# Why I'm not an Environmentalist



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

My concern for the environment started when earth, fire, wind, water and heart combined to fight the forces of corporate greed and irresponsibility. Yes, Captain Planet was my hero. I’ve had quite a lot of greening influences in my life, from cartoons, to a kid’s solar experimentation kit, to my friend’s parent’s weird composting toilet. I’ve developed quite an awareness of global environment issues, especially to do with energy and I think make a decent effort to change my lifestyle in order to reduce my impact on the world. But I don’t call myself an environmentalist, not in a million years. How can I care about the environment on one hand yet refuse to join the ranks of like minded individuals on the other? The reason is that calling yourself green is about as definitive as calling yourself the world’s best street fighter. Within 24 hours of making such a claim you are almost guaranteed to be in a hospital ward after being well and truly schooled by a Thai underground kick boxing champion, or in this case a vegan Greenpeace activist who lives in a solar powered mound of dirt.









The eco-hypocrite police are the most far reaching, swift and strict global task forces the world has ever seen. Al Gore gives up his political career and devotes his life to try and educate people about climate change and gets slammed for his electricity bill. Sting puts his neck out for the environment and gets stung for his less-than-green Police concerts. The Toyota Prius is one of the most efficient and least polluting cars on the market but is somehow accused of producing acid rain. Call yourself green and you could well have reporters sifting through your garbage for un-optimised recycling practices, or calling you an eco-terrorist because you still eat meat. I’m trying my best to care for the environment; I’ve changed my light bulbs, I fill my recycling bin, I’m even planning on building an electric car to reduce my energy consumption, but I doubt that qualifies me for the elusive title of green. Frankly I think I have better chances going for best street fighter.
Maybe its time we start rewarding people for the positive contributions they have made to the environment rather than digging up dirt on them so we don’t feel as bad about still using toilet paper. The green movement can keep moving forward towards a better earth through spurring each other on. Or we can tear each other apart for not changing our entire lives for the better in one single burst. What do you think? Is there a place for being critical of other people’s green efforts or is it better to just focus on the progress they have made?


----------



## ElvishWarrior (Apr 10, 2008)

I can appreciate the sentiment. I think the best thing people can do is to positively pursue win-win solutions, ones that are more environmentally friendly and also have other benefits. Like energy conservation in the broadest sense - not only does it produce less CO2 and other emissions of power generation, but it saves money and makes resources like petroleum last longer. Folks who want to go above and beyond that can invest their time and money and promote environmental issues in a positive way, without throwing guilt at other people.

Another reason folks like AL Gore get slammed is that they themselves are slamming other people for not doing what they do. For example, between Al Gore and GW Bush, Bush has invested far more into an environmentally friendly home. The fact that someone is a politician tends to hurt their post-political agendas whenever any controversy is involved. Jimmy Carter never got any flack for helping with Habitat for Humanity because helping the needy with your own efforts never hurt anyone. The fact that Pat Robertson ran for president and continues to advocate interference in foreign affairs doesn't help his ministry. The same way the Violence Policy Center makes far more enemies trying to ban guns in every conceivable way than they would if they promoted neighborhood watches, police departments, drug education and rehab, and various religious, social, and vocational outreaches for troubled youth.

I think the issues you're referring to within the environmental movement reflect the reason many people consider themselves against it - because of the blaming and lobbying for laws that give people no choice. If environmentalism was about promoting voluntary "green" living and innovation, it would be very hard to disagree with. Regulating the toxic chemicals people throw into rivers and maintaining the national parks as a safe haven for wildlife are hard to dispute. Global warming, especially human caused global warming, is much harder to prove or even define, which means there needs to be much more tolerance and room for different opinions on the subject. That way there can be friendly discussion and real learning instead of fighting. The same way religious freedom fosters peace and dialogue, because each side knows that the other isn't going to oppress them.


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

The act of removing pain (either emotional or physical) or blame from one's self by inflicting it on another is a fundamental human trait. It's called scapegoating. This trait can actually be observed in nearly all mammals. For example, if a rat is placed alone in a cage with an electrified floor, it will start losing hair, develop digestive disorders, and perhaps even skin ulcers. However, if the rat is placed in the same cage with a smaller rat, then it will beat up the other rat and perhaps even kill it. The positive side effect of this behavior is that the dominant rat will mitigate the damage done by the stresses of living in a hostile environment. This is an extreme example, but it allows us to observe and quantify the effects of scape coating.

Likewise, if you watch a show like Judge Judy, or "Dr" Phil, or any reality situation TV show, you will constantly see these show's participants pointing the finger at one another. This is simple mammal behavior and is designed to mitigate the potential damage done by a stressful situation on confrontation. Many people when confronted with criticism -You cheated on me, Your SUV is damaging the environment, you're not recycling, you should remove your incandescents and replace then with CFL's, etc.- respond by scapegoating rather than acknowledge that they could be doing things better and respond accordingly. 

Of course, humans will never free them selves from these types of behaviors. The best we can do is be aware of them and deal with them in the best way we know how. The advertising industry certainly knows how to do this. A good advertisement can sell just about any worthless object to a man for a profit. The green movement needs to work hard and work within the peculiarities of human human behavior.


----------



## KiwiEV (Jul 26, 2007)

I had trouble accepting the Captain Planet cartoon. I just couldn't bring myself to trust anyone with a green mullet. 

And what about the poor kid with the Heart ring. Talk about short-changed! All the others had impressive, heart-pounding powers and whenever they joined their forces it was a Dobly Surround experience - until you got to Heart. Of which there was a fairly unimpressive mwap-mwap-mwap noise which in itself was a burst-my-bubble style anticlimax. If I were the Heart kid, I'd ask for a refund.

Ok, I know I missed the point but I was bored. 
Hehehe


----------



## Guest (May 3, 2008)

Environmentalist can mean different things to many folks. It is a catch phrase like going green is used as a catch phrase. You claim to do what you can to reduce the impact on the planet and for that you are in that realm. Now it's fine to not claim that phrase or the green phrase because they are actually quite thin in meaning. I choose to not claim all that but I do follow the path of an easy impact on the planet. It's not perfect and it never will be but I can do better. As I learn to do better I teach others what they could do and not interrupt the normal life style of that person. When they see it's pretty easy they see the light so to speak and over time they actually do make the switch to do what they can to decrease the impact on the planet. They do begin to see and they do make changes. That is the goal. As a result the corporate sect has less of a hold and the power is waning. That they hate. Too bad for them. Change or go under. It will take time. 

As a single entity we can't do a whole lot but as a whole we can bring down a mountian, Want to take down a mountain?


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

Taking down mountains doesn't sound like something an environmentalist should be doing. Are you lacking "Heart"?


----------



## Guest (May 4, 2008)

Aaa but big oil IS a mountain that needs to come down. Just for one. It is not me who has no heart.

: )


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

gottdi said:


> Aaa but big oil IS a mountain that needs to come down. Just for one. It is not me who has no heart.
> 
> : )


You're right of course. Though the big oil mountain will crumble on its own in the next decade or two as the oil disappears. 

*Sigh* The challenge is to replace big oil with a more diversified transportation energy infrastructure before diminishing oil supplies cause some sort of global catastrophe.

By the way, how are we supposed to get cheap batteries from China when all the oil is gone? Oh well, that's a subject for a new thread.

Back on topic. I prefer to be referred to as a screaming liberal hippie.


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2008)

> cheap batteries from China


Well who said it was going to be cheap? If you expect the coming energy needs will be cheap you are sadly mistaken.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

KiwiEV said:


> I had trouble accepting the Captain Planet cartoon. I just couldn't bring myself to trust anyone with a green mullet.
> 
> And what about the poor kid with the Heart ring. Talk about short-changed! All the others had impressive, heart-pounding powers and whenever they joined their forces it was a Dobly Surround experience - until you got to Heart. Of which there was a fairly unimpressive mwap-mwap-mwap noise which in itself was a burst-my-bubble style anticlimax. If I were the Heart kid, I'd ask for a refund.
> 
> ...


Haha, just got a MAJOR retro flashback. Yeah I felt sorry for that kid too, can't remember him ever doing anything by himself, and of course the surfer dude ends up with the power of fire, go figure!

Pretty sad cartoon as I remember, the frame rate was terrible, took only three frames for the jet to pass across the teli-screen. I think the only reason I watched it was because it was one of the few cartoons that had the odd explosion in it. Most contemporary cartoons back then were painfully boring.

As for mullet man, it wasn't so much the hair that got me, it was the spandex, at least batman only came out at night!


----------



## KiwiEV (Jul 26, 2007)

LOL 
Very funny! It's all coming back now!


----------



## tazdotnet (Apr 9, 2008)

captain planet was so lame i'd rather watch the grass grow... uhg!!!... too much tree-huggin goin on there... and the villians were too dramatic... like it was written by a school teacher that couldn't deal with reality...


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

No... Captain.... Planet... Was ... AWESOME! You guys are obviously involved in cutting down the amazon, or dumping nuclear waste into kids playgrounds. That's the only reason you don't like it =P.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Dramatic villians??? is there any other kind on TV!!??? LOL

As much as I'd love to take credit for cutting down the amazon, I've never taken a vacation in my life, or any other international travel, so sorry, but it wasn't me!

OK matt, I'll try to actually contribute to the conversation and get serious for a moment. The truth is most folks are just trying to do the best they can, and would gladly make the right choice it it were made easy, but its not always easy.

Our town started a recycling program a few years ago that had large green steel bins set up at two locations. They were consistently full.

A few weeks ago we started a bi-weekly blue bin recycling program at a cost of $50 per property tax bill. I had a hard time finding a single house that didn't have a blue bin out in front that wasn't half buried in recyclable materials. Our collector probably doesn't like us very much because ours was so full one day that he felt the need to make a phone call BEFORE even touching out bin/pile. We had a laugh over that one.

We always recycled out bottles/cans and still do, mainly a habit because there was a time that the pocket change actually made a difference in the family budget.

Recycling is pretty easy, I wish making an EV was that easy, but come hell or high water I will build one! In the mean time I do the best I can to maintain our ICE fleet, and I have mentioned before that I made extensive modifications to my workhorse truck to get better fuel economy. My other truck(kept as a spare for the business) runs on propane and is about as clean burning as an ICE can get, fuel is cheap too.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2008)

> The truth is most folks are just trying to do the best they can, and would gladly make the right choice it it were made easy, but its not always easy.


How sad that folks won't do what's right unless it's easy. I have never know easy. What a cop out. Captain Planet was fine for what it was. My children an I watched it when it was on. It helped instill the thinking of helping rather than hurting. Too bad you all did not see that. You only saw some hokey cartoon and just made fun of it. Sad Sad Sad.


----------



## tazdotnet (Apr 9, 2008)

i never really cared for cartoons... 

i would rather do something constructive rather than be a couch patatoe...

i only watch certain channels even now... 

i watch the history channels the discovery channels (that includes the science channel and millitary channel) and not much else...

i don't even watch the news, i get all the news i need from the web... 

as for kids i don't have any and i'm not lookin to have any (unless you count dogs), but, i have 2 nieces and a nephew that i deal with on a regular basis and i know from experience that the more inteligent the entertainment is the smarter the kid will be... 

and what i meant by over dramatic was that the villians loved dirt, kids can't relate that very easily to real life because poluters don't love dirt they just want to get rid of it cheaply... 

one more inteligent entertainment choice would be legos (check out lego mindstorms for older kids now they can make EVs too!) kids get dumber sitting in front of the *BOOB TUBE * 

what's not easy is getting kids away from the *BOOB TUBE* and the gaming systems to go outside and use thier imaginations or parents taking responsibility for their own kids instead of blaming entertainment for the kids getting an idea to do something stupid. school shootings blamed on a stephen king book, give me a break the book didn't give the kid the gun or teach him how to shoot or ignore him when he needed to talk about being picked on in school... 

if all parents would parent their kids there would not be so many stupid people thinking that a giant SUV is sooooooo cool when gas is $3.70 a gallon and they drive a hummer h2... 6000 lbs *OUCH!...*

as a point of reference i had a 12th grade reading level in the second grade...


although what they call 12th grade reading level now is different from back then..

yet my 7 year old neice can't read but she is fascinated with me so it won't be that long before i straghten her out, she'll be helping me build my EV whether she's ready or not (she'll make sure of that) although she will have competition from my 4 year old neice (she is fascinated by my old lego collection) they will both be learning about math using my legos (they are just gathering dust anyway) i improved my math skills on my own with legos without even trying (did someone call for easy)

as far as easy goes, i steer clear of easy, easy gets people into trouble (bill clinton doing his intern thing) i do things that have no easy way (like fixing my car with my hands) i have a physical disability that limits the use of my hands, yet my family expects me to do work on their cars when they need it (and they have normal functioning hands) how is that for easy? yet i won't let it slow me down i'm still spinning wrenchs when i need to, even if an oil change takes 4 hours because of the pain (accompanied by my hands locking up)... 

imagine building an EV with that kind of pain, but, pain is also part of my motivation for doing the conversion, no more oil changes, radiator flushing, and pumping gas (don't get me started on the pain i go through to pump gas) 

on another note: al gore gets bashed cause he makes stupid comments like the claim he made about being the inventor of the internet, carter on the other hand was promoting the environment while in office with things like solar panels on the white house roof 

easy is sitting kids in front of the BOOB TUBE instead of showing them first hand and setting an example early in life so they won't need to learn from some under budget cartoon... TALK TO YOUR KIDS AMERICA!


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

gottdi said:


> How sad that folks won't do what's right unless it's easy. I have never know easy. What a cop out. Captain Planet was fine for what it was. My children an I watched it when it was on. It helped instill the thinking of helping rather than hurting. Too bad you all did not see that. You only saw some hokey cartoon and just made fun of it. Sad Sad Sad.


The allusion I was trying to make was that as much as we may want to do the right thing, there are other things that are more pressing in our day to day lives and as such, the environment might take a back seat to putting bread on the table for example. I have not known much "easy" either, neither has anyone else in my family. Everyone has their own story, gottdi.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2008)

> Everyone has their own story, gottdi.


I'll say more like an excuse than a story. I live my style and work at the same time. They both fit perfectly well thank you much. No more excuses. There are far too many already and most are so lame it makes my puke. Putting self over environment. You live here too damn it, so do your part and more since your brothers will always come up with an excuse and you will need to carry their burden. Like I said, so sad.

Build a life style and not a cliche. 

I'd rather smell the trees than hug them. They are hard and rough. The pine trees at Lake Tahoe are unique. They have many different flavors (smells). Some just smell like good ol pine while others smell of butterscotch and vanilla. Try it some time. You may get a different perspective of the uniqueness of trees and plants. Can't get that from the boob tube. What about the time spent on the computer? Gotcha.


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

The point of the article that we shouldn't be judgemental of other peoples choices about environmental issues as long as they are taking steps to lessen their impact, just because we are confronted by something doesn't mean other people are ready to hear it yet. Let he who is without environmental impact cast the first stone.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2008)

> Let he who is without environmental impact cast the first stone.


 Screwy twist of the word. I see that all the time too. What living thing does not impact it's environment? Name one! Think real hard before you answer that. 

Cast. Did it hurt? It should. 


Judgemental? Hardly. Observational, absolutely. I observe many who will make excuses just so they will not have to take responsibility for their actions.


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

gottdi said:


> Screwy twist of the word. I see that all the time too. What living thing does not impact it's environment? Name one! Think real hard before you answer that.


That's exactly the point, since no one is without impact you can't really just put out blanket statements that everyone needs to try as hard as you do. There are probably a lot of people with less impact than you and plenty with more. 

I just think labelling everything as excuses is a dramatic oversimplification, I'm sure there are ways you could reduce your impact that you are currently not doing. Everyone has to draw the line somewhere. There are more helpful ways to bring about change in other peoples lives then calling them a hypocrite, or downplaying what they have already achieved. I'm not talking about you specifically, just about negativity within the environmental movement.

Don't mean to offend, just trying to help you have the most effective approach.


