off topic What I do to reduce my environmental footprint...

[darksabre]

You're right, focusing on pollution and sustainability is an asinine idea. How can I possibly support such nonsense.

 

You've already said you put me on ignore. Give me one good reason why I should waste my time discussing with you knowing at any moment you'll have a tantrum and put your hands back over your ears.

 

You have a history of running your mouth at people you disagree with. If you want to have a civilized discussion, grow up and accept the fact that your opinion isn't the only one.

 

Now put me back on ignore and go hide in your bubble.

You literally attempted to put the efforts of thousands of people dedicated to understanding and remedying climate change, work that has spanned entire careers, into a box labeled "not as important as", even though the things you label as more important are inherently related. You can tout your support for the efforts we do agree on all you want, but to discount efforts that could be equally if not more important to the planet in the long run is the true height of impudence.

 

Praise the initiatives you value. But to attempt to classify the body of work on climate change as a waste of resources shows how much you really value the importance of individual dedication to an ultimately worthy cause. You should be grateful they didn't decide something else was more important.

Give your boy some attention. He's seems a little tense. There was really no reason to go after JJ that much when they are actually both on the same side of the issue.

We are on the same side, the difference being I'm not going to talk the people who have dedicated their lives to working on climate change research. Their work is important. So is everything else. Any effort we make towards making the planet healthy is a good thing. I hope people keep making efforts.

Ah, so it's my fault? Forgot that was my job.

 

haha whatever, you boys get back to your arguing. I'm not taking sides. Since d4rk lives in a different city, he can give himself some attention :P

:(

[7+6=13]

You literally attempted to put the efforts of thousands of people dedicated to understanding and remedying climate change, work that has spanned entire careers, into a box labeled "not as important as", even though the things you label as more important are inherently related. You can tout your support for the efforts we do agree on all you want, but to discount efforts that could be equally if not more important to the planet in the long run is the true height of impudence.

 

Praise the initiatives you value. But to attempt to classify the body of work on climate change as a waste of resources shows how much you really value the importance of individual dedication to an ultimately worthy cause. You should be grateful they didn't decide something else was more important.

 

We are on the same side, the difference being I'm not going to ###### talk the people who have dedicated their lives to working on climate change research. Their work is important. So is everything else. Any effort we make towards making the planet healthy is a good thing. I hope people keep making efforts.

 

:(

 

I respect your position and your effort.  I also think we have a moral obligation to take care of the earth - but my obligation to take care of it doesn't come from my fear if we don't the earth won't exist as we know it.  My obligation is to God and to respect what he made for us.  However our efforts to prolong things is where I differ from most  - because I believe God ultimately dictates that.

Edited May 19, 2016 by 7+6=13

[darksabre]

I respect your position and your effort. I also think we have a moral obligation to take care of the earth - but my obligation to take care of it doesn't come from my fear if we don't the earth won't exist as we know it. My obligation is to God and to respect what he made for us. However our efforts to prolong things is where I differ from most - because I believe God ultimately dictates that.

I would like to take care of what He gave us for as long as possible. I think that's reasonable.

 

Related, six-pack rings made of brewing byproduct that fish can eat:

 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/saltwater-brewery-edible-six-pack-rings-beer-plastic-marine-life_us_573b796ce4b0ef86171c5fe4?utm_hp_ref=whats-working&

[JJFIVEOH]

You literally attempted to put the efforts of thousands of people dedicated to understanding and remedying climate change, work that has spanned entire careers, into a box labeled "not as important as", even though the things you label as more important are inherently related. You can tout your support for the efforts we do agree on all you want, but to discount efforts that could be equally if not more important to the planet in the long run is the true height of impudence.

 

Praise the initiatives you value. But to attempt to classify the body of work on climate change as a waste of resources shows how much you really value the importance of individual dedication to an ultimately worthy cause. You should be grateful they didn't decide something else was more important.

 

We are on the same side, the difference being I'm not going to ###### talk the people who have dedicated their lives to working on climate change research. Their work is important. So is everything else. Any effort we make towards making the planet healthy is a good thing. I hope people keep making efforts.

