of their profits and having the finger pointed at them, so unless one has an extensive scientific baggage (which I do not) it can be hard to tell the real from the fake. Of course, those documents usually reek of PR and are intended for the general public (you know, the majority of voters), and most scholarly sources I've read seem to agree that CO2 and other forms of pollution are the cause of the problem.

P.S.: I hope this post isn't out of place, I'm not trying to start a big debate here, just giving what info I have garnered so far...

Also : That air-conditionning bit is genius!!! Which I had thought of that first. You're gonna be a rich man knkwzd!

I saw this coming, a skeptic who thinks its all bullshit, but yet scientists all over the world, and enviromental reports and all the other meteorlogical events that have happened in the past four years alone...that's all a delusion? Come on man, these are facts, not fiction or the ideas of madmen. It's real. But this isn't a thread for THAT issue, whether it's real or not...its about what are you doing against global warming. But I shake my head in the fact there are still people that think like you, and think it's all a practical joke.

In the immortal words of Ron White: "I'm eatin' the cow."

I've got a degree in Geophysics. In case you don't know, Geophysics is the study of physics upon the Earth. These physics encompass heat, seismic, magnetism, electromagnetism, and gravity. Two of those bear an incredible grasp upon Earth's heating.

I've run heat flow models including atmospherical anomalies (albedo, atmospherical composition by gas ratios, etc) in combination to Geological heat flows.

I've been reading up on this subject for over eight years now, VERY THOROUGHLY.

I've debated meteorological "experts" in to a corner over this subject.

Not to break my arm patting my own back, but I'm not a fucking twat on this subject. My opinion is 100% formulated of my own research, knowledge, and findings, whether it be from my Atmospheric Sciences directed studies I did as an undergrad, tied to my job as an assistant researcher on aerosol particles in the O&M department, or just from scientific journals I have perused.

If you think the Earth's temperature functions on a single straight path with no scatter at all, you're mistaken. And if you think 100 years is plenty of time to formulate a long-term temperature phase when we can't even get the god damn weather reports right, then I suggest you read up on Deep Time. The bottom line is that man cannot begin to fathom what a thousand or even a million years feels like. People feel confined within their lifetime and see small changes. As opposed to dismissing those as "scatter" in the Earth's daily life, they immediately think there is a cause. Scientists are sought. Scientists do not LIKE having a lack of answers and at times will be quick to toss out an idea. "Well. We're progressing technologically and economically. It has been getting warmer. Man-kind must be to blame!" The statement "making a mountain out of a mole hill" fits nicely.

If you want the truth on this matter, you need to do some digging like I and a few others have. The whole of the Environmental and Meteorological fields stand to make a killing off of the grants and funding that'll get thrown toward this. Believing their research as 100% flawless, true, and believable makes about as much sense as saying Politicians are the pillars of our society and are incapable of sin. I don't give a god damn whether these prats have a Masters, PhD, or saw it on CNN. What matters in this debate isn't the roofing or wallpaper of the house. It's the foundation; the basic knowledge of how the Earth operates in conjunction to atmospheric changes. If you secure a BS, getting a MS and PhD merely require patience and time. I often find myself wondering how a PhD or Masters holder even got past semester one of their undergrad curriculum, given their knowledge.

Scientists all over the world? The UN's board on this subject is a complete joke. This debate is scientific, not political. People are trying to mix oil and water, and the end result isn't a pretty thing at all. Lines that were drawn are getting rubbed out, and a field of casual research now stands to make very nice profits off of a topic that they won't scientifically be disproved on for decades. This entire debate reeks of McCarthyism, with all of the black-listing going on in the scientific community. If you aren't on the train with this, the media will mention the "skeptics" at ______ university or ______ research institute. Instantly, the men are seen as buffoons simply from this. Calling this propaganda is pretty darn accurate.

If you want to see foils to this argument, look to DDT bans or opposition to nuclear power. Just scared, stupid people in large numbers.

"Skeptic"? Fine. Have a nice day, "Fearmonger".

You know what degree environmental engineers get? A Civil and Environmental Engineering Degree. How is a PhD in environmental engineering not a valid qualification?

I was moreso making a reference to how they'll get Joe Blow with a PhD in Poultry Science to give a rebuttal on why mankind is ruining the world-wide temperature as a whole, causing his chicken farm to run a-fowl.