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2008)

No offense but we do need to get a bit hard nosed about the changes that need to be made. We have gone long enough playing skip to my lu about the changes that should have begun long ago for the majority of folks. It is time to be real hard core and get everyones attention and prove it needs to be done. People are more afraid to be hard core and that is a problem. We need to change our driving habits, our trash habits, our energy use habits, and our overall passivity to the whole thing. It is after all our world and we only have one and only so long to get it right before it's too late. Lets get the lead out and get to work. Who gives a damn if you think I should or should not preach. I will and if you choose to not listen or to bitch and us who do take a hard core stance then so be it. You will not silence us any longer and you should not be party to those who try. Be positive in your approach but be hard core all the way. No nasty language is needed. Just good old proof that these things do work and that it is easy to do. It is and it's provable. My foot print if you choose to use that term is pretty fair and getting better all the time. I am walking the walk and talking the proof of that walk. No arm chair greenie here. : )


----------



## mattW (Sep 14, 2007)

Well I admire your passion, its good to see someone who takes the environment seriously as its a hugely important issue. Obviously we differ in our methodologies but as long as its kept civil and not personal I don't think it would be a problem. I'm certainly not being silent but I personally think the show by doing method seems to work best for me, generally the people who are on this site are already willing to take pretty big steps for the environment so make sure your not 'preaching to the converted'. Again not trying to be critical just thinking about how to be the most effective


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2008)

Yea! Usually the folks on the list don't need a good tongue lashing but sometimes one comes along that does. My passion is to help the others along that don't frequent the list and as a matter of fact usually don't frequent anything. Showing visually with real tangible things is by far the best because it is something they can touch and it's not just some hear say thing. I show things work and when that happens they usually begin or at least the seed is planted. I am aware that not all seeds grow but if you have a good green thumb then more will than not. Some seed is just too old and no longer viable. Oooops. Anyway, I'd lash anyone who says they don't do the EV thing because of environmental issues. It's just a load of garbage when I hear that. It is because of that. Getting away from oil is an environmental issue no matter how you slice it.


----------



## unclematt (May 11, 2008)

The real problem is that our take on the environment, whatever that might be, has been politicized to an extreme degre. I know many republicans and conservatives that simply have a closed mind to conservation and "green" ways of doing things because their group-think political party has convinced them that it is against their politics and interests. When you deal with people who place their politics above all else, you have a hard time convincing them of things that do not agree with their previously held political beliefs.

I point out to people who are against "green" technologies for political reasons that it doesn't matter whether they think global warming is real or not. MANY other priorities of our society are well served by green technologies, and help reduce our strategic dependence on energy from foreign sources. But many people are simply too blinded by their own political myopia to see the truth that is staring them in the face.

FYI - I am a registered independent, so please don't play the "republican vs. democrat" card.


----------



## mof4000 (May 25, 2008)

I dont think most of us are doing this because of the environment. I think that most of us are doing it to be self reliant, something this gov't should have done over 30 years ago! It's about haveing a sense of control over your future. I'll tell you, when I saw gasoline hit 4.00/ gal. I felt pretty helpless.
The fact that the environment is positively affected just makes the ev revolution a " no brainer".
We have in this country over 60 Billion, yes BILLION gallons of oil under alaska and off shore, enough for about 80 years if i'm not mistaken. The problem is that it would be very expensive to get, would harm the enviroment and most importantly it makes no sense to even try to drill for it when we have the opportunity to develop alternatives beyond ICE'S.

I hope that gasoline stays at 4.00/gal or higher. If not, I fear that the same thing will happen like in the 70's/80's when OPEC saw that we were changing to alternatives and they dropped the price of a barrel of crude to about $25.00 totally eliminateing our desire to develop what you have accomplished ( and I am trying to)... As kermit the frog said " It ain't easy being Green"...........


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

There is no single reason that I like electric cars, there are in fact many reasons that I like electric cars......


----------



## Qer (May 7, 2008)

david85 said:


> There is no single reason that I like electric cars, there are in fact many reasons that I like electric cars......


No oil, no filters, no spark plugs, no fuel pump, no fuel tank, no timing belt, no seals, no tubes, no exhaust pipe or in other words; very few moving parts or parts that wear out and start to leak or that needs replacement after n miles. Sure, you need to replace the batteries and, if it's DC, the brushes eventually but it's still way less work than all the parts that needs service all the time in an ICE. I'm getting pretty fed up with this ancient technology that we're still stuck with.

I believed, like many others, that an EV would be slow, clumsy and pointless unless you lived in a city, but then I saw "Who killed the electric car?", started to surf the net and realised that an EV would be great despite that we're living out on the country side. Sure, we'll have to keep an ICE-car as well for long trips, but hey, we usually have 3 cars anyway; one to drive, a second if we need to go different times or places and a third that's currently being fixed.


----------



## mof4000 (May 25, 2008)

Exactly. Our plan at home is to have my wife with a new Civic probably (drives to work 50 miles each way) me with the Ev (15 miles to work ) and a third ICE kicking around for the same reason, as a back up. As lithiums improve and come down in cost, then maybe we can get rid of another ICE or maybe even all of them!


----------



## ElvishWarrior (Apr 10, 2008)

unclematt said:


> The real problem is that our take on the environment, whatever that might be, has been politicized to an extreme degre. I know many republicans and conservatives that simply have a closed mind to conservation and "green" ways of doing things because their group-think political party has convinced them that it is against their politics and interests. When you deal with people who place their politics above all else, you have a hard time convincing them of things that do not agree with their previously held political beliefs.
> 
> I point out to people who are against "green" technologies for political reasons that it doesn't matter whether they think global warming is real or not. MANY other priorities of our society are well served by green technologies, and help reduce our strategic dependence on energy from foreign sources. But many people are simply too blinded by their own political myopia to see the truth that is staring them in the face.
> 
> FYI - I am a registered independent, so please don't play the "republican vs. democrat" card.


I think you hit the nail on the head with the win-win benefits of alternative energy. I still think though that it's not political myopia against "green" choices, but the fact that you can't separate them from the leftist agenda as a whole. I think the "green" movement would be much more attractive if its political actions focused on leveling the playing field for alternative energy. Like lifting restrictions holding back EVs rather than by lobbying for unreasonable fuel economy standards on IC cars.

And how about focusing on things like reforestation and the preservation of the natural enviornment we have, independent of the global warming debate? You'd have something the NRA and the Sierra Club could agree on.


----------



## unclematt (May 11, 2008)

ElvishWarrior said:


> I think you hit the nail on the head with the win-win benefits of alternative energy. I still think though that it's not political myopia against "green" choices, but the fact that you can't separate them from the leftist agenda as a whole. I think the "green" movement would be much more attractive if its political actions focused on leveling the playing field for alternative energy. Like lifting restrictions holding back EVs rather than by lobbying for unreasonable fuel economy standards on IC cars.
> 
> And how about focusing on things like reforestation and the preservation of the natural enviornment we have, independent of the global warming debate? You'd have something the NRA and the Sierra Club could agree on.


Your post just feed more fuel to my arguement. You are under the impression that a "leftist agenda" is inseperable from being "green". Where did that idea come from? Not from the left, but from the right.

Conservatives have convinced THEMSELVES that is the case. Now it is up to them to recognize their error and make some changes when it comes to our energy sources and how they are utilized.


----------



## ElvishWarrior (Apr 10, 2008)

The ideas are separate. It's the politicians and lobbyists who are not. Find me a politician who's deep in the environmental movement and isn't on the left when it comes to welfare, abortion, gun rights, national sovereignty, taxation, gay marriage and the rest.

I'm saying that people are actually very open to making environmentally friendly policy choices if they weren't packaged with other agendas by the politicians that we have.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Sounds to me like you are looking for a "moderate". Aren't we all.........


----------



## ElvishWarrior (Apr 10, 2008)

I would't call my political views "moderate", I see this as related to how legislators attach "riders" to bills that have nothing to do with the bill. For example, a bill related to the Iraq war had a rider in it having to do with gay marriage. Though the Westboro Baptist Church may argue to the contrary, I don't think the war in Iraq has anything to do at all with gay marriage, no matter what your position is on either issue. In the same way, a vote for a given politician becomes a vote for his or her whole platform. In many other countries even though there are more than two viable parties, the party lines tend to be held even harder by candidates.

The fact is that environmentalism is being forcibly tied to leftist political agendas against teh will of many environmentally friendly people. I believe environmental causes would be better served if they were furthered apart from political platforms. At least ones where there is still significant scientific debate, which does include human caused global warming.

If you want to further a cause when your evidence isn't rock solid, forcing it on people will only turn them against you. In the case of environmental causes, probably the most aggressive tactic should be boycotts of companies that clearly favor environmentally unfriendly and wasteful practices. It wouldn't have to drive the biggest polluters out of business even, just tilt the economics in favor of making environmentally friendly improvements. The same way more and more companies are seeking ISO certification in order to be considered quality competitive, companies will have reason to seek environmental certifications to be considered ecologically competitive. It may take longer that way, but the alternative risks enough backlash that progress could be easily reversed by a new set of elected officials.

Environmental progress should mean leading the way, not standing behind someone else and pushing them ahead. Eventually people would move forward so that they're not left behind.


----------



## fish-a-holic (Jul 6, 2008)

The problem is everyone wants the government to develop alternative energy and force us to recycle and be green. Personally I want my government to stop removing my rights to do as I please at the request of a few fanatics. I do not subscribe to the belief that the government has my best interest in mind. They just want to take my money and get reelected. Any time the government gets involved in anything the product is below standard and cost 10 times what a private business could do it for.


----------



## marthaspears (Jul 9, 2008)

i think there's nothing wrong on being "green", well, i'm not to contradict anyone here but going green is good but we have the right to do as we please.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

Neat posting. 

Environmentalism has become a religion. This is the main problem I see with it, as I already have a religion (Baptist, believe in God, Christ died for my sins, ect.). This religion has its fanatics just as others do, but because it's not recognized as a religion, the fanatics are able to pound on the government and try to force its beliefs on everyone. Personally I care about the environment and do what I can to mitigate my impact, but I'm not going to be forced to believe everything that comes down from the High Priests of Enviroism. This, in my opinion, is the main putoff to being an environmentalist, you get classified with the same self-hating people that would run their car through a kindergarten classroom to avoid running over a squirrel that runs in the street. 

Now if you want business to change, you have to understand what motivates them. Money is the primary motivator, with image and growth as the secondary motivators. This is why companies greenwash, it helps their image while not actually costing extra money. Supporting companies that practice true green and not buying from companies that are not green, or are just greenwashed, isn't enough. You also must let the company that you aren't buying from KNOW that they aren't getting your money for specific reasons. One or two people won't matter, thousands will. 

For my part, I've found the most effective way to change someone's mind on doing their part to be driven by money and convenience. I've convinced dozens of people to change from incandescent bulbs (IB) to CFLs over the years by simply telling them that when I used IBs that I went from changing 2-3 bulbs a week to changing 2-3 per year, AND my power bill dropped by 40 bucks a month. I didn't need to say a word about environmental issues. When I convert to an electric car, I'll be using the same logic, that it cost me X number of dollars to convert, and I went from spending 300 a week on gasoline to 8 bucks a month extra on my power bill, and the gas savings will have paid for the conversion by the time I've traveled X number of miles.

Don't get me started on forest management, another failing of the Enviroism religion. First, they want all forest fires fought, then they won't allow logging to clear any trees, including forest management logging which only thins forests out. Then they wonder why they get multimillion acre infernoes that leave such large areas damaged and dump so much smoke into the air that it looks like a war zone from space. Allowing controlled logging to take place would prevent naturally occurring forest fires from burning everything, instead they would just do as nature intended and burn out the brush, leaving the healthy trees scarred but standing. Besides, the loggers have figured out that it's better for them to plant more trees behind them so as to have a tree to cut down later, an example of business realizing the need to have green practices.


----------



## Yaggo (Jul 9, 2008)

Just few points.

First, environmentalism being kind of loose definition, it's easy to over-generalize. People can consider themselves environmentalists from very different point of view.

Secondly, in my opinion, equating environmentalism with religion is not very good analogy. Religion is (mostly) about believing to some kind of superior power, or in other words, to believe you have to believe, while environmentalism can be argued very rationally or scientifically (pollutions vs. healthcare costs; dependence on foreign energy; wasting energy is wasting money, etc).

I define myself as tech-driven environmentalist and I'm proud of it. Actually I see environmentalism as a normal way of thinking - why shouldn't we care about our living environment?


----------



## ElvishWarrior (Apr 10, 2008)

I agree that in some cases environmentalism has become a religion. While many of us have religious beliefs and then accept various secular beliefs as compatible with our religious beliefs, some people take environmentalism and make it their ultimate belief that all others, like morality, are subject to. And since environmentalism is an area where there is still some uncertainty, people cling to certain beliefs by decision - by faith. Like believing that global warming is undeniable, or more specifically, that human-caused global warming is undeniable. The evidence that there is global warming at all is not absolute, much less that it's caused by humans. Certain evidence may suggest it, but it doesn't prove it. Of course we have to make decisions based on evidence we're not 100% sure about, but the lower the certainty, the less it should be mandatory.

I come from the perspective of conservationism, not environmentalism, and there are a few arguements from the environmental movement that I thing are hindering solutions for the fuel and related crises. The biggest of these is the whole "carbon footprint" discussion. One environmentalist website took the despicable position that people's lives should end when they've exhausted their share of resources. What the whoel "carbon-footprint" people seem to miss completely is that nobody is creating any carbon. The difference is whether the carbon is in fossil fuels, living or dead organisms, or the atmosphere. It could go through a three way cycle of lifeform to fossil fuel to CO2, or a two way cycle back and forth between biomatter and CO2, with the sun ultimately providing the energy that turns CO2 back into biomatter. There are better and worse ways to do that, but the bottom line is that the carbon just switches molecules.

IF global warming is going on, maybe it has something to do with burning fossil fuels, in that it's taking their carbon and returning it to the atmosphere, where it will either stay or turn into biomatter. But even if it does, we would only be going back to the kind of distribution there was before it turned into fossil fuel in the first place. There's a lot of science saying that the earch used to be hotter, that there was a cataclysm that turned many living things into fossil fuels, and that there was an ice age. Apparently the arctic sea is about to be clear through the north pole for the first time in a while. I'm actually not all that surprised, considering that it wasn't all that long ago that people walked across from Asia to North America.

This is just a theoretical observation, but one that the carbon-footprint people have no room for - that human use of fossil fuels is actually part of a natural cycle, and that if we keep burning fossil fuels, our real problem won't be the earth, but where to get our fuel from.


----------



## paker (Jun 20, 2008)

ElvishWarrior said:


> IF global warming is going on, maybe it has something to do with burning fossil fuels, in that it's taking their carbon and returning it to the atmosphere, where it will either stay or turn into biomatter. But even if it does, we would only be going back to the kind of distribution there was before it turned into fossil fuel in the first place. There's a lot of science saying that the earch used to be hotter, that there was a cataclysm that turned many living things into fossil fuels, and that there was an ice age. Apparently the arctic sea is about to be clear through the north pole for the first time in a while. I'm actually not all that surprised, considering that it wasn't all that long ago that people walked across from Asia to North America.
> 
> This is just a theoretical observation, but one that the carbon-footprint people have no room for - that human use of fossil fuels is actually part of a natural cycle, and that if we keep burning fossil fuels, our real problem won't be the earth, but where to get our fuel from.



Here's an interesting video on global warming. I'm not sure about the political aspects of the film, but the rest is interesting.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8147337841241405073


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Telco said:


> Don't get me started on forest management, another failing of the Enviroism religion. First, they want all forest fires fought, then they won't allow logging to clear any trees, including forest management logging which only thins forests out. Then they wonder why they get multimillion acre infernoes that leave such large areas damaged and dump so much smoke into the air that it looks like a war zone from space. Allowing controlled logging to take place would prevent naturally occurring forest fires from burning everything, instead they would just do as nature intended and burn out the brush, leaving the healthy trees scarred but standing. Besides, the loggers have figured out that it's better for them to plant more trees behind them so as to have a tree to cut down later, an example of business realizing the need to have green practices.