 

:(

 

Who the hell is ###### talking???!!! Jesus Christ, all I said was we need to direct more attention to cleaning up pollution and address sustainability! Are your panties riding that high up your ass over the word 'all'? Did I miss something? Did I completely disparage a while group of people by using the word 'all'? My god man, you live a sheltered life if you think any of what I said is negative in any way. 

 

It seems as though you're more focused on trashing my opinion than actually addressing it. 

Edited May 19, 2016 by JJFIVEOH

[K-9]

I would like to take care of what He gave us for as long as possible. I think that's reasonable.

 

Related, six-pack rings made of brewing byproduct that fish can eat:

 

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/saltwater-brewery-edible-six-pack-rings-beer-plastic-marine-life_us_573b796ce4b0ef86171c5fe4?utm_hp_ref=whats-working&

What a fantastic idea!

 

Poor energy companies. I think they'll tolerate using less petroleum and natural gas for transportation, heating, and other energy requirements. But replacing plastics? NEVER!!

[BagBoy]

Ahh what the heck, I’m not doing anything productive right now…

 

D4ark is right in that climate change is a fact.  Greenhouse gasses and their impacts are a fact.  If you don’t believe that, fine, move to Venus and tell me how that works out.  CO2 and methane are greenhouse gasses.  They heat up the atmosphere.  That means when you burn anything, it contributes in its own small way to heating up the atmosphere.  Even exhaling and farting do that.  Who knew that lighting farts as a kid was actually helping moderate things?  Of course that lighter was filled with butane.

 

But when you get right down to it, people in 3^rd world countries are not going to stop burning stuff.  They’ll starve if they do.  People in the west are not going to stop burning stuff.  Their standard of living will decrease if they do.  Geopolitically, rich western countries will lose power and influence if they go too green (short-sighted, yes, I agree).  We won’t see any US solar powered stealth bombers patrolling the Middle East any time soon.

But JJ is right, too.  Greenhouse gasses and their adverse effects are something we unfortunately collectively as a planet have very little control of – at least right now.  But what we definitely CAN do right now is to stop pooping in our own sandboxes.  Let’s take Flint, Mi for example.  Ask anyone there whether they care more about global warming or being able to even wash their hands in their own sink without breaking out into a horrible rash.  Ask them if they care more about global warming or being able to give their kids a glass of water that won’t turn them into a mongoloid before their next birthday.

 

Back in the 70’s, fluorocarbons were used in every type of spray can you can imagine.  Deodorants, disinfectants, hair spray, etc.  It turned out they actually started burning a hole in the ozone layer.  Not good, needless to say.  But we figured it out and we stopped doing it, and that hole in the ozone layer actually filled in again.  We CAN actually fix things, but we have to be realistic about how we approach it.

 

How do you eat an elephant?  One bite at a time.

[TrueBlueGED]

:cry:

 

Don't be sad, I'm sure they'll let you watch.

[7+6=13]

Who the hell is ###### talking???!!! Jesus Christ, all I said was we need to direct more attention to cleaning up pollution and address sustainability! Are your panties riding that high up your ass over the word 'all'? Did I miss something? Did I completely disparage a while group of people by using the word 'all'? My god man, you live a sheltered life if you think any of what I said is negative in any way. 

 

It seems as though you're more focused on trashing my opinion than actually addressing it. 

 

I don't recommend using the Lords name in vein.  Poor use of words.

[Eleven]

The last time I cooked books, I had to not only use the vent fan on the range hood, but also open all of the windows on the first floor.*  Just saying.  Don't cook books.

 

 

*Also, this produced a ton of smoke, which only contributed to global warming.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Eleven

[MattPie]

Ahh what the heck, I’m not doing anything productive right now…

 

D4ark is right in that climate change is a fact.  Greenhouse gasses and their impacts are a fact.  If you don’t believe that, fine, move to Venus and tell me how that works out.  CO2 and methane are greenhouse gasses.  They heat up the atmosphere.  That means when you burn anything, it contributes in its own small way to heating up the atmosphere.  Even exhaling and farting do that.  Who knew that lighting farts as a kid was actually helping moderate things?  Of course that lighter was filled with butane.