The reference I was making was toward a global warming theory wherein they consulted an ELECTRICAL ENGINEER on the subject. He wasn't situated in anything relevant. The point being that if you snag a dude with a PhD, instantly, in the public eye, whatever the guy says must be "infallible". Lo and behold! Another scientist that believes in it (although not in a relevant field)! Leave the meteorological findings and research to the respective fields is my point.

But if you want to nitpick/make a jab at my use of engineer in that arbitrary example, fine. An Environmental Engineer is semi-relevant. Happy?

Why ya gotta be hatin', Ena!? Asagi is a genius I say! I'm following her advice right NOW in fact.

I switched out all my old, conventional light bulbs with the more expensive but more green fluorescence thingies. Although the package says they contain mercury. I think I was counter-productive.

Recycling is actually a very expensive and inefficient process, I hear. I try to do that when I can, but our town doesn't really offer the option, sadly. =/

EDIT: I don't want to upset Gech or anything with my half-assed green actions. Please don't hate me, Gech!

Isn't there a break-even point where the cost of fluorescent lighting becomes cheaper than with filament?

On that note, I do recall seeing a magazine article stating that cows currently are a more relevant factor upon the environment than most man-made contributions. One cow is capable of producing several quarts of methane gas per day. Considering the demand for beef and dairy products, that's a considerable amount of methane. I guess copious amounts of methane is bad...?

Now, I don't have a doctorate in environmental studies so I don't know how accurate this is. The only magazines I read are the more credible ones such as Smithsonian, Scientific American, Consumer Reports and National Geographic, so I doubt the cow article came from a wild source out of left field. I just don't remember which magazine it was specifically, as it was maybe three or four years ago.

It's an interesting theory, at any rate, even though blame is being assigned through a sort of trickle-down process: America loves milk and beef; the cattle industry rises to the demand; the growing cow population pumps methane into the atmosphere; Earth suffers for our gluttony.

If there's any truth to this, I guess I'm doing my part by eating more fish, chicken and pasta than beef (only because these foods are often cheaper; frugality saves the day!)

Also, I fart indoors where the walls and furniture absorb most of the gas.

So if you leave your refrigerator open, does this mean that you are warming up the room?

I think the temperature of your gaseous fluidum in the warmth exchanger is going to go up and up because your power input of electricity in the compressor is the same. While the warmth transfer to the liquid phase is higher because you leave the refrigerator open.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a3.../Image1-11.jpg

Crash --
CO2 is a pretty pissant little greenhouse gas. Its big brothers, water vapor and methane deserve more attention if folks wanna parade around saying the sky is falling. Methane likes to live life wildly as a gas, but it burns out fast (nooo, not literally). Methane in the atmosphere doesn't have a long life at all. CO2 and all that is emptied out by carbon cycles, but that's a slow rate. The CO2 that gets in to the atmosphere stays for a good few thousand years if I recall right. Methane has an atmospheric life of, like, a few decades.

Anyhow; yeah, cows do indeed chug out large amounts of methane. Also termites yield large amounts of methane. Yet another reason to kill all the bastards~ But there are also marshlands and what-not that yield it.

Animals farting is hardly anything new at all. The number of megatons of methane dumped in to the atmosphere annually is pretty large, but it is dealt with on its own. A concern some folks have with warming trends lies with the Methane traps in Siberia. But that delves in to the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis sorta stuff. And folks still don't know in that debate if the methane in the atmosphere during temperature rises is a cause or effect of the heat waves. Methane's supposed deadliness as a greenhouse gas directly correlates to this, but the Clathrate Gun Hypothesis (which is basically "Global Warming") is still a hypothesis. There's been no concrete proof, only speculation along some coincidences.

The amount of mercury in a light bulb is trace amounts at best.

If you do really worry about it that much, though, the EPA does mandate safe disposal methods for large users of fluorescent bulbs. I'm sure you could find some company nearby that will take in as part of a recycling program.

And, of course, recycling can be expensive and inefficient, but it really depends on the kind of material you're dealing with. Recycling mixed metals, such as steel, is still worthwhile, though it gets to be a hassle since you're mixing all these different kinds of steel, so it can only be sold as a very low grade type of steel. Paper's the same way where it can only be used so many times before it just degrades into junk and has to be scrapped. Aluminum, on the other hand, can easily be purified back to elementally pure and be reused infinitely (and for much less energy consumption than starting from scratch getting aluminum out of bauxite).