What amazes me is how people have no idea about the products they talk about nor why forest fires happen.

The large amounts of forest fires in the last 10 or so years have been directly related to climatic changes (increases in hot dry seasons). There are dozens of alternatives to deforestation on large scales to provide wood products (ie. houses). With the advent of pressed fiberboard, bamboo can be farmed (far faster and cheaper than tree farms) and be made into a termite free, cheaper than pine, stronger than pine, substitute.

It can be pressed as MDF or HDF is into sheets from the pulp for cheaper than wood pulp right now (less than 10USD/sheet vs. upwards of 30 for oak pulp MDF).

The easiest way to solve the corn price crisis etc is to simply have the government step aside (and I mean totally aside from tariffs/importation and all controls) and allow businesses to grow up and encourage farms to plant and harvest bamboo (which can be done several times a year... versus once a decade like in a tree farm)

As far as electric cars are concerned... there's no government grants for EV research for a reason guys... lobbyists/socialism.

As a famous fictional genius once said "get the fuck out of my way".


----------



## epyon (Mar 20, 2008)

I'm not giving up my twin turbos.......till the electric is faster !


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

epyon said:


> I'm not giving up my twin turbos.......till the electric is faster !


Yes because going 0-60mph in 3.9s with 100% torque at 0rpm like the tesla roadster isn't fast enough...

No seriously you MUST have cars faster than corvettes (like the tesla) otherwise they're not worth it?

Telsa > Z06 vette... faster, no gas, 220 mile range, linear torque curve.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

Technologic said:


> What amazes me is how people have no idea about the products they talk about nor why forest fires happen.
> 
> The large amounts of forest fires in the last 10 or so years have been directly related to climatic changes (increases in hot dry seasons). There are dozens of alternatives to deforestation on large scales to provide wood products (ie. houses). With the advent of pressed fiberboard, bamboo can be farmed (far faster and cheaper than tree farms) and be made into a termite free, cheaper than pine, stronger than pine, substitute.


Climate change causes forest fires now? Baloney. Forest fires occur naturally, when lighting strikes cause fires to start. It'll have to get a lot hotter around here before the trees will just spontaneously combust, which is the only way global warming can cause forest fires. Before people started putting them out, forests were kept clear of debris by such fires. Trees cut down show the signs of these fires that they lived through in the rings. Man starts putting out every fire he sees, the brush builds up, then you start getting infernos. If man is going to be putting out these periodic fires, then man needs to be thinning the trees and clearing the brush. This has nothing to do with what can be made from what, this has to do with man interfering with a natural process. This is man's interference that can be seen, unlike "global warming". 



Technologic said:


> The easiest way to solve the corn price crisis etc is to simply have the government step aside (and I mean totally aside from tariffs/importation and all controls) and allow businesses to grow up and encourage farms to plant and harvest bamboo (which can be done several times a year... versus once a decade like in a tree farm).


Wow, in one sentence you both slammed government intervention and asked for more of it. Did you type that with a straight face?


----------



## Rolls Kinardly (May 30, 2008)

Telco said:


> Climate change causes forest fires now? Baloney. Forest fires occur naturally, when lighting strikes cause fires to start. It'll have to get a lot hotter around here before the trees will just spontaneously combust, which is the only way global warming can cause forest fires.


Climate change causes droughts which make forests much easier to catch fire due to lightning, and allows the fire to spread much farther and more quickly. Seems obvious to me.

There was a great episode of Nova on last night (it was a rerun) about Global Dimming. You climate change naysayers should watch it and see if you can come up with a good reason why these findings should be ignored.


----------



## epyon (Mar 20, 2008)

The Eliica is one my top cars at 230 mph and it's electric and has A-C . But understand , I'm a monster !! I'm gunning the the fastest street legal top speed car in the flying mile . And you you can't be jumping up and down about a $120,000.00 car (TESLA) betting a $70,000.00 Vett. . They could of done so much better with the money they had . 3.9 sec. please , There's people on-line now that could smoke that car with half the money .


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

epyon said:


> The Eliica is one my top cars at 230 mph and it's electric and has A-C . But understand , I'm a monster !! I'm gunning the the fastest street legal top speed car in the flying mile . And you you can't be jumping up and down about a $120,000.00 car (TESLA) betting a $70,000.00 Vett. . They could of done so much better with the money they had . 3.9 sec. please , There's people on-line now that could smoke that car with half the money .



The tesla is 109,000 USD... you're talking about DIY builders... now you're comparing production cars (tesla and corvette) to private handbuilt car racers... fascinating stuff son... fascinating.



> Trees cut down show the signs of these fires that they lived through in the rings. Man starts putting out every fire he sees, the brush builds up, then you start getting infernos. If man is going to be putting out these periodic fires, then man needs to be thinning the trees and clearing the brush.


I suggest you ACTUALLY read up on the amount of forest fires 100 years ago and now in the US and get back to me... you're actually totally wrong... it's not a lack of deforestation... it's the byproduct of too much deforestation + too much pollution (working a problem from both directions is super smart).

While you're at it read up on ocean CO2 subduction and the saturation limit. Maybe throw in a nice round accurate statistic like 30% of the world's tree cover has be destroyed in the last 300 years.


----------



## epyon (Mar 20, 2008)

Technologic said:


> Yes because going 0-60mph in 3.9s with 100% torque at 0rpm like the tesla roadster isn't fast enough...
> 
> No seriously you MUST have cars faster than corvettes (like the tesla) otherwise they're not worth it?
> 
> Telsa > Z06 vette... faster, no gas, 220 mile range, linear torque curve.


Sorry , forgot to add this .


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

I might suggest the same to you. If we're going to put out every fire that starts, then we should be doing the job that the fire would have done. Period. Let the fires burn, or thin the trees and clear the brush. In my opinion we should just let them burn, concentrating any firefighting to save existing property. 

Not going to get into the whole carbon thing, seeing as more CO2 will spur plant growth, which will lower CO2. Unless, of course, you are going to deny that an increase in food supply will cause a population expansion, and a plant's food supply comes from CO2 and light.

From http://www.mdc.mo.gov/conmag/1996/07/60.html :

*"Fire* 
The effects of fire on forest are well known. Much was written about the Yellowstone fires of 1988 and the numerous fires of the western United States of 1994. Missouri has its share of fires today, and has had fires for the past thousands of years.
Natural fires in Missouri are rare - Missouri forests experience less than one lightning-caused fire per million acres, compared to almost 40 in parts of Florida, California and the mountains of Idaho and over 60 in areas in Arizona and New Mexico. 
Indians reportedly burned the forests of what is now Missouri to attract game, increase agricultural use or defend themselves. With settlement, fire occurrence increased with increasing numbers of people but the severity of fires decreased with increased levels of fire control. 
Forests respond to fire in one of two general ways. Low intensity, repeated fires can create and maintain a thin canopy of fire resistant trees with an understory of fire tolerant grasses and forbs. Years of this type of fire can result in what many have called savanna or woodland.
A second type of response would result from more intense or less frequent fires. This would have a regenerating effect on a forest. After years of good growing conditions without fires to reduce fuel buildups, and with the proper dry wind and fuel conditions, a fire can kill all trees in a forest. Severe fires can destroy ground litter and humus and set the forest back to the earliest successional stage. Fire prepares the soil for germination of fire tolerant species, such as fireweed and shortleaf pine, and actually encourages pine seed to be released from cones. 
Another fire disturbance could be human fire protection, resulting in unnatural forests growing in the absence of frequent fires and suffering from the less frequent but more severe fires, which are almost entirely human caused."


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Telco said:


> I might suggest the same to you. If we're going to put out every fire that starts, then we should be doing the job that the fire would have done. Period. Let the fires burn, or thin the trees and clear the brush. In my opinion we should just let them burn, concentrating any firefighting to save existing property.
> 
> Not going to get into the whole carbon thing, seeing as more CO2 will spur plant growth, which will lower CO2. Unless, of course, you are going to deny that an increase in food supply will cause a population expansion, and a plant's food supply comes from CO2 and light.
> 
> From http://www.mdc.mo.gov/conmag/1996/07/60.html :


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/08/000811062434.htm

My undergradute college did just that study and they found it did increase plant growth, up to a point.

Higher C02 levels might increase photosynthesis SOMEWHAT as they show, however, higher C02 levels coupled with Deforestation only increases the C02 faster.

Deforestation is a dumb idea... in fact it can be traced to a lot of associated issues: extremely high temperatures in cities, smog, increasing usages of electricity for heating/cooling, pollution borne illnesses, climate changes, species losses, etc.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

Technologic said:


> Deforestation is a dumb idea... in fact it can be traced to a lot of associated issues: extremely high temperatures in cities, smog, increasing usages of electricity for heating/cooling, pollution borne illnesses, climate changes, species losses, etc.


Oh I get it now, if a single tree is cut it's deforestation and is to be avoided at all costs regardless of consequences. By the same token, all fires in the woods are bad and must be put out at all costs. Yep, that's a recipe for success right there. Interfere with the natural process by putting out fires, then do nothing to compensate for the interrupted natural process. Nature has a way of dealing with this sort of thing, and in the case of forestry it's the firestorm. It's like clearcutting in that everything gets knocked down, only instead of the wood being put to good use by man the wood is destroyed and all its carbon is released into the air. Yep, good plan!

I'd much rather see forest fires put out combined with a sensible forestry management plan than the above described disaster that is the hallmark of the eco-terrorist (compare the number of sabotaged logging trucks to the number of sabotaged firefighting trucks in loggerland). A sensible plan would allow selective tree harvesting, not clearcutting, with a maximum percentage allowed to be havested per acre per year. Such a plan would also require useless materials such as brush to be cleared by the logging company, and a requirement that new trees of the same type harvested be planted in the cut tree's place. That brush could either be chipped onsite and spread around, sold to the mulch industry, or made into cheap pressed-wood furniture. The wood would at least be useful, instead of only becoming air pollution.


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

I agree... even if the post is a little on the sarcastic side.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

xrotaryguy said:


> I agree... even if the post is a little on the sarcastic side.


Sorry  You shoulda seen the first draft of the post. Heh heh... Sometimes I have a hard time with folks that seem to think in absolutes, when the only absolute in this world is nobody gets out alive.


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

You forgot taxes 

I guess you can evade taxes if you want to though... Or you could incorporate


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Telco said:


> I'd much rather see forest fires put out combined with a sensible forestry management plan than the above described disaster that is the hallmark of the eco-terrorist (compare the number of sabotaged logging trucks to the number of sabotaged firefighting trucks in loggerland). A sensible plan would allow selective tree harvesting, not clearcutting, with a maximum percentage allowed to be havested per acre per year. Such a plan would also require useless materials such as brush to be cleared by the logging company, and a requirement that new trees of the same type harvested be planted in the cut tree's place. That brush could either be chipped onsite and spread around, sold to the mulch industry, or made into cheap pressed-wood furniture. The wood would at least be useful, instead of only becoming air pollution.


Again you're under the impression that such a balance is possible at all (or even preventive). If you could indeed specify a certain amount of overgrowth removal (ie. one out of every 2 trees in a forest could be cut) that is not profitable by current methods... in fact the only method currently used by timber mills is clear cutting and replanting (horrible management system as it removes the ecosystems and destroys all of the oxygen produced for at least 20 years).

Come up with a solution that is profitable and maybe just maybe you'll have something even half as smart as just farm raising bamboo for pulp. Even then I don't see how the tonnage annually per acre could even get close to comparison... you're talking about pulping upwards of a pine forest (per acre comparison) every 4 months with bamboo farms vs. 20-30 YEARS.

By the way forests don't just burn like they are now... again you're avoiding the causes and the influence of such thoughts like your's on the increasing rise of western fires.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

We must have wood and wood products. No doubt about that. If the requirement is to thin the woods in a manner proscribed by law or don't do it at all, with the law designed by both the industry and environmental scientists (gotta have both, or the law would either require clearcutting or require only trees that fall on their own be harvested), then the industry would have no choice. They would design a means by which they could extract the trees per the law at the least possible cost. 

And yes, forests DO just burn. The normal natural way is a lightning strike will start the fire. The woods have been just burning for thousands of years. The woods will be burning for thousands of years after we've gone. Want to blame global warming for it, that's fine, but I don't see man as being able to have a major influence over it as this planet has been having hot and cold spells forever, not to mention the sun dumps more energy into the earth per minute than man does per . As long as we are putting out those fires and not thinning trees and removing brush though, when a fire does get going it's going to be worse and burn down more trees. 

Hey, here's something to ponder, putting those forest fires out may be contributing to global warming, so perhaps man IS partially responsible. Apparently when the US shut down air traffic after 9/11, scientists plotted an increase in temperatures in the US. Seems the plane contrails block some of the sun's heat from hitting the planet, and when the planes were grounded the temps went up. Now when forest fires are burning they are putting far more crap into the air than airplanes do, and putting them out prematurely means less crap in the air. When firestorm fires are burning, the trees are being burned more completely, so there's less actual smoke going up. It would be interesting to see a study done on this. I'd still like to see us just let natural fires go, and not take any steps to put the fire out be done beyond protecting people's houses.

More on global warming: the chief source of global warming is solar radiation, which has been increasing 0.5 percent per decade since the 70s. No amount of effort by man could match that kind of an increase. If you want to beleive the accuracy of 1800s science, then the output of the sun has been slowly increasing since the late 1800s. And, according to other information, we can expect the sun to increase for another 100 years, then slowly start cycling back.


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

Anyone got a calender for 2108? I want to mark it so I can remember to check your cycle theory, but at 161 yr old, I need a reminder!

Btw, treehugger.com just had comments on Bamboo farming being extremely hard on the environment. Seems all those poor farmers are clear cutting and burning forests to make more land to grow bamboo. And the beat goes on-----


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

oldtimer said:


> Btw, treehugger.com just had comments on Bamboo farming being extremely hard on the environment. Seems all those poor farmers are clear cutting and burning forests to make more land to grow bamboo. And the beat goes on-----



Comparing what goes on in Brazil and China to what could go on in wasted crop lands here isn't a comparison worth examining.



> I'd still like to see us just let natural fires go, and not take any steps to put the fire out be done beyond protecting people's houses.


I agree, however, you once again found the most unusual and dare I say it, stupid articles to support your viewpoint. Carbon dioxide can indeed cause increases in temperatures, mankind could have put enough of it in the air to cause the temperature shifts we see currently. The question you need to ask yourself is WHY do you think we need wood products... seriously... what items do you use that must be wood and not a pressed pulp fiber...

Again you've totally lost the point. The idea is not to thin the trees out or prevent fires (neither seems like a good basis for a business model). The idea is to stop deforestation on massive scales where housing developments/businesses/cities simply clear cut millions of acres for cracker box houses.

You're talking about forest fires burning across the US on increasing intervals... and I'm talking about the fact that the entire world's treecover has been reduced 30% in the last 100 years.


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

Depletion of World's forestland equals depletion of oxygen. Amazon rainforest (Brazil) produces 25% of oxygen on the planet, I believe were the figures I've read. That to me bears examination, unless you don't breathe, of course. Wasted cropland here has long been removed from oxygen generation sources. Also, do you seriously believe that U.S. farmers can compete with third world farmers, who are content with incomes of $200. yearly? Then too harvesting bamboo is very much manual labor intensive, which leads to another annoying situation, vis a vis labor costs, think more illegal immigrants. Also, data I have read shows bamboo harvest cycle at three years, not 3 times a year.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

Technologic said:


> I agree, however, you once again found the most unusual and dare I say it, stupid articles to support your viewpoint. Carbon dioxide can indeed cause increases in temperatures, mankind could have put enough of it in the air to cause the temperature shifts we see currently.