 

But when you get right down to it, people in 3^rd world countries are not going to stop burning stuff.  They’ll starve if they do.  People in the west are not going to stop burning stuff.  Their standard of living will decrease if they do.  Geopolitically, rich western countries will lose power and influence if they go too green (short-sighted, yes, I agree).  We won’t see any US solar powered stealth bombers patrolling the Middle East any time soon.

But JJ is right, too.  Greenhouse gasses and their adverse effects are something we unfortunately collectively as a planet have very little control of – at least right now.  But what we definitely CAN do right now is to stop pooping in our own sandboxes.  Let’s take Flint, Mi for example.  Ask anyone there whether they care more about global warming or being able to even wash their hands in their own sink without breaking out into a horrible rash.  Ask them if they care more about global warming or being able to give their kids a glass of water that won’t turn them into a mongoloid before their next birthday.

 

Back in the 70’s, fluorocarbons were used in every type of spray can you can imagine.  Deodorants, disinfectants, hair spray, etc.  It turned out they actually started burning a hole in the ozone layer.  Not good, needless to say.  But we figured it out and we stopped doing it, and that hole in the ozone layer actually filled in again.  We CAN actually fix things, but we have to be realistic about how we approach it.

 

How do you eat an elephant?  One bite at a time.

 

On a side note, the US military has a directive to go green (as in sustainable fuels and energy). They'd be stupid not to, the oil will dry up so there better be a solution that works after that. It helps that large parts of the military runs on one type of fuel (JP-8), so if they can create a compatible biofuel the transition isn't too bad. The problem then becomes if we can grow enough to supply. In an interesting development, the Army can apparently make 11 gallons of JP-8 from a ton of trash.

https://www.army.mil/article/50201/army-converts-garbage-into-energy-reduces-carbon-footprint/

[nfreeman]

And of course I forgot to bring it.  So one more day of plastic.

 

 

I'll play.  Tell you what:  What if it has nothing to do with global warming?  How can landfills full of plastic possibly be a good thing?

 

Exactly.  There is no need to fill up the Earth with garbage. 

 

BTW, paper is the biggest culprit -- it comprises something like 40% of worldwide landfill capacity.  And it's recyclable!  (Of course, the recycling process has its own environmental impact, but that's another discussion.)

 

 

There are 197 international scientific organizations who have reached the same conclusions independently. Are they all cooking their books, too? 

 

Meanwhile, the science cited by deniers is funded by the very industry that stands to lose the most. It's uncanny. 

 

Stands to reason there was a high level of green house gas in pre-historic times given the volcanic activity at the time. And that was WITH high vegetation growth. But we can't cite volcanic activity today and we only have a fraction of the vegetation to mitigate co2 levels. 

 

My favorite example of deniers is Florida, where the governor has made it official policy that you can't even mention the terms "global warming" or "climate change" and yet they are in the midst of spending billions to mitigate an expected rise in sea levels. Why is that, I wonder?

 

This is simply untrue, and of a piece with the shouting down of dissenters that pervades the climate change groupthink.

 

As far as I know, M.I.T. Professor (Emeritus) Richard Lindzen isn't underwritten by any titans of the fossil fuel industries. He's an independent minded contrarian who is in a distinct minority of his scientific community. But his views are far (far) more learned than mine are.

 

I am a skeptic by nature. And I think group-think is a very real phenomenon amongst scientists. Take for one example: John Yudkin was a researcher who wrote a book in the early 70s which posited that refined white sugar -- not a fatty diet -- was at the root of the western world's expanding waistlines and growing problem with obesity and type 2 diabetes. The overwhelming majority of his contemporaries essentially shouted him down, and out of the scientific conversation. And thus began public health campaigns aimed at eliminating fats from our diets. Lo and behold, some 40+ years later, Yudkin is being hailed as a visionary ahead of his time, and the whole sugar-fat-obesity paradigm is being re-thought.

 

Anyhoo. In the meantime, I think the safer wager is to bet on those who think our actions affect the climate.