Good to know. I didn't see the "Contains Mercury" bit until recently. If there's a warning, that means I should probably get rid of it properly. =/

Most of us on a daily basis don't really use this bad boys, though. I mean, yea, you're right - in these arenas, recycling is prime.

But for us lowly citizens who use plastic bottles and canned goods, how efficient is the process?

penn & teller did a Bullshit! episode on recycling. how it's bullshit, and all. Shouldn't be impossible to find on the web.

personally, i do nothing to stop this global warming, cause it's a force that can't be stopped , nor is it a force we humans created. I find it humorous and saddening that people actually are conceded enough to believe this race of creatures have any impact on the planet whatsoever. do you know how impossibly hard it would be to actually destroy all life on the planet? it would take a collected, willful effort of everyone. EVERYONE. devoting everyday of their lives to creating a wasteland.

listen, go recycle, drive a prius, ride a bike to work, i don't care. if it makes you feel better about life, great. But nobody likes an evangelist, and since the planet's not in any danger (hell, higher CO2 means plants are actually thriving) please don't get angry at those of us who don't feel like changing our lives to suit your paranoia.

In short the answer is: not very. In a lot of ways it's better to just let it sit in a landfill and either be eaten away by bacteria (no joke), or wait until recycling the materials becomes cost-effective. That will only really work well, though, if your landfill sorts its material. In the future, I mean.

So in your view, if one single human being, wherever he may be on the planet, who has easy access to nukes or some such crazy type of weapon were to push that little red button and bomb a major city, and that everybody else who has the power to provoke this kind of thing were to do the same thing, that wouldn't have the teensyest little bit of impact on the planet???

I have more esteem of the human race than that. Now the universe... that may take another 10 years or so...:p

Not even thermonuclear war can definitely wipe out all life on the Earth. We'd have to try really fucking hard to make sure that life has no future on this mudball planet.

Yes, but I think it is safe to assume it would make a rather big dent in the actual shape of things.

I don't think most people are concerned about saving the dodo, they're more concerned about keeping up the current quality of life for humanity than anything else.

I actually read a pretty neat article about this guy that did a sort of archeology dig in an old landfill. They were able to find fully intact newspapers over 50 years old, as well as recognizable food scraps. Apparently if a landfill gets filled fast enough, there's not enough time for the bacteria and whatnot to start breaking the food down since pretty soon their oxygen supply gets cut off.

Well, if you tried to recycle it in your back yard, it probably won't be very efficient. If you live in an area with a fairly dense population and you've got large trucks picking it up (or if you can bring it to a recycling center without a whole lot of trouble) then it's really not that bad.

okay, don't remember saying anything about nukes or the quintessential "little red button"...but yeah, Brady's got the point. not even a crap load of nukes would completely destroy life on the planet. Maybe human life, but the planet will still keep ticking.

a rather big dent in the shape of things wouldn't effect the planet, it would only effect us. So i guess my beef is, if you're trying to save something, save yourself.

jesus, that sounded ominous.

Save yourself is the rule to live by. Mother nature is a crazy old lady whose done crazy, trippy stuff to herself that even Keith Richards can fathom. She's trying to kill us all, for sure.

We've gotta kill the bitch before she kills us first >=( But... How?

If a group of Japanese whale hunters can drive a species into near existence before someone has to stop them, and Indian and African hunters can drive a species of tigers to near extinction, what makes you think that some 3 billion humans cant burn up the earth?

Do you know what the slightest change in global temperature can do to suprisingly tender ecosystems?

And whether or not the affect is large or not you dont think that you can make a couple of small lifestyle changes? Its not even like the resources are hard to access, its easy.

Give me a break, seriously.

what are they, inverse whale hunters? when they kill whales to two new ones crop up in it's place?

okay, there are over a few million species on the planet. if some whales and tigers get killed off, you know what will happen? nothing. this is called equilibrium. the ecosystem will balance itself without that specie. Dodo's went extinct. the world kept going. ecosystems aren't that precarious. just finely tuned. you take out a section of an ecosystem, it'll just readjust itself and keep going.

humans can't destroy life on the planet. we are not that powerful. we are not that important.

and just because i can make lifestyle changes, i don't want to. and i'm not going to. not to be stubborn, but because i just simply don't have any motivation to do so. And there's the added bonus of upsetting treehuggers.

No, near extinction means that they are not croping up. You can destroy a couple thousand species by taking away there enviroment, like forest's and stuff. And it seems to me as if you are thinking on a universal scale, like milky way or something.