I find it funny that you are calling my articles stupid just because they support my viewpoint and not yours. The articles were about scientists who were researching their field to find out what they can, not "scientists" who are trying to prove a viewpoint. The space.com article was about scientist using a network of satellites to monitor the sun directly and is a report about what the sun has been doing, derived from DIRECT OBSERVATION, for the last 30-40 years. Completely apolitical. Besides, you don't seriously expect me to post articles that support YOUR viewpoint, would you? That's YOUR job.



Technologic said:


> The question you need to ask yourself is WHY do you think we need wood products... seriously... what items do you use that must be wood and not a pressed pulp fiber...


Furniture, for one. The pressed fiberboard crap comes apart after a year or so. I'd rather buy one piece of real wood, and never replace it, than spend half the amount for pressed fiberboard every year or two. Now which way is more environmentally friendly? 

Firewood, for two, as it does not add nor subtract from the carbon cycle. Burn a tree for firewood and plant one in its place, and the new tree will absorb the carbon the burned tree released. Can't do this with coal. 

BBQ, for three. Nothing better than a slice of cow roasted over a hickory fire. Can't get that taste from a skillet.



Technologic said:


> Again you've totally lost the point. The idea is not to thin the trees out or prevent fires (neither seems like a good basis for a business model). The idea is to stop deforestation on massive scales where housing developments/businesses/cities simply clear cut millions of acres for cracker box houses. You're talking about forest fires burning across the US on increasing intervals...


No, I believe my whole thing here started with forest fire management in the US. Never said anything about clearcutting, that's the hobby horse you've decided to take for a ride.

Our viewpoints are actually not that different. The actual problem here is, you appear to be a liberal leftie. The liberal leftie sees things as they think they should be, not as they are. The liberal leftie attitude is "anyone who disagrees with me is stupid, any facts that disagree with me are wrong even if proven." Disagreement with the liberal is considered crimethink which is doubleplusungood and requires either derision or, if they had their way about it, reeducation at minitru. I as a moderate conservative with libertarian leanings, on the other hand, can disagree with your viewpoint without calling it "stupid." Wrong and stupid are not the same thing.

I support smart forestry management, not clear cutting. Clear cutting is poor forestry management. Putting out any and all fires without providing for the much needed debris removal that normal forest fires provide for is poor forestry management. Allowing natural fires to burn out brush and debris is smart forestry management. Selectively thinning the forest with brush/debris removal is smarter forestry management.



Technologic said:


> and I'm talking about the fact that the entire world's treecover has been reduced 30% in the last 100 years.


How do you propose we stop the world's deforestation then? Brazil is clearcutting the Amazon. China takes everything it can with no regard to others. Shall we invade these two nations to stop them from becoming environmental disasters? Would you support a President that invaded another nation over a natural resource? Or would you be chanting "No blood for trees!" out in front of the White House?

Oldtimer, it's been well known for years that the Sun has an 11 year cycle from monitoring sunspots, but the satellite data indicating a trend towards increasing solar activity over each 11 year pattern is apparently fairly new. If they are correct though, then we should be peaking at around 2100, then solar activity should start falling. But, there's not a lot we can do about solar output other than try shielding the Earth from its effects. Scientists have had some off-the-wall ideas, even to the extent of trying to give the Earth its own Saturn-like rings. Course, after solar output peaks and the temps start falling towards the next ice age we'd need to be able to remove the rings. I do think it's pretty funny how the global warming crowd can't accept that a ginormous nuclear fire will have a variable output. Anyone who has watched a simple wood fire should be able to tell that fire fluxuates.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

The sun theory intrigues me as well. Though I still have not watched algor's movie to see what all the hype is all about and why they seem so hell bent on co2 being the cause of all our problems.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Telco said:


> How do you propose we stop the world's deforestation then? Brazil is clearcutting the Amazon. China takes everything it can with no regard to others. Shall we invade these two nations to stop them from becoming environmental disasters? Would you support a President that invaded another nation over a natural resource? Or would you be chanting "No blood for trees!" out in front of the White House?
> 
> Oldtimer, it's been well known for years that the Sun has an 11 year cycle from monitoring sunspots, but the satellite data indicating a trend towards increasing solar activity over each 11 year pattern is apparently fairly new. If they are correct though, then we should be peaking at around 2100, then solar activity should start falling. But, there's not a lot we can do about solar output other than try shielding the Earth from its effects. Scientists have had some off-the-wall ideas, even to the extent of trying to give the Earth its own Saturn-like rings. Course, after solar output peaks and the temps start falling towards the next ice age we'd need to be able to remove the rings. I do think it's pretty funny how the global warming crowd can't accept that a ginormous nuclear fire will have a variable output. Anyone who has watched a simple wood fire should be able to tell that fire fluxuates.


Actually unless something has changed in the last 6 years, I believe around 40% of the USA's treecover in the 1800s has been removed permanently (not part of any management system). My count in North Carolina has lost over 70%, permanently.

Fusion power plants don't actually function anything like a fire.... variable output sure... time altered variable output sure.... time cycles on a 50 or 100 year scale? no. If it is changing, I'd place a lot of money on my physics knowledge that the CO2 and deforestation is changing it much much faster and more sharply.

There's also been quite a lot of oceanographer interest in the increased CO2 being subducted into water that is artificially (for a time) slowing the effects of the increases in CO2.

Once again... you don't need to use firewood either (as other types of pulp logs burn faster and longer than real wood).

so you're talking about needing real oak and such wood furniture (though there are excellent fiberboard furniture and your 1-2 year replacement time frame is WAY off... by a good factor of 10), that probably makes up less than 5% of the wood market.


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

One of the reasons I chose the name Oldtimer was, well I am! Old enough to remember the last Global warming scare of the 50's & 60's, old enough to remember the "new" ice age scare of the late 60's and 70's, old enough to know the difference between fact and theory. Scientists and academians are always crying wolf over their latest "scare" theory. Do we have problems, yes. But i recall researching the new ice age scare and finding that it was projected in a mere 10,000 years! I have a hard time recalling my ancestors even a mere 100 yrs back, so I just could not get too worried about an ice age 10,000 years away ( 9960 now approximately.) I also remember being warned some years ago that coal was soon to be extinct and oil as well. Buffalo were nearly extinct as well as alligators, eagles, and a variety of other species throughout the world. But somehow, we muddled through, and I suspect we'll muddle through the latest "real" or "imagine" scares. MEantime, I'll keep the 50's bomb shelter stocked with canned rations from Y2K, just in case. LOL


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I enjoy reading your posts, oldtimer


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

Technologic said:


> Actually unless something has changed in the last 6 years, I believe around 40% of the USA's treecover in the 1800s has been removed permanently (not part of any management system). My count in North Carolina has lost over 70%, permanently.


I'm not disagreeing, there was a time when resources were used with no regard, or even knowledge, of the consequences. The Dust Bowl was a direct result of ginormous areas of land being deforested, converted to crops, then hit with a drought that would not have affected the old growth trees nearly as bad as one year crops were. 



Technologic said:


> Fusion power plants don't actually function anything like a fire.... variable output sure... time altered variable output sure.... time cycles on a 50 or 100 year scale? no. If it is changing, I'd place a lot of money on my physics knowledge that the CO2 and deforestation is changing it much much faster and more sharply.


Go to that science.com link, it linked to some pictures of the sun. An uncontrolled fusion reaction several million miles in diameter sure looks like a ball of fire to me. Is it exactly the same as a wood fire? No, but it acts the same. You can see the variation in output, and I can see how a variation across a body that large would take several years to happen. One of the links shows pics of the sun several years apart, and it looks quite a bit more energetic in some pics than others.



Technologic said:


> There's also been quite a lot of oceanographer interest in the increased CO2 being subducted into water that is artificially (for a time) slowing the effects of the increases in CO2.


I have no comments on ocean water CO2 levels, have more than enough to occupy my time without adding a line of exploration on a subject I have little interest in, namely the ocean. If I was interested in the ocean then the wife and I would be living in Florida where she wanted to settle, not the midwest where I wanted to settle. Course, now you couldn't pry her out of Oklahoma with a stick.



Technologic said:


> Once again... you don't need to use firewood either (as other types of pulp logs burn faster and longer than real wood).


Burns both faster and longer? That's a neat trick, since burning faster would mean a shorter burn time, and longer would mean a slower burn time. Might go discuss that one at hearth.com where they really get into their woodburning. They can tell you exactly what fake logs will do in comparison to any kind of wood or wood product or alternative to wood product. In short, if it burns, they know it. Pressed wood logs tend to have waxes in them to hold them together, which will clog chimneys and possibly burn down the house... requiring more trees to be cut down to rebuild. Their recommendation for a good, long lasting, warm fire is hardwood.



Technologic said:


> so you're talking about needing real oak and such wood furniture (though there are excellent fiberboard furniture and your 1-2 year replacement time frame is WAY off... by a good factor of 10), that probably makes up less than 5% of the wood market.


And why do you think that is? As a retailer in today's market, the money isn't in selling a finely crafted piece that can be handed down for generations, it's in selling a piece that will have to be replaced in a couple of years. Sell a piece of furniture that lasts 200 years and you'll never see those people again. Pressed wood furniture wears out quickly and must be replaced. I know, I've bought my share. The nicer board oak I bought about 5 years ago is still as strong and nice as it was the day I bought it. I work hard for my money and take good care of what I buy, but pressed wood furniture is designed to fail no matter how well you care for it, unless you simply don't use it. I don't know about you, but I don't buy furniture to look at. Pressed wood will sit there unused and be pretty for years.

Oldtimer - Funny, I remember reading about that coming ice age too. THAT worried me, as I'm not a cold weather person, and the thought of the weather slowly getting colder over my lifetime was, well, chilling .


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Telco said:


> Burns both faster and longer? That's a neat trick, since burning faster would mean a shorter burn time, and longer would mean a slower burn time. Might go discuss that one at hearth.com where they really get into their woodburning. They can tell you exactly what fake logs will do in comparison to any kind of wood or wood product or alternative to wood product. In short, if it burns, they know it. Pressed wood logs tend to have waxes in them to hold them together, which will clog chimneys and possibly burn down the house... requiring more trees to be cut down to rebuild. Their recommendation for a good, long lasting, warm fire is hardwood.


actually you negate the possiblity that the combustables per lb have more energy than in a solid piece. I do know of several starter logs made out of pulp that burn for up to 2 hrs.

very very few people even use firewood at all anymore, but your opinion on the matter notwithstanding could be correct.... I don't really know or care about such a minute market share.

At any rate, mismanagement of the environment is the current "trend" and lack of innovation the "business model". Why figure out better methods to make acceptable, long lasting products? just get more government zoning for your property, or clear cut subdivisions and sell the wood you can't get licenses to use for lumber in the first place.

Either way... none of your reasoning exactly removes the necessity for environmental management and ending the abilities for businesses/government/people to simply wash away their environment for a "straight flat lawn".... all you need is property tax deductions if you have more than say 70% trees on your land.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

Technologic said:


> actually you negate the possiblity that the combustables per lb have more energy than in a solid piece. I do know of several starter logs made out of pulp that burn for up to 2 hrs.
> 
> very very few people even use firewood at all anymore, but your opinion on the matter notwithstanding could be correct.... I don't really know or care about such a minute market share.
> 
> ...


I take it you live in an area where wood burning isn't common. There are parts of the nation where wood burning is king.

No real disagreement on the business thing. Big Business is run by the beancounters, and their main goal is to be penny wise and pound foolish. In automotive, they'll save a nickel per vehicle installing a part that costs them a thousand dollars in warranty repairs, which then drives off customers because they don't want to buy a car that won't last to the end of the payment book.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Um, 2 hours of burn is not that long if we are talking about a single wood log. We used wood heating in out home until last winter an as single load and it was possible to stretch a single load of firewood for the entire day. Although I will admit it can get subjective because of how much you have the inlet open. But 2 hours is not a big deal compared to maple, red alder or fir as firewood. Cedar on the other hand went up like paper.

Also consider the energy and time resources involved in packing that stuff into a "fire log". Red alder grows like weeds in my neck of the woods, and has to be cleared anyway in many cases.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Telco said:


> I take it you live in an area where wood burning isn't common. There are parts of the nation where wood burning is king.
> 
> No real disagreement on the business thing. Big Business is run by the beancounters, and their main goal is to be penny wise and pound foolish. In automotive, they'll save a nickel per vehicle installing a part that costs them a thousand dollars in warranty repairs, which then drives off customers because they don't want to buy a car that won't last to the end of the payment book.


I don't want to argue whether or not businesses are intelligent, they are successful many times by simply adapting more quickly (at least historically this was true). The question is why a bloated, overly socialistic, micromanaging government like the US allows this kind of environment strippage and yet attempts to stop raging fires with billions of dollars. By all means... go outside and cut a dying tree down for firewood... but don't clear cut 1000 acre subdivisions and replant 2 nursery grown trees in the yard.... 

There's no excuse for this behavior. Nor for other countries stripping their forests for farm land.


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

In AZ, killing a Saguaro cactus is illegal. I think it's on an endangered list or something. Funny thing though, developers are allowed to bull doze them down by the thousands. Sad.


----------



## The Flying Dutchman (Aug 15, 2008)

Im not an ''Environmentalist'' or damn green hippie because the climate is ALWAYS changing, many data and historical facts about that.

The big CO2 hoax where it all started, damn, ''menkind'' doesn't even produce 1% of total CO2 per year.

You guys, i work in a greenhouse and I just know how plants and nature work.

Think about all the forestst in the world, when summertime is over and all the leave's are falling and begin to rot, the amounts of CO2 produced by rotting leaves are incredible, you just don't want to know how much billons of CO2 goes in the air around that time, not to menshion the ocean when it become's summer.....

I really don't care of the enviroment, because it fixes itself, simple, clever, and efficient.

The biggest 2 reason's that you can think of of worrying about the ''enviroment'' is :

There are to many people living on the planet.
To many people require lots of space, and thus lots of forrest/nature has to go.

cutting down forrest is the ''biggest'' reason to worry about, the rest is all normal and just nature's progress.

If we where all going to die within the next 100years....

The world will still go round.
''mother earth'' give's what it take's untill the end of time.

Nature always find a way, nature never dies.

So no reason for me to be a damn hippie.

I wanna make my vehicle electric so the government doesn't get my hard earned money.

Nature doesn't care.

( sorry for my bad English  )


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Ditto the post above, and add the following:

Question: What is the #1 problem in all the world, exacerbating all other problems, and was agreed to be the #1 problem in the world by a meeting of all the world's leaders?

Answer: Too many people.

If you want to claim to be an "Environmentalist," better go tackle THAT problem.

Oh, and prepare to get beat up a lot...


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

The Flying Dutchman said:


> I really don't care of the enviroment, because it fixes itself, simple, clever, and efficient.


You're right, of course. The world doesn't need us to take care of it. And environmentalists who think they are doing the planet a favor or think the planet needs our help to survive are just full of themselves. The planet doesn't need us. Not at all.

But we do need the planet, which is why I AM an environmentalist. I'm not out to save the planet for the planet's sake. I'm determined to do what I can to maintain the environment so the sake of human civilization. It's not the planet that's fragile. It is we who are fragile. We have come to depend quite heavily on the current state of water cycles, climate patterns, seasons, biodiversity, topsoil distribution, atmosphere composition, and a great many other geocentric systems too numerous to mention. 

The planet will fix itself, no matter what we do. But it may kill us in the process. So I do my best to live in a way that doesn't disturb this balance that we have come to depend upon so heavily.

True environmentalism isn't about saving the environment. It's about saving humanity.


----------



## The Flying Dutchman (Aug 15, 2008)

For me it's all about saving money and preventing the corrupt government steals it.

But allright...

Do you really think, that by driving a (expencive) ''fuel efficient'' car you will save, or help, the enviroment ?

Do realize that when you plug in your super hybrid electric car into the wall, that energy is probably produced in a highly in-efficient poluting cole plant.
It's HYPOCRITE ! 

You are exacly doing what the government want you to do, ''saving energy''
Energy prices WILL go up, it's a simple calculation based on history, also called ''government natural progress''

I think everybody can see and predict this.