I'll take a hack at it: Because they believe that public policy should not be dictated by uncertain or unsettled science. Because they believe that existing infrastructure and industry (and jobs) should not be sacrificed on the altar of uncertain righteousness. Because they believe that the left's agenda of moving toward alternative energies is as much about the Dems tilting the field in favour of their capitalist cronies, as opposed to the other party's capitalist cronies. Because they see the mandate for a shift in energy consumption as the public sector behaving as an investment bank for the entities that seek to fill the void that the public sector will create through its policy enactments.

 

Those kinds of things.

 

*Sigh*

 

Was unaware.

 

See why I stay out of the politics thread?

 

So - what? Lindzen is a tool of the wack-a-doo Kochs? My sense is that he developed his contrarian views while at M.I.T., not with Cato.

 

But, whatever.

 

Like I said, I'm a skeptic. The scientific community appears to be in unanimous agreement that humanity's actions are affecting the planet's climate. That's fine. I'm on board with doing what we can do mitigate that, assuming we can. I just remain ... skeptical that our scientists actually know all that they think they know in this field. 

 

Good stuff.

[nfreeman]

It's also worth pointing out that the "97% of scientists" meme is a canard:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#186711ed171b

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/10/the-profiteers-of-climate-doom/

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=1

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

[darksabre]

On a side note, the US military has a directive to go green (as in sustainable fuels and energy). They'd be stupid not to, the oil will dry up so there better be a solution that works after that. It helps that large parts of the military runs on one type of fuel (JP-8), so if they can create a compatible biofuel the transition isn't too bad. The problem then becomes if we can grow enough to supply. In an interesting development, the Army can apparently make 11 gallons of JP-8 from a ton of trash.

https://www.army.mil/article/50201/army-converts-garbage-into-energy-reduces-carbon-footprint/

This kind of innovation is why US Military spending is so important. For as much as people decry the industrial military complex, the truth is we need it to carry out a lot of the tech research that the regular consumer market doesn't necessarily have a demand for. This is the unique power of a strong government, the ability to create demand for something. The oil companies don't want to create fuel out of trash, but the military would love to find a way to do that. And it could benefit us all in the long run. 

[That Aud Smell]

Thanks for that, freeman. Glad to see I have company when it comes to skepticism.

 

Btw, to d4rk's point, I still love the idea of doing some science in the field of energy resources.

[darksabre]

Thanks for that, freeman. Glad to see I have company when it comes to skepticism.

 

Btw, to d4rk's point, I still love the idea of doing some ###### science in the field of energy resources.

I look at alternative energy as the next great frontier. The next place that the US should lead the world, not lag behind it. Why should we be satisfied with the price we currently pay for energy? Why should we be satisfied with the cleanliness of it, or the efficiency of it? 

 

Things like CAFE standards, clean air mandates, alternative energy subsidies, all of these things should be stuff Americans support. Because we should want to be the best at it. We have everything to gain from setting the bar high. Let's science ourselves to the front of the pack where we belong. We can dominate in more places than just sports right? 

[Eleven]

freeman:

 

"BTW, paper is the biggest culprit -- it comprises something like 40% of worldwide landfill capacity.  And it's recyclable!  (Of course, the recycling process has its own environmental impact, but that's another discussion.)"

 

 

That's ok.  It is biodegradable.  I mean, recycling is certainly preferable as it leads to less deforestation, but it's not like the paper sits there for thousands of years, like plastic does.

[SwampD]

On a side note, the US military has a directive to go green (as in sustainable fuels and energy). They'd be stupid not to, the oil will dry up so there better be a solution that works after that. It helps that large parts of the military runs on one type of fuel (JP-8), so if they can create a compatible biofuel the transition isn't too bad. The problem then becomes if we can grow enough to supply. In an interesting development, the Army can apparently make 11 gallons of JP-8 from a ton of trash.

https://www.army.mil/article/50201/army-converts-garbage-into-energy-reduces-carbon-footprint/

But, once the oil dries up,... will we still need a military?  :devil:

[MattPie]

But, once the oil dries up,... will we still need a military?  :devil:

 

If you're a pessimist, unless green energy takes off, having a military is going to be more and more critical until the oil dries up.

[darksabre]

If you're a pessimist, unless green energy takes off, having a military is going to be more and more critical until the oil dries up.

Who run Bartertown?