When you are the dominant species on the planet, your pretty damned important.

Treehuggers aside, your motivation should be simple sympathy for the planet that you live on, and yeah, that is being stubborn.

I am doing absolutely nothing to help the fight against Global Warming, because I'm just doing my part in trying to rid the Earth of Captain Planet and his hideous lies. I do recycle plastics and aluminum, though, because recycling does not directly impact the effect of looting and polluting. However, I get all my energy from dirty coal and use it to the fullest extent to which I am able.

Seriously, though, for me to make any sort of impact against global warning, a phenomenon which is caused by billions of people on the planet, is basically impossible. Unless I find an efficient way of producing hydrogen without massive amounts of power and support fusion reactor research, the latter I would so do if they took collections for that sort of thing.

If that's the way you think, then being friendly to someone does nothing to wiping out hostility on the planet so we might as well all not give a fuck for anybody around us. I take it you don't vote either?

Helping a single person has a very negligible effect on hostility on the planet as well. When you view things on a big scale like all of global warming or all of hostility and hatred, then nothing you do has any effect whatsoever. Being friendly to a person helps them, but there's no way to scale down the climate of a planet in a meaningful way like that.

And I did vote, even though I knew my vote for Bush wasn't going to count as my state went to Kerry. Just as a personal fuck you to the Democratic party for choosing such a terrible candidate.

Well, my point was that you can't take the fact that being only a single person amongst billions makes your actions have less of an impact stop you from doing things you believe are helpful. If you feel it is a waste of time then by all means don't do a thing about it. However you cannot warrant not taking action by the fact that your actions won't immediately solve the problem.

If you look at history, most revolutions took place when people decided that they had had enough of the current state of things, and by banding together they actually were able to change something. I admit, the problems we face today are a lot bigger than a single country overthrowing their king/emporor/dictator, but you must also consider the fact that information travels faster today than it had ever been dreamed possible in the past.

Also, you can't underestimate the effect a person can have on his/her entourage by their optimism, pessimism or their views of the world in general. It takes only a small spark to start a huge fire.

So show of hands, how many of you people are Deep Ecologists?

True environmentalists support nuclear power

:megaman:

Well fuck me... Have you been reading at all? NO ONE here is thinking on a "universal scale" as you speak of so mightily on top of that white high horse you're perched upon. You don't actually think that humans as a race are a significant enough force on the planet to actually wipe out itself and the planet, do you?

I mean, MANY species have gone extinct in the time that this planet has been around and there's scads of evidence to support that. Unless, of course, you're one of these creationists who think we coexisted with dinosaurs and rode them like pretty little horsies. Many species have seen a slow end to their existence and when they did, mankind wasn't around to "push little red buttons" to ensure that they'd remain dead. But you know who was around?

Earth.

It still is and it will find a way to balance itself out if it has to. If we have to die in the process for that to happen, so fucking be it. I seriously doubt that mother nature will take the time to write you a certificate of appreciation because you chained yourself to a tree so that a bulldozer wouldn't drop it like a bad habit. Gech just said it best:

Wait wait, so your saying that we dont hunt down animals until animals rights groups say stop? Oh no you must be infering some bullshit like "cutting down forest isnt bad for the animals that live there, they can just fly somewhere else, or well put them in a zoo or something".

That's exactly what I'm saying. If those animals needed tree-hugging prats like you to speak prophetic about their holier-than-everything-else protection, then there's a good chance natural selection is doing its best to apply the buffalo theory to the planet.

LOLBMSWAS :p

I can't believe they decided to let their "the devil put the fossils there" ideology down! These guys just keep getting more and more entertaining as time goes by.

On another note, I for one am a supporter of ecologist movements. I ws born in a rural area and going back there to see that more and more of it is being thrashed in the name of profit or 'progress' really pisses me off.

Dear Token,

What in god's name are you blathering about?

Love,
Whinehurst.

P.S. I am of the mind that all these hardcore environmentalists who are trying so hard to preserve the ecological status quo in the name of Mother Nature don't realize that Mother Nature has no need for ecological status quo. Mother Nature doesn't care if an ecosystem changes or not. Mother Nature's an uncaring bitch who'll kill a few hundred thousand living creatures with a hurricane and not even apologize. Nature's whole deal is to adapt to change.