The only reason for me that I want to be involved in this ''energy hype'' is to be at one day be fully self-supporting when it comes to energy.
Getting it from the air for free, sun, wind, water, and ultimatly getting space frequency and convert that to electricity, what Nicola Tesla probably did in this Pierce Arrow.

Being fully self supporting on energy is probably the main goal for everyone here, not only the car, but everything.

I saw on CNN that the first ''wire-less'' energy/frequency ''deliverer''? was being made.
( like Tesla also did )

U just can guess where that story goes..

No excuses anymore to ''tap'' from space because the government is ''so called'' putting all the energy in the air...
So using an un-registerd device's is going to be illegal, and you'll end up in jail of getting a big bill.

But maybe im thinking to far ahead right now, but also im thinking that ''wire-less'' energy is the most logical thing to do because it will save a lot of copper wire's and labor.

Call me crazy, but I think time is short on this one before it's going to happen.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

Astronomer said:


> You're right, of course. The world doesn't need us to take care of it. And environmentalists who think they are doing the planet a favor or think the planet needs our help to survive are just full of themselves. The planet doesn't need us. Not at all.


You're so obviously correct. I mean it's totally impossible that an intelligently evolved species could actually save the world from natural disasters (or cause them)... I mean science be damned let's just throw caution to the wind and hope nature's "perfect way of always working things out" just stays that way.

Do you people even hear yourselves talk anymore or just spew crap out all the time.



> Do realize that when you plug in your super hybrid electric car into the wall, that energy is probably produced in a highly in-efficient poluting cole plant.
> It's HYPOCRITE !


Actually you only think this way because you live in another country. Most people in the US have lots and lots of options where their electricity comes from..... in fact tons of states give tax deductions for putting solar panels up. My personal electricity in Charlotte NC comes from a Nuclear plant (which is far more efficient than some PoS 4 dollars/10 mile car)



> I saw on CNN that the first ''wire-less'' energy/frequency ''deliverer''? was being made.


Tesla didn't make a wireless electric generator.... he tried to but failed as electricity conducts through the air incredibly poorly. I said it years and years ago how to make wireless electricity, you'd just need to convert it into a waveform super efficiently.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

The Flying Dutchman said:


> The big CO2 hoax where it all started, damn, ''menkind'' doesn't even produce 1% of total CO2 per year.


Be prepared to defend that statement. I'm not even going to say what side of the arguement I'm on, but you will be surprised to see just how religious the debate over CO2 and climate change has become.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> Be prepared to defend that statement. I'm not even going to say what side of the arguement I'm on, but you will be surprised to see just how religious the debate over CO2 and climate change has become.


Religious? facts/science is religion now?

Not quite certain how asking for PROOF of a claim is religious.

If anything the anti-global warming types are religious since they fly in the face of scientific facts/studies.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> Religious? facts/science is religion now?
> 
> Not quite certain how asking for PROOF of a claim is religious.
> 
> If anything the anti-global warming types are religious since they fly in the face of scientific facts/studies.


 
You'll note how I was careful not to pick sides in my earlier statement.

I hope you didn't take offense to my post. If so, that wasn't my intention. But when it comes to global warming, I have seen how both sides of the argument can claim to have science on their side. If there is a stale mate in the argument, than they proceed to try and discredit the opposing view. In some cases attacking the personal reputation of the leading scientists on the opposing side.

I honestly wish I had the time to sift through all the raw data myself to see what the heck is really going on. But since I don't and have to make a living instead, I'm trying to steer clear of the debate entirely. I picked sides once before in the climate change issue and later regretted it.


----------



## The Flying Dutchman (Aug 15, 2008)

Well, you said I gotta prepare myself to defent that statement...
oke. I understand. And im not going to prepare for it.

The big CO2 hoax lie is just a lie, so now i have to talk things straight that don't make sense.
( sorry, I don't know how to say that perfectly in English )

But that is just the power of the big CO2 hoax.
It's a typical ''political left'' debat, it's dirty as hell, people HAVE GOT TO HEAR IT and don't get a chance to defent itself.
How many time's did you see on TV good debates about this item ?
I don't. 
Only programs that are telling you ''how worse the situation is/gonna be if we don't act now''

It's so ''talked into'' people that they don't thinkt about it and just believe it's directly true.

We gotta be scared, very scared.

Because scared people are easy to control.

Wake up, it's all a big lie to get more money. nothing more, nothing less. business as usual.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

The Flying Dutchman said:


> Well, you said I gotta prepare myself to defent that statement...
> oke. I understand. And im not going to prepare for it.
> 
> The big CO2 hoax lie is just a lie, so now i have to talk things straight that don't make sense.
> ...


So your defense is that the government is so corrupted they are using it as a means to control us?

wouldn't we have to ... I dunno.... not be driving cars for that to even make sense?


----------



## piersdad (Aug 16, 2008)

many ancient civilisations of surprising advancement did not react to local climate changes.
Like cut down all the trees to feed the city and with an entire area denuded a drought finished them off.
when some were in crisis there only needed a small thing to finish off the civilisation.
if climate change raises the sea level then the houses etc built in the future sea bed area will be at least 100 years old and ready for demolution.
the vikings found their land was freezing and migrated to south and warmer places.
the same today and in the future populations elite will migrate and leave their lesser kin to wither away.
Katrina was a warning sign of a hint to build inland and leave the sea side for holidays


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

piersdad said:


> many ancient civilisations of surprising advancement did not react to local climate changes.


wasn't the highest total world population before 1700s around 100 million people... worldwide?

so.... exponential effects would mean... whatever they did is "roughly" 2^20 less severe than our current world.


----------



## The Flying Dutchman (Aug 15, 2008)

piersdad said:


> if climate change raises the sea level then the houses etc built in the future sea bed area will be at least 100 years old and ready for demolution.


Dude, If climate really get's warmer the sea level will drop...

Think about a glass FULL of ice, what will happen when all the ice is melted ?

About 3 quater of the glass is full, ice has more volume than water, and when it sit's under water ( like 95% ! of all the iceberg's on the northpole ) then the sea level will drop.
Simple math.

CNN telling you histerical that ''the north pole is melting OMG OMG OMG'' and the sea level will rise is a stinkin LIE.

I live 7 meter UNDER the sea level here in Holland/The Netherlands/Lowlands and the sea is level was at his highest in mid 2006 if I remember correctly, I believe is has dropped 7 cm now.

And CNN isn't telling you that the northpole AND southpole are growing right now. Hypocrite's.

I remember last summer when a ''big'' piece of the Arctic (south pole) was breaking up, 400 square kilometer I believe.
Sounds big he ?
But that part of 400 square kilometer fitted (sorry, don't know the correct word  ) to a larger pieces of 6000 square kilometer, and THAT piece of 6000 square kilomter fitted to a pieces of 2 MILLION square kilometer ( or something like that ) in the end it was nothing compered to the big picture of the arctic. A flick with a finger, a drup of water in your glass, nothing.

Be carefull with the ''dangerous'' news they are telling you, it's is all correct, but they don't tell everything, if they would, it would'nt be even news.

Here in Europe the weather sucks, damn cold and wet summer.

And guess what ?
There is no one telling us the climate is getting warmer, once the temprature's go's over 25/30C these guys will show up....
Hope it's gonna be a hell cold winter to finally get rid of these lie'ing self furfulling money taking hippie's.

Bastards they are.

Climate change ? what's new since day one earth's got a climate ?


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Actually I'm still trying to find evidence that sea levels are rising. Reports I saw stated that they are on a declining trend since the mid 20th century. I live in a costal community and if the predictions are true of sea levels rising as much as some suggest than I guess I should be scared, but I could also get hit by a bus too so why the panic?

Is Al gore's documentary available online some where? I've been meaning to watch it for a while now but never got around to it. I already saw a slightly older and much less known documentary that disputes the climate change theory.

On a personal note, the last 2 years have been miserably cold, with summer feeling more like a long spring. But in fairness other parts of the country had heat waves, so thats not here or there. 3 years ago summer was nice, really nice, long hot and dry.


----------



## paker (Jun 20, 2008)

Why is it when people talk about "global warming" they tend to forget that warmer weather means more evaporation. What does that mean? It means more precipitation in the form of rain and snow which leads to more clouds that blocks the sun and cools the earth, along with what's falling.


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

paker said:


> Why is it when people talk about "global warming" they tend to forget that warmer weather means more evaporation. What does that mean? It means more precipitation in the form of rain and snow which leads to more clouds that blocks the sun and cools the earth, along with what's falling.


Sorry Paker, you're being too simplistic.

The problem with global warming isn't the warming. It's the melting of the polar ice, which dilutes the salt water content of the North Atlantic Current.

The stream carries warm equatorial water to the north atlantic (off Scotland) and warms Europe's climate, and gives England it's wet weather.

With Greenland melting, the danger is that the Current will shut down, preventing the warm weather from reaching Europe. We don't know enough about it to tell WHEN it will shut down, but the conditions would be something like a critical salt/fresh water mix threshold being crossed.

So Global warming, droughts, carbon, all those issues aren't really the problem. It doesn't even matter if burning coal and carbon causes warming. The glaciers are melting along with the polar ice caps. The last chunk that broke off Antarctica was the size of Rhode Island, and that polar ice is all fresh water - busily melting and diluting the currents.

That's the reality. What are we doing about it? Arguing about who will pay...

And to the sceptics:
If you live in America, go to the National Archives and look at the declaration of independence. On the wall behind it is a painting of the declaration being presented to Congress. Next to it is a painting of Washington crossing the Delaware River to defeat the British and end the way.

THERE ARE ICEBERGS IN THE RIVER.

That's right. The Delaware River froze in 1851. Not any more. In just 150 years the planet has warmed sufficiently to prevent it happening.

The ice is melting. One day, the North Atlantic Current will shut down. When that happens Europe's summer will become like their winter and their winter will be unlike anything we've experienced.

I live in Australia. We are largely unaffected by the NAC and I'm sure we will welcome the refugees along with places like Mexico, Afghanistan and Africa...

Just check out the SIEV-X first, so you understand our government's attitude towards asylum seekers...


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

The Flying Dutchman said:


> Dude, If climate really get's warmer the sea level will drop...
> 
> Think about a glass FULL of ice, what will happen when all the ice is melted ?
> 
> ...


Better check again. The ice displaces the same amount of water, just leaves 10% floating on top. If the whole north pole melted, no change in sea level (the ice is floating). If the Antarctic all melts, it will rise some.

But, I like the idea of ocean front property near Atlanta and all my Canadian and Russian friends stand to benefit greatly from a 10 degree increase. So, until someone can tell me what the "RIGHT" temperature of the earth is (and convince me of it) this Chicken Little garbage is so much noise.

Oh, latest reports: Temperature for the past 10 years is DOWN slightly...


----------



## jlsawell (Apr 4, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Better check again. The ice displaces the same amount of water, just leaves 10% floating on top. If the whole north pole melted, no change in sea level (the ice is floating). If the Antarctic all melts, it will rise some.
> 
> But, I like the idea of ocean front property near Atlanta and all my Canadian and Russian friends stand to benefit greatly from a 10 degree increase. So, until someone can tell me what the "RIGHT" temperature of the earth is (and convince me of it) this Chicken Little garbage is so much noise.
> 
> Oh, latest reports: Temperature for the past 10 years is DOWN slightly...


I don't think you read my comments properly. Not once did I refer to water LEVEL or TEMPERATURE as the problem. The issue is the salinity of the NAC. Even if they are measuring it, we just don't know what the threshold is for it to shut down.

It's all about the heavier Salty water and the lighter fresh water. As the water evaporates from the North Atlantic and becomes London drizzle, the heavier, more salty water sinks to the bottom and returns to the equator.

Disrupt that balance, and in one season you'll see a different type of winter, because the equatorial warmth will stay in the south.

It will eventually rebalance, as the new ice & snow in the north will suck up some of the fresh water, and gradually the NAC will move further and further north until we get back where we are today.

But please understand... melting ice isn't about temperature or sea levels - it's about the salinity mix in the NAC.

Al Gore presents it pretty well in An Inconvenient Truth.

There's also a story called Bristow On Ice, which I will try to find and post.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> I don't think you read my comments properly. Not once did I refer to water LEVEL or TEMPERATURE as the problem. The issue is the salinity of the NAC. Even if they are measuring it, we just don't know what the threshold is for it to shut down.
> 
> It's all about the heavier Salty water and the lighter fresh water. As the water evaporates from the North Atlantic and becomes London drizzle, the heavier, more salty water sinks to the bottom and returns to the equator.
> 
> ...


I'm pretty sure I read you correctly, although you are correct that I wasn't replying to your ENTIRE post. Also keep in mind that some of what I say is tongue in cheek.

The part of your post I was responding directly to was:



> Dude, If climate really get's warmer the sea level will drop...
> 
> Think about a glass FULL of ice, what will happen when all the ice is melted ?
> 
> ...


This is a common misconception but is simply untrue for any body of floating ice, no matter what it's salinity. If the ice melts, the water neither rises nor falls even a millimeter because it is the mass displacement which affects the water level, not the volume in it's liquid or solid states.

Now, MANY things affect the water currents which directly affect the weather in much of the world, but I'll go out on a limb and say that anyone, even experts, who think they have it ALL figured out is really just a pompous stuffed shirt. There are still too many unknowns at our current state of understanding to state with certainty what "would" happen, because as soon as you change one thing something unexpected happens.

Cheers!


----------



## The Flying Dutchman (Aug 15, 2008)

Well, I also heard about the ''ocean flow'' , and when all the ice melt's al; that water (heavy water I suppose) would affect the ''flow'' of the ocean's.

But still, if it would happen, or is happening, we just can't change that. 

And when the first sign's where there for a (warmer) changing climate, im pretty damn sure modern ''polluting'' machine's where not around.

What about the ice-age a few 1000 years ago ?
Do you think that also was the cause of gas-guzzeling machine's ? 

If it is happening it is happening, simple as that, we can't change it, and we did'nt cause it.

If weather was tracked and monitored (sorry  ) for 800years, that time would be to short to conclude the climate is really changing.

You need more like 10000 years orso to come to an ''relieable'' avarage.
With drastic up's and down's in that period.
And not just the temprature, but also the amount of gasses in the air, space radiation (mainly from the sun) and pretty sure a few more factor's.

I also believe there are currently 4 major sunspots on the sun that produce an amazig amouth of heat radiation.
With is directly affecting our air, and indirectly our ocean, by warming it up very very very slowly.

It has absolutly nothing to do with our life stlye.

But, I agree with the fact that we can/must live cleaner and more effiecient.
Just because WE CAN.

But the dirty trick's our government is playing, taxing everything a bit more ''because it is better for the enviroment'' it's just AARRRGGGG ! 
The alternative's are just to expencive, and they make the ''old dirty in-efficient (compared to the the most advanced) things'' more expencive by taxing it extra. 
Either way IT'S GONNA COST YA ! 

They should be fair, not taxing dirty things extra, but just telling us kindly that we should use cleaner verhicle's because it will be better in the end for us all.

It's all about money and profit, like almost everything in our modern world.

The big climate HOAX.

Was signed, 
Al Gore.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Yep - Live clean. Kill government corruption and favoritism - support the FairTax!


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

The Flying Dutchman said:


> But the dirty trick's our government is playing, taxing everything a bit more ''because it is better for the enviroment'' it's just AARRRGGGG !


 
Heres where I draw the line and pick sides....

Don't know if climate change is a deliberate hoax or not, but carbon *taxes piss me off!!!!!!!!*

The leader of the official opposition in canada wants to impose a carbon tax if elected prime minister. And strangely enough, he has support from some urban voters. You gotta love how they are able to turn one citizen against another when it comes to who is to blame for things that no one can really control anyway. The current government is trying to fight the idea, but polls don't look so good at the moment.