[That Aud Smell]

I look at alternative energy as the next great frontier. The next place that the US should lead the world, not lag behind it. Why should we be satisfied with the price we currently pay for energy? Why should we be satisfied with the cleanliness of it, or the efficiency of it? 

 

Things like CAFE standards, clean air mandates, alternative energy subsidies, all of these things should be stuff Americans support. Because we should want to be the best at it. We have everything to gain from setting the bar high. Let's science ourselves to the front of the pack where we belong. We can dominate in more places than just sports right? 

[nfreeman]

freeman:

 

"BTW, paper is the biggest culprit -- it comprises something like 40% of worldwide landfill capacity.  And it's recyclable!  (Of course, the recycling process has its own environmental impact, but that's another discussion.)"

 

 

That's ok.  It is biodegradable.  I mean, recycling is certainly preferable as it leads to less deforestation, but it's not like the paper sits there for thousands of years, like plastic does.

 

Good point, although it's somewhat diminished by your non-use of the quote feature.

 

I also think that "coated" paper (i.e. magazines, etc.) is less biodegradable than plain paper.  But we're rapidly approaching the limits of my limited knowledge.

[darksabre]

See, I can be a raging nationalist too!  :P 

[K-9]

It's also worth pointing out that the "97% of scientists" meme is a canard:

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#186711ed171b

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/10/the-profiteers-of-climate-doom/

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304636404577291352882984274

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/11/science/earth/what-to-make-of-a-climate-change-plateau.html?_r=1

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4

Do you want to engage in a link-posting war because there is certainly no shortage of articles, studies, or articles about studies supporting the 97% figure? 

 

Yes, it's a conspiracy of 198 international organizations, both governmental and private, that have studied the data for decades and have reached the same conclusions. Toward what end, I'd like to know.  

 

On a side note, when just half of the deniers I talk to can distinguish the difference between climate and weather, perhaps I'll be more persuaded by their arguments. 

[That Aud Smell]

On a side note, when just half of the deniers I talk to can distinguish the difference between climate and weather, perhaps I'll be more persuaded by their arguments. 

 

I think this is partly the problem that I see among people when they talk about climate change. 

 

Here is the only thing about which I am confident when it comes to the subject: I have no clue what the answers are. 100% totally, fully confident that I do not and cannot know.

 

As far as the scientists go? I think they have a much better shot at knowing. But they're just taking an educated guess as well. They could be wrong. And if past is prologue, they very well may be wrong in one or more material respects. All of them, in fact. Like, every scientist who's taken a position on the subject could be very wrong about several key issues.

 

Now. I can endorse a given view of the matter over another. But the idea that I could be persuaded to take another view by someone who, like me, has no way of actually knowing anything about this issue? That's not a pursuit that interests me.

[JJFIVEOH]

I think this is partly the problem that I see among people when they talk about climate change. 

 

Here is the only thing about which I am confident when it comes to the subject: I have no clue what the answers are. 100% totally, fully confident that I do not and cannot know.

 

As far as the scientists go? I think they have a much better shot at knowing. But they're just taking an educated guess as well. They could be wrong. And if past is prologue, they very well may be wrong in one or more material respects. All of them, in fact. Like, every scientist who's taken a position on the subject could be very wrong about several key issues.

 

Now. I can endorse a given view of the matter over another. But the idea that I could be persuaded to take another view by someone who, like me, has no way of actually knowing anything about this issue? That's not a pursuit that interests me.

 

And there it is, the scientists are not 100% fully confident either. I don't think there is any doubt that man has some sort of impact on the environment (and that's not including the factors I mentioned with dr4k). Most of the impact is localized. There are countless factors that impact our climate, so many factors that it's incalculable, spread out over such a vast area, nobody can possibly predict what will happen next. There isn't a single study, nor is there a single computer model that takes into account every single factor. There are the vocal majority of scientists that claim they know the answer, many of them bought and paid for. Followed up by the vocal minority of scientists that claim they know the answer, many of them bought and paid for. The scientists that don't have a voice are the ones that tell the truth by saying there is absolutely no way of telling because our weather patterns can shift unexpectedly and get colder without notice. Those scientists aren't bought and paid for because their opinion isn't polarized enough.