And just because it might adapt an ecosystem that doesn't support humans, that doesn't mean it'll be a system that doesn't support life. My point is you can't change the fucking environment. You can't. Ever. It's gonna do what it's gonna do weather you like it or not. You can go cry to high heaven about the benefits of recycling pig shit, but in the end it won't do shit.

We are powerless to manipulate this planet. we are at the whim of nature. deal with it.

Didn't anyone ever teach you how food gets to the grocery store?

Global Warming is a big crock :o . That is all I have to say about it.

Regardless of whether or not you "believe in" Global Warming (which is really asking whether or not you believe in SCIENCE), recycling and saving energy and such are all good ideas:

Fossil fuels are a limited resource. No amount of sticking your head in the sand (hur hur) will change that. The fact is there aren't any renewable sources of energy right now that look like they're able to meet the energy demands of our global economy. Conserving energy is just a smart thing to do, in light of that.

I beg to differ.

Request denied, in adequate information.

C'mon Gech.

What do you want me to say? :( I've already attacked the issue on a fuckload of fronts. It's hardly an argument of believe in science or not. It's an amalgam of politics and science, creating a source for bias in research. I've read journals stating warming is happening and I've seen others that state it is NOT happening, making references to doctored data which was used to fuel the debate on the warming side of the aisle.

I'm sure the next line would be "find me a link to one". Well that ain't gonna happen. They're in the library stacks back at A&M, pertaining to masters and PhD research.

Inadequate information? Hey, I've got an idea -- read the thread =V Or peruse older global warming topics. I've said my piece in those on the science end of things. If you want, I'll start playing the record alllllll over again.

So I notice there's way too much high-fives going on in this thread. (and Gechmir mostly for himself)

In the words of Stephen Colbert, "The consumers have spoken, and Global Warming is real." An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore, Ann's an idiot, oh no! Am I doing anything about Global Warming? Not aside from wasting breath talking about it on the internets.

Also, in before infraction.

I've got access to libraries that would have that same information. Care to cite some papers?

I'm not saying this to be a dick and challenge you, I'm just curious. And no, I didn't read the thread in depth, you're right. I skimmed over it but didn't see any links or anything, so I assumed it was all just talk.

Seriously though, cite some journals. I'll go look them up. Drop your citations or leave the thread forever.

Global Warming is happening, but I believe humans have little, if anything to do with it. That said, we certainly shouldn't be doing anything more to encourage it, and it's definitely not a bad idea to conserve nonrenewable fuel sources, and research renewable ones.

Just because we aren't responsible for the earth warming up doesn't give us free license to shit all over the environment.

I don't, and i don't think anyone else, want to give the impression that i'm actually trying to shit on the planet. i'm actually all for renewable/ ecofriendly energy sources. I'd be happy to see nuclear power brought back (which is remarkable safe and clean if handled properly), or in lieu of that i'd like to see wind farms start popping up. If i could afford to buy a car i'd get a hybrid or a diesel engine for biofuel.

But i'm for these things not because i want to save the planet, but because they all have that "the-future-is-now" vibe to me. And that's always cool.

Honestly, I challenge someone to present an argument against energy conservation and researching of renewable energy. Seriously. Try me.

The question of Global Warming is best left to environmental scientists, and all of the literature I've read on the subject (most of it in general textbooks, not papers since that's not my area of expertise) suggests that humans are contributing to changes in our environment, many of which could have detrimental affects to our civilization (rising sea levels are a danger to coastal cities, for example).

ramoth, nobody's making an argument against energy conservation and renewable energy. we're not Eco-Villains. We're just saying this doom-and-gloom attitude about the planet withering away if we don't act fast is bullshit.

and if you're going to demand people present solid evidence of their perspective, you gotta ante up first. that's how people make intelligent arguments.

But the "doom & gloom the planet is dying lol" attitude is not even what I'm talking about. Oil is a limited resource -- we only have so much, and we will eventually run out. Taking every step you can to conserve oil and switch to something else just makes sense, and anyone who doesn't see doing that as an urgent priority is vastly short sighted.

It's not the planet that's going to wither away if we fail to act now to reduce our dependence upon oil, it's civilization! As an engineer, this is the only course of action that makes a lick of sense to me. Anything else smacks of irresponsibility.

Also, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is a fairly widely accepted opinion that global warming and the activities of mankind are linked. I submit the existence of this very thread as evidence of that. If Gechmir is claiming otherwise he needs to ante up, not me.