I like eating fresh produce, much of it comes from Chile right now thanks to a "fresh" trade deal between canada and chile. Being further than california one could argue that buy purchasing those fruits instead of the closer produce from the USA, I'm making a poor decision for the earth (more fuel burned to get it up here). But I'm not going to pay more for a product thats not as fresh, usually picked green and costs more. Apples from new zealand are also way better than what gets exported from the states. Of course I will buy locally grown produce when its in season (like now) as there is nothing wrong with it other than its not available year round. No offense indented to any americans, but the fresh produce that you send north has a ways to go in terms of quality....

Where am I going with this? well, if leaders like Dion have his way, carbon taxes could be applied to produce that comes from other parts of the world making it more expensive to eat healthy. This is a scam and maybe even an excuse for market protectionism. First the GST was introduced now its going to be carbon taxes. Those are not fixed taxes, they are by percentage, meaning that as the cost of fuel goes up, so too does the amount of revenue made. I pay enough tax already, thank you very much.

And if any of you believe that these taxes will be "revenue neutral" as claimed, well I've got a bridge to the province of PEI that I can sell you. Only a few years old and made to last a century

With all the rhetoric about an election coming up, I can't wait to cast my ballot. I'll go to an election office the day it opens and cast my vote ASAP!!!! These idiots really piss me off


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

The new slavery is economic slavery; contrasting what the government does for you vs. what you could do for yourself is a no-brainer. When the politicians can persuade the people to argue about WHAT to tax, the people have already lost the battle for freedom. Politicians win when they can tax so many little things that we are no longer aware of the total level of taxation burden placed upon us - and even when one tax is successfully defeated, it is simply moved around. That is why a solution like (if not exactly) the FairTax is the only hope of reclaiming our freedom - because they cannot hide the taxes when they only have 2 numbers (the prebate amount, and the tax rate) they are allowed to quibble over.

By this measure, there are almost no free countries left on earth - and it will get worse, not better.

But, I still want electric cars...


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

What is this "fairtax"? Is it a GST? (goods and services tax)?

We have that in canada in addition to income and other taxes. It has saved the country from ballooning national debt though. We've had consecutive surplus federal budgets for well over a decade now. The federal GST was recently cut from 7% to 5% (campaign promise).

I'm gonna be so pissed if they impose another tax (carbon tax) on top of everything else.

Probably the only thing that would keep me form going insane is an EV at this point. Ahh... theres that happy thought again


----------



## ww321q (Mar 28, 2008)

This is a video a friend sent to me . J.W. 
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=pKFKGrmsBDk


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Note: This discusses an off-topic issue by invitation. I will keep it short and not repeat. Apologies to the topic purists.

Simple answer: The FairTax replaces virtually EVERY Federal Tax with a simple sales tax. To avoid taxing the poor, each citizen receives a check each month for the amount you would spend living at the poverty level. Thus no tax on "Necessities" as stipulated in our Constitution - it is left up to the individual, instead of politicians, to determine what is a "Necessity" The result is a system that is simple and inexpensive to administer.

There are several advantages to the system, the most important from my perspective being that government cannot hide how much they really tax us. It also makes domestic goods compete better both domestically and abroad; reduces the cost of tax compliance / collection by $500 billion (yes, billion) per year (5% of the U.S. GDP wasted); and puts control over how much tax we pay in the hands of the people instead of the Congress.

For example: The GST increases the cost of what you buy, but if it is like the European VAT tax you often get charged more than once. This is because for any product which undergoes more than one step in manufacture will include in it's final price any GST charged for the components to make it, and then GST will be charged on that as well. The same phenomenon occurs with Income Tax, Employment / Labor taxes, etc. With the FairTax, only the final retail sale is taxed - preventing "double-dipping."

Politicians (no matter what party) love to disguise your taxes and to make thousands of little taxes - so if you manage to have a popular uprising against one tax they still have lots of your money.

In the U.S. today, the median person (#50 out of 100) pays over 50% of everything they earn in taxes (State, Federal, Local). The logical question you have to ask yourself is, if over half of everything you produce is taken from you, are you free?

End of description, for more info visit http://www.fairtax.org. Several countries NOT the U.S. are pursuing this alternative as a way to be more competitive globally.


----------



## ClintK (Apr 27, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> In the U.S. today, the median person (#50 out of 100) pays over 50% of everything they earn in taxes (State, Federal, Local). The logical question you have to ask yourself is, if over half of everything you produce is taken from you, are you free?


What's sad is when people see the FairTax rate (up to 23%/30% depending how it's calculated / your income), they complain that it's some giant tax increase when they are already paying that. It's not a tax increase - it's just showing you how much the government really steals from you.

Neither Obama or McCain will support the FairTax, the only hope is Bob Barr.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Canada has a GST, and its a mixed blessing. Although nearly everything that moves has it applied. Food and some other essentials are exempt. You will see a GST happen eventually in the USA, its only a matter of time with the deficits that washington is racking up. But I wouldn't count on seeing income tax getting abolished.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

The root problem isn't the tax system, although inefficient systems which allow politicians to hide true tax levels helps them to keep outrage suppressed.

The root problem is spending, which is not Constitutionally limited.

Historically, every empire which does not act to keep spending in check and balance their budgets ultimately collapses - which will truly stink if it happens about the time I'm dreaming of retirement.

As an interesting side note, a Sheriff in Arizona has demonstrated that it is possible to humanely clothe, house, feed, and contain prisoners all for around $1 per day. This tells me that, aside from the military, we could easily have a government less than 10% as expensive as it is today and still do everything IMPORTANT that it does - maybe better.


----------



## The Flying Dutchman (Aug 15, 2008)

You guys don't wanna know what is happening in Holland right now.

We proud hard working Hollanders have had it with our government.

Media is beginning to turn his back on the government, 2 policitians in our parliament are under serious investigation by the media, And 1 politician is already gone because of corruption and theft, 10years ago he broke in to the ministerie of defence... 

We have had it with this corrupt government, they even wanted to raise the -standard- tax to 20% ( a tax with is standard on all products, don't know the right word in English ) , but under the pressure of ALL people it did'nt make it.
Happely.

The Hollanders are really beginning to wake up now, There are probably ( like 100% ) more corrupt and criminal politican's in our government right now, but im pretty sure the media is gonna get them soon.

And can you imagine, if we have 10 criminal/or corrupt politicians in our Holland government, what would it be like in the EU-government/parliament ?

It's all a bunch of maffia.

I really hope other people in the other EU country's are also beginning to wake up and get after there ''leaders''.

Something big is gonna happen in the EU, if not the EU, then Holland.

I estimate this government will sit 5 more weeks, and after that (or sooner) it will fall.
It's really a mess here.

You will probably see on CNN soon ''Dutch government falls AGAIN'' or something like that.

Hope the whole EU will fall apart, and Holland will stand on it's own again.
Without corrupt and lie'ing EU leaders.

Sorry for going off-topic, but i think you Americans just need to know this. Europa isnt a great place to be. not anymore.

Anyway, watch the news on falling Holland government


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

The Flying Dutchman said:


> You guys don't wanna know what is happening in Holland right now.
> .....
> Anyway, watch the news on falling Holland government


Sorry for your pain. The problem is that once a Democratic country has half of it's people working for the government you will NEVER vote to make government smaller.

That's why the writers of the Constitution did not want a Democracy. They knew it was a trap.


----------



## ClintK (Apr 27, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> This tells me that, aside from the military, we could easily have a government less than 10% as expensive as it is today and still do everything IMPORTANT that it does - maybe better.


If you were to cut military acquisition spending in half, the military would be -better-. I typed up a bunch of personal experiences I've had, but it's not appropriate for me to post them publicly so I took them out... I'll say this though: It's #[email protected]#ed, completely #[email protected]#ed.




The Flying Dutchman said:


> but i think you Americans just need to know this. Europa isnt a great place to be. not anymore.


My wife is from Germany (the U.S. immigration process is ridiculous by the way), and she -hates- their government. Especially their universal health care system, education system, welfare system, tax system, etc.. etc..


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

ClintK said:


> If you were to cut military acquisition spending in half, the military would be -better-. I typed up a bunch of personal experiences I've had, but it's not appropriate for me to post them publicly so I took them out... I'll say this though: It's #[email protected]#ed, completely #[email protected]#ed.


You will not get an argument from me on that - that would reduce U.S. Federal spending on the Military to a reasonable 2% of GDP, the same as Japan's. I expect that that will happen anyway - see the trend of U.S. military spending over the past 50 years here.


----------



## paker (Jun 20, 2008)

jlsawell said:


> Sorry Paker, you're being too simplistic.
> 
> The problem with global warming isn't the warming. It's the melting of the polar ice, which dilutes the salt water content of the North Atlantic Current.
> 
> ...


Sea Ice May Be on Increase in the Antarctic: A Phenomenon Due to a Lot of 'Hot Air'?

A new NASA-funded study finds that predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic’s Southern Ocean. This adds new evidence of potential asymmetry between the two poles, and may be an indication that climate change processes may have different impact on different areas of the globe.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/sea_ice.html

*Western Greenland Ice Growing; Still Global Warming*

The lynchpin in the anthropogenic global warming theory is the shrinking Arctic ice, but now that some of that ice is actually increasing, scientists claim, without a trace of irony, it is normal for temperatures and ice sheets to fluctuate. 

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/ly...rn-greenland-ice-growing-still-global-warming


----------



## EVBug (Aug 19, 2008)

Wow...I'm stunned to hear you say that. The media here paints Europe as "the place to be" and that the U.S. is so behind the times in terms of government programs, environment, health care and education (and a host of other issues)

I was also under the impression that most Europeans support belonging to the EU. Is this not true? As one guy, I realize that you can't speak for all of Europe but your opinion is of interest.


----------



## EVBug (Aug 19, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> You will not get an argument from me on that - that would reduce U.S. Federal spending on the Military to a reasonable 2% of GDP, the same as Japan's. I expect that that will happen anyway - see the trend of U.S. military spending over the past 50 years here.


As a military member, I'll say that it's not the costs, it's the choices of where the money goes that pisses me off. We spend so much money on high tech warfare in an attempt to eliminate the need for sheer numbers of boots on the ground. Our military hasn't been this small since 1917. We already hold a gross technical edge in nearly every method of war, but we don't have nearly enough humans in the military. Why? Because humans require health care and retirement plans. When a plane, tank or ship wears out, you just recycle it. We don't need sexier aircraft, ships and tanks, we need people. We've nearly contracted ourselves right into the ground.

History also shows that governments that resort to mercenaries (like Blackwater) always fail.


----------



## EVBug (Aug 19, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Sorry for your pain. The problem is that once a Democratic country has half of it's people working for the government you will NEVER vote to make government smaller.
> 
> That's why the writers of the Constitution did not want a Democracy. They knew it was a trap.


Lol..are you kidding? Nearly everyone in America doesn't understand that we're not (and not supposed to be) a "democracy". If you ask the average Joe or Jane on the street, we are a democracy. You should see the looks I get when I try to explain that we're a Republic.


----------



## EVBug (Aug 19, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> The new slavery is economic slavery; contrasting what the government does for you vs. what you could do for yourself is a no-brainer. When the politicians can persuade the people to argue about WHAT to tax, the people have already lost the battle for freedom. Politicians win when they can tax so many little things that we are no longer aware of the total level of taxation burden placed upon us - and even when one tax is successfully defeated, it is simply moved around. That is why a solution like (if not exactly) the FairTax is the only hope of reclaiming our freedom - because they cannot hide the taxes when they only have 2 numbers (the prebate amount, and the tax rate) they are allowed to quibble over.
> 
> By this measure, there are almost no free countries left on earth - and it will get worse, not better.
> 
> But, I still want electric cars...


Agreed, but what about the flat income tax vs. the Fair Tax (or Federal Sales Tax)? Instead of having the gov't pay to send out a check for "essentials" each month, wouldn't this be better? Or at least, wouldn't it be better to make food and maybe certain clothing items tax exempt?


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

EVBug said:


> As a military member, I'll say that it's not the costs, it's the choices of where the money goes that pisses me off. We spend so much money on high tech warfare in an attempt to eliminate the need for sheer numbers of boots on the ground. Our military hasn't been this small since 1917. We already hold a gross technical edge in nearly every method of war, but we don't have nearly enough humans in the military. Why? Because humans require health care and retirement plans. When a plane, tank or ship wears out, you just recycle it. We don't need sexier aircraft, ships and tanks, we need people. We've nearly contracted ourselves right into the ground.
> 
> History also shows that governments that resort to mercenaries (like Blackwater) always fail.


First and foremost, thanks for your service!

My 9 years were in the Air Force, flying F-4 Phantoms (like my sig?) half of that and fighting beside the Army with Motorola as my weapon of choice the other half.

I think we're good on the "mercenary" angle. We still have plenty of young Patriots like yourself willing to enlist to get the job done. And, from the perspective of protecting the homeland, the recent re-affirmation of the 2nd Amendment means that we STILL have the world's largest standing militia! Now, if people would only remember the OTHER reason for the 2nd amendment...

Don't rush to poo-poo Blackwater. Most of them are true professionals who cut their teeth in the U.S. Military, and they have their place. There are definitely situations which call for paramilitary not-in-uniform security forces, and as a soldier you simply cannot fill that role (you MUST wear the uniform).

And again I'm a bad boy for helping this thread stray so far from Electric vehicles. Am I clever enough to tie it all together?

Ah, let's try this. Political stability is critical in these times of organized terrorism so that governments can keep their focus on assisting our inevitable transition off of Petroleum and on to clean renewables. Thus, while not a signatory to the bogus extortion money for carbon bragging rights Kioto Protocols to further fund the evil growth of the Useless Nitwits (U.N.), the United States provides leadership both through application of limited military intervention to stop eco-terrorists and through it's example of minimizing pollution from existing energy sources while encouraging competitive development of clean electric alternatives.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

EVBug said:


> Agreed, but what about the flat income tax vs. the Fair Tax (or Federal Sales Tax)? Instead of having the gov't pay to send out a check for "essentials" each month, wouldn't this be better? Or at least, wouldn't it be better to make food and maybe certain clothing items tax exempt?


Check your PM's, let's take it off line. Don't wanna get banned already for politics!


----------



## The Flying Dutchman (Aug 15, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> Sorry for your pain. The problem is that once a Democratic country has half of it's people working for the government you will NEVER vote to make government smaller.
> 
> That's why the writers of the Constitution did not want a Democracy. They knew it was a trap.


Sorry for your pain, but that's not the case yet. 

There really is still hope for a fair and better Holland, trust me.

Here, this is what is on the subsidized (?) channels right now : 
http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/224071/f4896399/leftwing_european_reporting.html

Our dirty ass left wing government is PRO Obama and is really indoctrinating people with it. They all fund these channels for there idea.
People know this.
If this is also on American TV, don't believe it, that's not the opinion of Dutch people, it really is not. 
It's all government funded crap what you see on TV these days.

Maybe you heard about Pim Fortyun and Theo van Gogh from Holland ?
Both assisinated, smart guys they where, and still a huge influwence today with many debate's.
This is a video from them when the EU was formed, they discussed it.
Anyway, interesting stuff, and I think more people should/must see this video. It's only 8 minute's long, very/the best video with 2 great and clear mind's. ( yes, it's got good american subtitle's )
The real hero's of freedom of speech, killed. You should watch it. 
http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=bv8CiW6xX3U

After they got killed, we have never seen this kind of program's on TV.
Discussing and explaining EU parliament in this clear way.
It explains almost everything. In just 8 minutes... 

Maybe you heard about Geert Wilders to ? ( im sure you have  )
Well, he is kind of nuts, but everyone understand's his idea's ( don't stare at the Islam issue only, like government does to break him )
He is a clear an fair man, maybe not the smartest guy in the world, but he is fair, talk's what he thinks, spot on, without any words around the topic.
Just a straight guy who isn't afraid of anything.

I think he won't be the next president of Holland, but he's influwence is going to skyrocket.
He is the opposite of today's minister's, but people are very interested with him, we like his idea's.
Of couse some of his idea's are really radical, and there is no way these idea's are going to happen.
But he points in the right direction, maybe a bit to much to explain, but he is against the wasting money government we have today, enough for me to vote for him.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Almost sounds to me like they killed off the moderates so that only the extremists (or at least seen as extremist) voices are left to oppose the standing government. This makes it a simple matter of choosing the lesser of two evils as far as the average voter is concerned and that usually means supporting the current government.

We had the conservative political movement nearly wiped out in the early 90s here in canada. That was mainly because they were in power for a while, and did some things that were unpopular (like introduce the GST) and when the outgoing prime minister retired, his replacement was a complete idiot and suffered the worst political defeat in canadian history. She was the only female prime minister canada ever had.

The right wing of Parliament was then split into several parties and fought each other as often as the ruling liberals. It took over a decade before the conservative movement finally joined forces again and we now have a conservative minority government. They are far from perfect, but at least they make some effort to keep campaign promises. Currently vote splitting is happening on the left wing of Parliament allowing right wing to come up the middle and get in office (barely).

I agree that the rest of the world would certainly vote for obama if given the chance. But in america, the republican leader has all but vaporized his lead in the polls with a few simple but effective attack ads. Now the real race is about to begin. Lets face it, the world can think whatever it wants, but the real decision is that of the american voter to make. 

Sorry to hear about the crap the EU has brought you. I was under the impression that things would get better with europe more united, but I guess thats not the case and I would sooner trust the word of some one that has to live there than what the news media tells me here. Not really a big surprise I guess. The UN is full of corruption in spite of all the nice things they claim to be doing for the world.

Those of you that can still vote make sure you cast that ballot next time around. Its not much of a real free democracy but its all we have for now. Sooner or later I may have to take a bigger role in my governments affairs and I would encourage anyone else to try and do the same if they can. Leaders need to be reminded of their place and if we let them, they will screw us over. We will only have ourselves to blame if we allow them to take away what little freedom we have left.


----------



## The Flying Dutchman (Aug 15, 2008)

Yeah, i just had to post this, I already thought that (most) American's where ''looking up'' to the ''smart'' EU.

Don't get fooled, things aren't great here, we are really being screwed.
Especially ''mighty tiny'' lands like Holland, Belgium, and Luxemburg (the BeNeLux)

The BeneLux WAS probably the most powerfull and richest part of Europa, just because of the simple fact that we don't like spending money, we really (especially Hollanders) save alot of money, we don't like spening it on small things, save alot, and then make 1, of 2 good buys that are worth there value and last.

But now, the BeNeLux is also being ''upgraded'' ? 
And now a small powerfull region of Germany want's to join..
yay, can't wait when the German's want things and demanding things.. 

Our tiny little 'ol trusty Holland is getting smaller and smaller by the day/week.

Maybe it's a little radical to say, but my country is being sold.
It's got no real identical anymore, no more windmills, wooden shoes, tulps, and cheese, whore's and redlight destrict and drugs.
Redlight district is now illegal, and Amsterdam want's to get rid of it.
( wow, nice big Holland culture thing sold, gone, vanisted right there.. )
Not that I ''like'' the Redlight district or something  But is was part of Holland.
Living free, doing what ever you want.
That's all changing, we alway's loved working hard, we did'nt mind, we love it, because it was good for the country, it always was, our great grand parents did it, with a lot of succes, and we are following them, also with a lot of succes. So no bothering about hard work, cause it pay's itself. 

But now, since the 1 EU thing, we are being FORCED to work hard.
Ofcouse, forcing people to do things alway creates the opposite.
I still love working, but there are moments that I think, what the hell am I doing ? Im working hard, and all the EU politician F*CKS are doing nothing usefull and trowing my hard earnt money away.
Should'nt I be protesting ? or something to get rid of those d*mned politicans ?

And these kind of story's are beginning to show up more and more, even my grandpa (who has absolutly no harm in himself, and always is positive about things) is complaining.

No wonder, he is seeing how his land, wich he build up after WW2 is being ruined. 

If the next parliament ( over 2 years we may vote again, or sooner I hope  ) is not the good one, Holland really is lost, sold to the big EU...

It's really sad to see, and alot of Hollanders basically say the same thing about this.

A well, i quit now saying all this politics crap, cause it don't make me happy'er


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

The Flying Dutchman said:


> The BeneLux WAS probably the most powerfull and richest part of Europa, just because of the simple fact that we don't like spending money, we really (especially Hollanders) save alot of money, we don't like spening it on small things, save alot, and then make 1, of 2 good buys that are worth there value and last.


True - that, and the fact that the international bankers created quite a deal for themselves in Lux.



> Maybe it's a little radical to say, but my country is being sold.


Just "accurate." Welcome to the new world order.



> It's got no real identical anymore, no more windmills, wooden shoes, tulps, and cheese, whore's and redlight destrict and drugs.


You can find all those (except the red light district, and maybe that's there, too) in Holland, Michigan. Love the tulips...



> But now, since the 1 EU thing, we are being FORCED to work hard.
> Ofcouse, forcing people to do things alway creates the opposite.
> I still love working, but there are moments that I think, what the hell am I doing ? Im working hard, and all the EU politician F*CKS are doing nothing usefull and trowing my hard earnt money away.
> Should'nt I be protesting ? or something to get rid of those d*mned politicans ?


Oh, they are doing something useful - for themselves. And, they thank you most sincerely for your vote...



Democracy is the flip side of Socialism. America was great BEFORE it was a Democracy, when it was a Representative Republic. It arose in PROTEST over the international bankers, who were/are corrupt and were/are attempting to subjugate the world.

Don't expect another independent Republic to arise soon - not until someone invents an easy way off this rock or a big enough bomb to subdue the subduers.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

The Flying Dutchman said:


> Sorry for your pain, but that's not the case yet.
> 
> There really is still hope for a fair and better Holland, trust me.


It will be... jefferson saw the inevitablity of the government growing massive and stupid/lazy in a democracy where EVERYONE no matter their intelligence or value to society has the right to vote.



> I was under the impression that things would get better with europe more united, but I guess thats not the case and I would sooner trust the word of some one that has to live there than what the news media tells me here


Oh come on, when has power being unified EVER helped anything... ever. Even the US federal government vs. state run governments the way jefferson wanted is a disaster (epic one).


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> Oh come on, when has power being unified EVER helped anything... ever. Even the US federal government vs. state run governments the way jefferson wanted is a disaster (epic one).


I will say that canada was not always a single "dominion" as stated on the constitution, but we are better as a nation being united even if there is the odd squabble every now and then.

The american civil war was a major reason why canada was given a strong central government when it was first being pieced together.

The indian continent was more or less peaceful when under control of the british empire (one main language and one set of laws), but as soon as they left fighting broke out again. To this day they're still killing each other.

That does not mean that uniting different nations or peoples is always a good idea, but generally its better than fighting each other.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> I will say that canada was not always a single "dominion" as stated on the constitution, but we are better as a nation being united even if there is the odd squabble every now and then.
> 
> The american civil war was a major reason why canada was given a strong central government when it was first being pieced together.
> 
> ...


You're talking about a means to stave off violence (which is a necessary thing historically for nations to keep sane/prospering). War/violence keeps the nation active and alert, growing and thriving.

However, centralizing government is ALWAYS a "short" term stop gap for whatever crisis (name one... they've all been used as the excuse) that ends up being permanent (duh). I'd rather millions of people die a year in the US from wars between states (unlikely as hell anyway) than see civil liberties where they are today (and where they're going to inevitably head to, feudalism)


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> You're talking about a means to stave off violence (which is a necessary thing historically for nations to keep sane/prospering). War/violence keeps the nation active and alert, growing and thriving.
> 
> However, centralizing government is ALWAYS a "short" term stop gap for whatever crisis (name one... they've all been used as the excuse) that ends up being permanent (duh). I'd rather millions of people die a year in the US from wars between states (unlikely as hell anyway) than see civil liberties where they are today (and where they're going to inevitably head to, feudalism)


I want to try and be careful how I respond to that. Are you saying that war and violence is a good thing? Or just a necessary evil to keep us on our toes? I'll admit there are times when it may be warranted ugly though it may be....

Didn't think it was that bad in the states, at least not yet.

What I meant about canadian federalism is that most of the power is at the federal level, but the provinces still have local jurisdiction. The criminal code for example is strictly set by the national parliament, but the provinces are responsible for paying for services like health care (with some federal funding). Far from perfect but it seems to work well enough.


----------



## Telco (Jun 28, 2008)

If I owned property in two different states, and those two states went to war, would I have to kick my own @$$? Hur hur hur....


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> I want to try and be careful how I respond to that. Are you saying that war and violence is a good thing? Or just a necessary evil to keep us on our toes? I'll admit there are times when it may be warranted ugly though it may be....
> 
> Didn't think it was that bad in the states, at least not yet.
> 
> What I meant about canadian federalism is that most of the power is at the federal level, but the provinces still have local jurisdiction. The criminal code for example is strictly set by the national parliament, but the provinces are responsible for paying for services like health care (with some federal funding). Far from perfect but it seems to work well enough.


I'm saying that violence/war is a necessary evil and attempts to stop it from happening completely (which is socialism's goal) will only end in the quiet deaths (ie. starvation) of entire nations of citizens.

The way canada is set up is how the USA is, with several more socialistic things going on that are screwing your economy up than here. It only appears to work for a generation or two before collapsing in upon its own parasitical nature.

Centralization causes 2 things:
Inflation (inevitably this will kill it's economy at some point unless the central government is overthrown)
and taxation into poverty.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

What sort of socialism in canada are you referring to?


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> What sort of socialism in canada are you referring to?


Every single government program your country has would be considered socialist by defintion...

However, I'm fairly certain that government supplied health care is called "socialized" medicine for a reason.


----------



## paker (Jun 20, 2008)

I agree 100% with this film.

The Great Global Warming Swindle

http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=H525SOH2JJSerAPPqJG8DA&q=global+warming+fake


----------



## BillInInd (Aug 27, 2008)

paker said:


> I agree 100% with this film.
> 
> The Great Global Warming Swindle
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?d...=H525SOH2JJSerAPPqJG8DA&q=global+warming+fake


I could care less whether global warming is true or not. The fact remains that something has to happen to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels because I for one am tired of being a slave to big oil.

I plan on doing my part, the more people that think like me the better. I firmly believe that the US can become energy independent. I do know the technology exists to do so.


----------



## EVBug (Aug 19, 2008)

Although I believe that the earth is warming, I have some questions about our level of influence. Nonetheless, global warming is not my primary motivation for shifting to electric vehicles. As it has been already mentioned, this is about our independence. 

300-500 billion dollars a year, leaving the U.S. and into other nation's coffers just to keep our wheels turning. Nations who our government says are our "friends" and allies. Well let me tell you my friends, I have been to the Middle East and several nations in it. I'm hear to tell you that they are not our friends. The average man on the street can't stand us. They're tired of our interference, they're tired of what they see as our sucking their nations dry (though what they'd do with all that oil by themselves, I cannot say). The only people in that region who are our "friends" are the tiny group of people who rule those nations because we prop up their rule. The house of Saud, the seven emirates of the UAE, and a few others.

Make no mistake, we're also beholden to big business here in our own nation. No business wants you to buy less of their "product" or "use their product responsibly". They want us to use it with abandon because that's how money is made. Law of suppy and demand? Not any more. When we use less gasoline, the refineries cut back, artificially keeping supplies tight and prices high. Speculators drive up the price of crude when gasoline stockpiles artificially shrink. Lastly, emerging markets like China and India soak up any excess supply in the oil chain with their new found affluence. Hurricane Gustav forms and overnight the price of gas jumps 30 cents a gallon. 

So I ask you- Does anyone here want to be chained to this hellish alliance of politics, corporate greed and weather? I don't. 

Not only should we all be converting junkers into EV's as protest against the energy and auto industries, we should all be slowly gathering PV arrays and wind turbines to reduce our dependence on unregulated utility industries. BGE socked the Maryland area with a 72% rate hike the minute deregulation went into effect. Then a 6.7% rate hike some months after that. The state government flailed when their constituents wrote them in anger and squeezed a $170.00 per person "rebate" from BGE and Constellation Energy and promptly recouperated the loss with yet a 3rd rate hike.

Don't get me wrong- I support the free market but the free market requires a nudge now and again because the free market is a single-minded animal. It knows only one thing- profit. The free market can't sense when it's driving a nation into bankruptcy, when it's making it's citizens drink tainted water or breathe polluted air or pave over and demolish precious natural resources. Still I don't support a punitive tax on oil companies because that is punishment for being successful and we shouldn't punish success. We should punish energy companies by abandoning them. Difficult, but not impossible.

Fossil fuels are the energy source of a bygone era. We need to be smarter than the rest of the world and leave them behind.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

Technologic said:


> Every single government program your country has would be considered socialist by defintion...
> 
> However, I'm fairly certain that government supplied health care is called "socialized" medicine for a reason.


I suppose you're right. You would be hard pressed to find any canadian that will swear to you that out health care system is perfect, but you would be even harder pressed to find some one that wants it dismantled.
Canada is far from perfect, but we like it
I'm not sure what you mean by "socialized medicine for a reason". 



paker said:


> I agree 100% with this film.
> 
> The Great Global Warming Swindle
> 
> http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...l+warming+fake


Very one sided, but compelling none the less. Can some one perhaps post a link to other films on this subject? I've heard other documentaries that show these arguments and would like to know if any climate change proponents have directly addressed these points (sun spots for example).


----------



## xrotaryguy (Jul 26, 2007)

Socialized medicine makes sense in the same way that a socialized fire department or a socialized police department makes sense. By the way, all fire departments and pollice departments are socialized. They're not run my private industry like medicine is in the US.


----------



## paker (Jun 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> Very one sided, but compelling none the less. Can some one perhaps post a link to other films on this subject? I've heard other documentaries that show these arguments and would like to know if any climate change proponents have directly addressed these points (sun spots for example).


You might try searching the backgrounds of the scientists that were featured in this film. I doubt they would put their reputations on the line if the information they were presenting wasn't correct.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

xrotaryguy said:


> Socialized medicine makes sense in the same way that a socialized fire department or a socialized police department makes sense. By the way, all fire departments and pollice departments are socialized. They're not run my private industry like medicine is in the US.


Actually that makes about as much sense as socialising companies that make steel or cars. It only breeds stagnation. Socialism for police and fire departments never made sense.... ever. In fact a lot of early presidents were so against that idea because of what it would inevitably cause (massive waves of corruption and gun wielding HS graduates who can't say "you all" correctly).

Hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in each state a year just to handle it's police force, yet they can't even protect people 99% of the time, just serve subpeonas and ticket people (both totally unnecessary for them to do).


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

So what should we do for policing if there isn't a state/provincial or national level law enforcement?


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> So what should we do for policing if there isn't a state/provincial or national level law enforcement?


magistrates like there was in most places 80 years ago?

worked out fine, and lots of nations still do it this way. Magistrates can subpeona and lawyers would be involved in the judicial process

You'd then only need "officers of the court" to actively enforce warrants.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

While people are debating the data already proven about global warming,by the majority of scientists,the polar caps are melting because of corporate greed.


----------



## piersdad (Aug 16, 2008)

> the polar caps are melting because of corporate greed.


true and not only the polar caps but also the world financial situation is also melting down from those that take more than they earn from their own sweat.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

piersdad said:


> true and not only the polar caps but also the world financial situation is also melting down from those that take more than they earn from their own sweat.


You mean that socialism doesn't work and capitalism does?

Stop the presses, I think we should all have a talk with Pelosi about it.


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> While people are debating the data already proven about global warming,by the majority of scientists,the polar caps are melting because of corporate greed.


Majority of scientists??? Provide documentation , please!

Scientists are like bull rectums, they're everywhere, and they all put out too much B.S. ! BTW, global warming has also been "proven" to be caused by cow emanations ! (by scientists , of course)


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> While people are debating the data already proven about global warming,by the majority of scientists,the polar caps are melting because of corporate greed.


No, ONE polar cap has receded. The other has grown, and global ice is now thicker than when the debate started.

However, those with an emotional or financial investment in having "Global Warming" be true make sure to draw attention to where the ice is thinner - kinda like David Copperfield doing a magic trick.