So, fair enough ramoth. as i said, i'm all for switching to alternate energy sources; nuclear, wind, puppy dog farts - whatever power companies want to come up with. Thought i don't have much say in what power companies use to make power.

Cutting to the chase, we're talking about cars here (at least that's the first thought on peoples' mind) and as it stands there's not a whole lot that can easily replace gasoline. First you need an alternate energy source that can (inexpensively) completely take it's place. Nothing like that exists. Or if you want to make a fuel out of lollipops and wishful thinking then you gotta have cars that run on it, which no one will buy until people start making lollipop gas, which no one will make until people use it - which is a catch 22.

I have to say labeling this as an "urgent priority" and having people respond in kind will only lead to more short-sighted decisions; you know, kludge fixes and band-aids. Not the long term, efficient, elegant solution we need. And since this global-warming hype has only been around since...El Nino, then we can't expect to see any workable solutions for another several years. Until then, we actually have enough oil.

Also: if it were widely accepted that global warming were linked to mankind's actions, then it wouldn't be a controversial subject. I submit the existence of this very thread as evidence of that.

Actually, I believe in many states you can choose your electricity company and there's usually choices between different kinds generators. I know my school here made us switch to some green power company and we have to pay on average an extra $10 a month to cover the difference for our utilities. =\

as far as i am aware, in North Carolina, you get Duke Power. End of story. If there were alternatives, i'd look into it...but i don't think there are.

Oooh, I used to love these threads when they hit the political palace.

I don't believe in global warming. The planet is increasing in temperature, but since humans pollute they cause clouds to form. Clouds cause solar dimming which decreases temperature! SO POLLUTE AS MUCH AS YOU CAN OR WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE VERY HORRIBLY!!

Oh yeah, and the melting of the polar ice caps might not be that big of a deal. The increase in fresh water in the world's oceans might not cause the oceans to rise as much as some scientists forecast. Chemistry 101. Plus, there might be more oil underneath those icebergs! Burn baby, burn!

Too easy.

Until conventional sources of energy are exhausted there will be no spur to make researching or implementing more alternative sources of energy viable.

When the oil production of the US topped out in the late 1970's, and OPEC placed a oil embargo on the US this started a flurry of research into alternatives. Practically all of the alternative energy sources we have are a direct result of these two events.

I'm not too worried about industrial civilization. It'll sort itself out.

In the grand scheme of things the individual does not matter. Are you seriously telling me that individuals can save more oil if they're more efficient, as opposed to say if efficiency on a industrialization level was stressed? Where do you think more waste occurs?

ram --
Was on edge last night; somethings went wrong and I was in a pissy mood, so apologies =O What set me off was the way you put it as "ignoring science". It's controversial for a reason, y'know :( Some are guilty of not researching properly (flaws in the knowledge/logical approach) or in the experiments/research itself is flawed, such as unforeseen variables. In science, logic is always questioned, but typically overwhelmingly correct knowledge is accepted based on fact. The Global Warming spiel going on right now has no solid, concrete proof or fact.

One thing that folks seem not to accept is that temperature is a constantly changing dynamic. If the shoe were on the other foot and we were trending toward cooler weather, another thing would be cooked up to pin on man-kind. Hate to sound like a wacko about this, but as soon as something changes, whether it be the weather or what-not, the first thought is "alright, whose fault is it this time?"

The CO2 theory has a number of flaws in its approach. The primary one? It is focused on Theory, and not actual observation or true science fact. Virtually everything the news has told us about GW is from a computer model, which are incredibly flawed. There are countless things left unaccounted for in these, such as cloud activity (ie: increased? Decreased? Consolidated? Dispersed? etc), sunlight effects are often dumbed down, heat flux, and humidity figures.

BILLIONS of dollars have been thrown in to this research for almost twenty years, yet there is no definitive, concrete proof. A few folks with the wrong ideas speaking quite loudly are misleading the whole debate. Someone coming in to Meteorology as a purist of sorts might've had a prof who told them global warming was the big-bad evil, engineered by CO2 strictly. Well, their eventual research won't be in questioning their professor's logic -- it'd be in further exploration of the field, such as designing a computer model that'll interpret "where we're headed", given the scenario and variables given by the mentor (which is more or less the same thing as picking at a fresh wound).

But enough of that. I guess I'll lob out those journals...