Pollution needs to be stopped - we don't need any other reason. But this rabid sensationalism is a cancer corrupting the ethics of science - and is a far greater danger than increasing (or decreasing, as has been the case the past 3 years) global temperatures.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

Majority of scientists??? Provide documentation , please!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All anyone has to do is go to www.factcheck.org
If you don't understand the global warming facts after visiting the website please don't bother pretending to be the expert on the issue.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

http://www.factcheck.org/misleading-ads/scientist_to_cei_you_used_my_research.html


Anyone here talking about how there is no global warming may be working for Exxon Oil Company.
Read the BULLSHIT at CEI or find the facts on the link above.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I challenge anyone to find some sources of info about climate change that are truly unbiased on this debate. You won't find any, so the real question is who do you want to believe?


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> Majority of scientists??? Provide documentation , please!
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All anyone has to do is go to www.factcheck.org
> If you don't understand the global warming facts after visiting the website please don't bother pretending to be the expert on the issue.


ONE college based "political consumer advocate group "(self appointd) is hardly a reliable source. And I only claim to be an "expert" on recognizing B.S. and thats after 60 plus years of experience in the real world.

And I am not affiliated with any group or organization, political or otherwise. I am a retiree, former businessman and entrepreneur.


----------



## sunworksco (Sep 8, 2008)

It is the majority of the scientific community,not just one website!
I have been around for 58 years and my field is science and not bullshit!
You can go to the internet and even read about how Obama is an Arab terrorist,but we all know the bullshit.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> It is the majority of the scientific community,not just one website!
> I have been around for 58 years and my field is science and not bullshit!
> You can go to the internet and even read about how Obama is an Arab terrorist,but we all know the bullshit.


YOU MAKE MY TACO POP!


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> It is the majority of the scientific community,not just one website!
> I have been around for 58 years and my field is science and not bullshit!
> You can go to the internet and even read about how Obama is an Arab terrorist,but we all know the bullshit.


The Majority of the scientists are not even in the field concerned with global warming!

As for your field, I can only judge based on your postings. Most science is concerned with basing reports on reliable, provable information, not rumor, mis-statements or plain old b.S.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

**casually pushes desk over and takes cover**

Oh boy, here we go again


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

david85 said:


> **casually pushes desk over and takes cover**
> 
> Oh boy, here we go again


Now, David, hiding behind a desk is never a good idea!


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

sunworksco said:


> http://www.factcheck.org/misleading-ads/scientist_to_cei_you_used_my_research.html
> 
> 
> Anyone here talking about how there is no global warming may be working for Exxon Oil Company.
> Read the BULLSHIT at CEI or find the facts on the link above.


As I have previously pointed out, www.factcheck.org is not a reliable site. But thankfully, you aren't shouting this time.

"Global Warming," the theory that increases in CO2 absent any other change in the ecosystem can cause temperature increase, is not in doubt. There is in fact a weak correlation; however, it is modified by other environmental factors not completely understood.

However, "Global Warming," the theory that the VAST MAJORITY of recorded temperature increase in recent decades is largely or entirely due to the activities of mankind, is in disarray and retreat due to several observable facts which contradict it. First and most obvious is that Solar Warming is causing increases in temperature on all of the observable planets in our solar system - causing ice caps to melt on Mars, for example. Next is the fact that temperatures on earth have been in decline for the past 3 years - in defiance of predictions of Global Warmistas. Most disturbing of all is that the famous hockey-stick graph was developed from a technique of averaging which ALL serious scientists acknowledge is BAD science.

Now, all of that said I have no doubt that mankind has an impact on our climate, most notably in large population centers. We now outnumber RATS on the planet, something which speaks to an inherent flaw in our species driving us towards a lemming-like period of self-immolation. Finally, no one in possession of their sanity will argue that getting rid of pollution is a bad thing.

If you want to be taken seriously, you should not keep parroting unsupported calamity-theories which serve only to enrich certain celebrities and possibly the Useless Nitwits of the U.N.


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

oldtimer said:


> Now, David, hiding behind a desk is never a good idea!


You're right. I've been meaning to add some steel plate to the underside but never got around it. (LOL!!!)


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

david85 said:


> You're right. I've been meaning to add some steel plate to the underside but never got around it. (LOL!!!)


Don't forget to add a few solar panels while you're at it. And I hope you're planning on using recycled steel!


----------



## fish-a-holic (Jul 6, 2008)

In the 80's it was Global Cooling, when that didn't pan out the scientists came up with Global Warming. Was anyone in the upper Midwest last winter? Please, we sure could have used some of that Global Warming then. 
Seriously, this planet and the sun decide what the temperatures will be. Not a bunch of Monkeys with larger brains.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

fish-a-holic said:


> In the 80's it was Global Cooling, when that didn't pan out the scientists came up with Global Warming. Was anyone in the upper Midwest last winter? Please, we sure could have used some of that Global Warming then.
> Seriously, this planet and the sun decide what the temperatures will be. Not a bunch of Monkeys with larger brains.


Chimpanzees actually, though you clearly lack any logical deductive abilities.


----------



## fish-a-holic (Jul 6, 2008)

Logic is not always the best path.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

fish-a-holic said:


> Logic is not always the best path.


lol

It'd almost be funny if there wasn't that sad fact looming like a dark cloud, most people probably agree with you.

No wonder things are so screwed up and socialism has so much "draw".


----------



## ElvishWarrior (Apr 10, 2008)

Logic is only as good as its assumptions. When it's not something that is explicitly in front of our eyes (like 2+2=4 or F=m*a at speeds not approaching lightspeed), our assumptions usually boil down to religious beliefs, whether it's a belief in the existence or nonexistence of God, the nature of humanity (which usually boils down to what you believe God actually revealed about the nature of humanity), and the nature of the earth (like how old it is or if it's going to end.) It also has a lot to do with who in the world you already trust.

If someone really has a religious belief, they treat it as a fact. The whole principle of religious freedom recognizes that people with different beliefs can coexist peacefully if they don't use the power of the law to require others to subscribe to their religious beliefs.

Caring for the environment has many facets that are proven, such as preserving ecosystems and reducing or eliminating toxic waste. The belief that human activity turning hydrocarbons into CO2 is causing an unprecedented, unnatural, or dangerous form of global warming is not proven. The evidence we have goes both ways, which means in reality we just don't understand it enough, otherwise we would understand how it all fits together. Until then, we have to have room to disagree and live freely with our own choices, and socialism is not it.


----------



## oldtimer (Jul 30, 2008)

OH , no! We've degenerated this thread now to politics and religion, can SEX be far behind?? (Pun intended)


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

LOL......and that could lead to dancing!


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

ElvishWarrior said:


> If someone really has a religious belief, they treat it as a fact. The whole principle of religious freedom recognizes that people with different beliefs can coexist peacefully if they don't use the power of the law to require others to subscribe to their religious beliefs.
> 
> The evidence we have goes both ways, which means in reality we just don't understand it enough, otherwise we would understand how it all fits together. Until then, we have to have room to disagree and live freely with our own choices, and socialism is not it.



So basically you're saying that since morons/guillible people believe something is a "fact" matters at all whether it is one?

Ironicly there is a right answer about this subject and to sit around claiming that an intelligently evolved (assuming we did evolve) group of mammals couldn't extinct themselves and their entire planet due to their own stupidity is pretty naive.

There is enough carbon/methane in our crust to do it... I don't really see how that part is even up for debate (but apparently it is).


----------



## ElvishWarrior (Apr 10, 2008)

If someone didn't believe their religious belief was actually a fact, they wouldn't actually believe it. It would be an idea, not a belief. That doesn't mean all beliefs are correct, but religion that doesn't have anything to do with what you believe about life, the universe, and everything isn't really religion, it's entertainment.

That being said, some religious belief systems teach people to be respectful of people who hold other beliefs, which in essence means you each believe each other are wrong, but you can still peacefully coexist. Not all religious systems do.

We could get into a pretty serious match over long settled issues that are now apparently up for debate. You really don't want to go there.

Whether or not we have the potential to cause human extinction is a different discussion from whether or not we are actually causing global warming by CO2 emissions. We have the potential to irradiate the world with nuclear energy, but we haven't and aren't about to, and if we get any closer to doing it it won't be for scientifically debated reasons.

I'll give the above poster the benefit of the doubt, that he wasn't calling religious people morons or gullible, and only using them as an example to make a point. I don't consider myself one, so if any self identified morons or gullible people are reading this post, please make your objections known.


----------



## Technologic (Jul 20, 2008)

ElvishWarrior said:


> I'll give the above poster the benefit of the doubt, that he wasn't calling religious people morons or gullible, and only using them as an example to make a point. I don't consider myself one, so if any self identified morons or gullible people are reading this post, please make your objections known.


egocentricity tends to grow as stupidity does... so finding a moron that isn't also a narcissist about his own superiority is quite a feat. Of course this whole thing is kind of a cycle. Would you call someone a moron that realized he was one? well probably not, because at least he's smart enough to be humble. 

Good luck disproving global warming, however. There likely is no more futile or fruitless endeavour on this planet, besides convincing males that counting their bedroom "conquests" can never make them more valuable as a human being.

(there's your sexual reference)


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

Disproving or proving it are both irrelevant - that is what is so tragically comic. 

When no one can answer a really simple question like, "what's the right temperature of the earth?" - then whether the temperature is currently going up or going down becomes meaningless.

Personally, I think that ocean front property just outside of Atlanta would be just fine.


----------



## Astronomer (Aug 7, 2008)

PhantomPholly said:


> When no one can answer a really simple question like, &quot;what's the right temperature of the earth?&quot; - then whether the temperature is currently going up or going down becomes meaningless.


That's assuming that the "right temperature" is selected on the basis of the planet's health, which is not even remotely the case. 

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that alarm over global warming -- or environmentalism in general -- has anything to do with taking care of the planet, or maintaining the planet's health. The planet doesn't need our help to survive, and it certainly doesn't need us to tell it what temperature it should be. 

But we, on the other hand, definitely need the planet to survive. And human civilization depends on the Earth's temperature being in a narrow range, which is easily determinable. 

Make no mistake: the issue here is the survival of civilization, not the health of the planet. From that perspective, whether and how much the temperature rises or falls is anything but meaningless.


----------



## ElvishWarrior (Apr 10, 2008)

It looks like there is indeed need for and room for discussion on the subject. Name calling and mocking are neither lacking nor needed.

If you want to talk about logic, try this sequence.
1. Thesis: Consistent, continuous global warming is happening.
Room for discussion: a.) How long have we actually observed it with consistent means to measure it and consistent criteria? b.) Can we really prove that it is not cyclic?
Assuming the answer is yes:
2. Thesis: Global warming is man made
Room for discussion: a.) Has the rate of warming actually spiked based on human activity that would theoretically cause it? b.) Do we actually have the means to measure data, and have the data charted such that we can plot estimated emissions against global average temperatures? And have we compared that data to theoretical calculations of what greenhouse gas caused warming would look like? c.) Can we really prove that recently measured warming is not part of a continuous rate of warming that has been going on since before the widespread use of petroleum?
Assuming the answer is yes:
3.) Thesis: Man-made global warming is bad
Room for discussion: a.) Would the complete burning of fossil fuels not just revert the earth to temperature and a balance of CO2 and biomatter closer to what it was when dinosaurs walked the earth, and be just as natural as the dinosaurs dieing in a cataclysm that turned them into fossil fuels instead of letting them decompose and omit CO2? b.) Can we really prove that ocean levels would rise significantly even if all arctic ice melted? Note that sea ice would not raise the ocean level at all if it melted. Only antarctic ice would. Has anyone considered that erosion of shorelines may be mistaken for a rising ocean level? c.) Can anyone argue morally that it is better for the Sahara and Amazon to be inhabitable and Siberia and Baffin Island to be uninhabited than the other way around?

Rational responses to those questions is what is needed. So are win-win solutions like resource conservation, energy independence, natural habitat preservation, and technological development in general. People will buy into them much more if they have more reason to than global warming, and are not insulted for questioning it.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

ElvishWarrior said:


> It looks like there is indeed need for and room for discussion on the subject. Name calling and mocking are neither lacking nor needed.
> 
> If you want to talk about logic, try this sequence.
> 1. Thesis: Consistent, continuous global warming is happening.
> ...


I'm pretty sure you aren't referring to me vis-a-vis the name calling - I hope I have been sufficiently sensitive to attack only the data and not the person.

You left out: IF the recent "warming period" (still below historical norms, as demonstrated by the recent discovery just this past year that a mine worked in the Middle Ages on a mountain has became unfrozen in summer time for the first time in centuries) represents actual warming above cyclic norms; and IF it is partially or primarily man induced, DOES ANY OR ALL of said warming have anything to do with measured increases in CO2 and, IF so to what extent is that increase in CO2 contributing to the measured effects. Too, will said increases in CO2 naturally result in a countering effect from the environment (such as a massive bloom of plankton which devour CO2, which we would never have had an opportunity to witness because CO2 has been at historically low levels for centuries), and will that countering effect, given a bit of time, completely and unassistedly reverse the trend without any intervention nor behavioral changes from mankind?

You see, promoting part of a truth can be the same as telling a falsehood - although it certainly leaves the door open to the possibility that it is unintentional. Some questionable mathematical techniques have been used to create a graph that looks "bad," that "runs away geometrically," and all kinds of conclusions based on that false graph have generated a trillion dollar industry which may, at the end of the day, mean squat-all. I'm not convinced about the level of threat posed by global warming or even it's veracity - global warming being used here SOLELY to refer to the theory that man-made CO2 (and ONLY CO2 or other man-generated greenhouse gasses) will have catastrophic consequences to our environment (although I'm all in favor of eliminating pollution) - but I AM convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that people of power will happily inflate the danger for personal gain (power, money, publicity, etc.). For the warming observed, there are several other competing and / or contributing theories, such as increased solar activity (noted on other planets); varying ocean currents; LOCAL heating due to vast destruction of forests replaced by heat-absorbing Asphalt; ad infinitum. For the excitement generated we have ample historical precedent to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that exactly the same level of noise would be generated irrespective of the truth of the underlying ideology, and we need look no further than human greed and ambition to determine the fuel for this "fire."


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

PhantomPolly, the graph you refer to...is that the so called "hockey stick" graph?

Technologic, good one, and I also agree about the futility male conquests.....but thats definately a topic for another day.


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> PhantomPolly, the graph you refer to...is that the so called "hockey stick" graph?
> 
> Technologic, good one, and I also agree about the futility male conquests.....but thats definately a topic for another day.


Yes, I am referring to the "Hockey Stick" graph where they used a form of averaging which is specifically warned against to derive an apparent geometric runaway in temperatures. The method is flawed, and rather than treat it as suspect many choose to treat it as "proof."

Male conquests are never futile. They are simply non-existent. Women secretly make the decisions and let us feel like "it was us."

You can, however, increase your odds of being chosen by not being a jerk...


----------



## david85 (Nov 12, 2007)

I guess its a good thing there aren't any women on the forum LMAO!!


----------



## PhantomPholly (Aug 20, 2008)

david85 said:


> I guess its a good thing there aren't any women on the forum LMAO!!


Now don't go sell us or yourself short - "Nerd" is the new sexy!

When that fails, I pull out photos of the Phantom...


----------



## working2gether (Jun 7, 2013)

New Member here looking for help, has anyone have a clue where I can get parts in Australia as in Melbourne. Also after connections in Australia as in EV clubs or others that want to build EV`s or have.
Cheers John


----------



## drachir555 (Apr 23, 2012)

Wow. Captain Planet! You CAN'T be a GREEN extremist, without expecting some backlash from the retro-tech oil-can zombies from the industrial age. My advice is to just do what you can, and continue believing that we CAN EVENTUALLY change the world for the better. When the fossil fuels run-out ( AND THAT WILL BE WITHIN THIS CENTURY! ), the rest of the world will have no choice but to join us.

So let's get a head start, and lead the way.


----------