A&M's library cockblocks former students (and nonstudents) quite well from viewing abstracts, etc. online. Instead, I can only see title and author details. So I will use *full* journals/research from elsewhere. Hope there's not a problem with that:

Due to the large number of graphs and less rhetoric/equations, this is probably the clearest one.

Otherwise --
Nyoroo~n

Wrapping it up with a few news articles (not FoxNews or CNN here, folks):
Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Other Views
High price for load of hot air | The Courier-Mail
cbs4.com - Wx Expert: People Not To Blame For Global Warming
RIA Novosti - Opinion & analysis - What climate changes does Antarctica predict?

GW is hardly "widely accepted". Maybe in the average person's eyes, yes, but not in the actual scientific field, itself (the most important part), and that's where the fight rages on. And as much as folks refuse to agree, grants are a substantial reason why scientists side with warming being man-made and caused by CO2. See the CBS4 link (People not to blame...) for a direct quote of this from a senior scientist.

But that is some formal evidence I base my stance on. Just laying it out like you wanted, no debating, etc about it asked or required.

On another note, I'm going to pivot and agree with you 100% on something -- I see one benefit to this warming scare: getting us off of oil. It'll get our hands out of a number of beartraps we're stick in. There is a lot of oil left, and technology costs are meeting the price per barrel, but we can't continue with this forever. Even after we've moved away from petroleum as a fuel source, we're going to need to find a means of reproducing plastic *without* petrol. And that'll be ugly in itself.

Do you think it matters if you water your lawn during the middle of the day during a drought?

Don't most cities fine landowners that waste water during a drought?

Well, if it doesn't make a difference what the individual does to conserve then why should the city fine them?

Not to mention instances where you're not on city/township water.

Well if you're not on city/township water I suppose it's just your problem now, isn't it?

Of course, I could only assume that Watts isn't arguing that we shouldn't bother conserving resources when experiencing severe shortages of it. (like your drought)

Just got my basement insulated, gonna get a smartcar once the current one is paied off, and I am not having any children (Don't want any anyway)

Population is the core issue with global warming, I firmly believe that the one-child-policy should be enforced over the world, I know many people will disagree with me on that case but think about it, if the populaion was cut at least in half, we would not be eating up the planet's resouces as fast as we are now.

Yeah well think about it, by the time the population does get cut in half we'd have still been consuming resources at the same rate, only advanced with China and India in the game, so not only is your idea inhuman and unnecessary, it's also ineffective.

I don't think anybody would particularly care if I urinated on my lawn during a drought. I'd just be expending resources that I could've hoarded for use if the situation became life-threatening desperate.

It also sounds like genocide.

Not really, because you're still draining from the general level of underground water. Where I'm from most homes have private wells, and any summer there's severe shortages of rain peoples' wells will dry up partially due to the overuse of other people in the area.

Of course, you could just say something like "WELL THEY SHOULD JUST GET A DEEPER WELL DUG DUR HRR HRR" but I'm running under the assumption that people aren't trying to be complete douchebags in every aspect of their life.

Not sure if this is trying to be funny because you couldn't make a good point or if there's supposed to be some point about how you can make an absurd hypothetical situation that would some way discredit a situation that can, and does, happen.

What am I doing against Global Warming? In the short term, I am smoking a cigarette. In the long term, I am voting democrat.

I agree with Chibi that natural resources are being consumed far too quickly in lieu of a growing world, but I really don't feel that I can do much about how many children someone chooses to have or not have. In a way its none of my business and yet everyone lives in the same world and uses the same general resources. Its all connected. I am not sure what to make of this.
Whatever can be said, it does seem like the world population increase is having a profound effect upon global warming.

I don't really feel empowered to do much against global warming. That is, I really don't think there is much I can personally do to make a difference either way.

Thank you, Gechmir. I'll look through those soon, it's quite a lot of text!

Watts, I don't quite understand your position and how it relates to energy policy. I understand you seem to enjoy pissing in the wind, which I was honestly better off not knowing.

Perhaps I'm just dense, but you veered off into Analogy Land so quickly I lost track of what you were trying to say.

Like I said, many people will disagree with me.

When people think about it and realize that "cutting the population at least in half" means three billion people need to die, one would hope they disagree with you.

I didn't mean to dick around with analogies or this topic..... so I'll spell out my position.

Any energy resources you're not willing to burn I'd be happy to use up, and so would the billion or so people in the developing world. The poor countries are already priced out of the game. The way this fits into the analogy is this; the "water" (let's call it oil) was already used up when I drank it. I just found a efficient way to deal with the "waste". By "watering" (urinating -on-) the lawn during the drought. (oil shortage)

As energy becomes more expensive the economies that will perform the best will be the ones that utilize the resources we already have out of the ground. Even renewable energy sources require some amounts of nonrenewable energy to be created. Energy is not going to be getting any cheaper anytime soon as demand exceeds the preexisting supply we have access to. Economic growth is a nasty beast that'll only consume more. It's a shortsighted mistake to think we're not going to use every drop of oil or lump of coal we extract from the ground. Which is why when you boil down practically any environmental issue like diminishing energy resources, clean water, topsoil, etc. the easy answer is to kill off three billion or so people. (I'm not trying to pick on you, Chibi. I'm all for population control. Just not like that.) I find it incredibly lacking for more then one reason.

Energy conservation is a noble goal, but a unrealistic goal.The only plausible way this could happen is if economic incentives were thrown in. Whether they're brought on by choice, (doubtful for the majority) or economic hardship. (likely for everyone) With entire industries that are set up to waste nonrenewable energy as quickly as possible (ie: tourism) because it is more profitable, the difference between what a industry could save by it's elimination or emphasis on efficiency would far outweigh the few drops of energy you personally save. The energy saved could/would be redirected to other "greener" investments. I'm not arguing against personal conservation or a switch over to renewable sources of energy because in the long run it's going to save you money making it economically viable. Nor am I arguing for people to use "less". That is not economically viable. I'm arguing that pre-existing resources could be better utilized and/or redirected at a industrial level to facilitate a "greener" economy. Whether that be to combat global warming, (which I don't care about) protect the environment, (which I do) or spur more investment into green (renewable) energy. (which everybody should care about)

This is just one idea (that doesn't involve genocide) about how to cope with environmental issues. It may or may not include heinous amounts of government regulation. Not that it matters. Economics is ultimately dictated to by Mother Nature.... and not Marx's model of a central command and control economy. (for all you liberals)

Oh yeah, if there isn't enough contradictions about me in this thread I'm a Republican. Though if you read the entire post that probably became apparent.

Of course, US natives are barely experiencing replacement birthrates and European countries are in the negative. It's doubtful that we'll really need population control, since as people move away from subsistence farming, there is not a need to have extra kids (hands) in order to create more wealth. The same thing will happen to China and India... eventually.

The problem in rising demographics is in the Third World where birthrates are exploding, just like the population of the United States / Europe did when they were in the beginning stages of industrialization.

Short of the global economy collapsing (which is a possibility) the added stress more mouths puts on pre-existing resources is a factor that deserves considering when contemplating economics, energy/water/topsoil shortages, global warming or whatever else that involves the world.

Watts, the thing is, we're already starting to see companies adopting more green practices since they do see economic incentives. Texas Instruments gave their engineers a challenge. Design a plant that would be cheaper to operate in the US than in China, or else it will be built in China. They found that the best way to reduce costs was to use practices which reduced chemical waste, reduced energy consumption, and increased efficiencies.

I'm not saying individuals conserving resources will stop the earth from being depleted, but hopefully it will help spur on alternative methods of producing what's currently done with wasteful methods. If they're developed in the first world, then hopefully they can trickle down to third world and developing nations so they don't need to repeat all of the same stages of consumption that we had to.

All people would have to do is weigh current satisfaction versus what could happen in the future and realize a bit of sacrifice now might lead to a big payoff later. Of course, people are notoriously short-sighted, so I suppose it's a bit too much to ask. :(

I guess saying 'cutting' was the wrong way to say it, what I meant was 'if' our poplulation was half of what it is today, then our resources would not be eaten up as fast, also if we had a one-child policy for the whole world, the population would decrease over time, that's if of course the bird flu does not mutate and kill us off first.

I think the people who believe that the population should be cut in half, should be the ones to go.. eh? good Idea I think.;)

I know, that's what I was mostly basing my model off of. Boeing is trying to grow jet fuel made off of ocean algae. If this is successful then a new realm of possibilities will be opened up with "blue" (ocean) energy. That's just as clean and renewable as "green" energy.

The part I wasn't basing this on was how I was viewing industry. Not from a race to the top of efficiency, but to a race to the bottom. Which would result in it's elimination. Barring any massive government subsidizing, that might not even be a option.