No Global Warming, orly?

[IndiReloaded]

IThat to me means Hydroelectric (fought tooth and nail by environMENTALists), Nuclear (again, fought by whack-jobs), Wind (yet again), Solar, Geo-Thermal and of course, production of or use of renewable resources like methane and alcohol.

Agree. But hydro isn't fought my environmentalists, its a preferred solution. For the sane ones. Our entire province of BC is based on HE. Since you enjoy google, look it up.

Do I want to promote living simply and encourage others to use less? You bet. I personally feel that the best way to do that is to set the example, and when people ask as they inevitably do, I tell them - AND I tell them about the parts that will be REALLY relevant to their daily lives - like the fact that I'm 35Lbs. lighter than I was 3 years ago, and haven't changed my diet, except for cutting out most sugar, and the fact that every time I go to the grocery store, I save about $3.50 in gasoline... or to the EZ Mart, or the laundromat. We also make our own laundry detergent, BTW. People ask us all the time about our savings and my wife's work mates are starting to consider riding their bikes, as they've noted her weight loss. Those things are the things that get people's attention.

But you are missing the CHANGE aspect. You can't get ppl to change simply by explaining your results, you have to explain the WHY in a simple, easy to explain way they can understand.

Anyway, as I said you are an example to follow. I just wish I could convince you to actually explain to others the WHY since you are already DOING. The downside to science is, however right, its not all that accessible to most people. Our fault, but there must be other models to the same end. Anyway, kudos.

[HeartIsAching]

If you want to start discussing 'preferred findings' then you are nothing more than a nutcase conspiracy theorist. Have you actually read any of their reports yourself? Or, more importantly, the basic science data they are based on? Its NOT horseshit, tho some of their people are certainly idiots and have done dumb things, like their predictions on glacier melts.

I have no problem stating that. There are are idiots running the admin of entire universities and countries. That doesn't make the ACTUAL WORK the scientists do garbage. I'm talking about the actual science. I'm posting from direct knowledge and experience. I know you aren't a scientist, but try to at least use some common sense. Stop reading wikipedia (or whatever source) to look up your answer before posting. Just say you don't know.

As I said (or at least have implied) I have no agenda. I just know enough about science to know that if you have to discard data because it doesn't fit with your hypothesis, then your hypothesis is wrong. And if you do that, you're no longer indulging in science, you're dabbling in politics. I'm not saying I believe the concept is wrong, but I do know that the science involved in it right now is being influenced at least in some places by an agenda.

LOL, I don't trust wikipedia as an information source. I use it occasionally for something unimportant, as it's convenient, but I certainly don't trust it.

[HeartIsAching]

Agree. But hydro isn't fought my environmentalists, its a preferred solution. For the sane ones. Our entire province of BC is based on HE. Since you enjoy google, look it up.



But you are missing the CHANGE aspect. You can't get ppl to change simply by explaining your results, you have to explain the WHY in a simple, easy to explain way they can understand.

Anyway, as I said you are an example to follow. I just wish I could convince you to actually explain to others the WHY since you are already DOING. The downside to science is, however right, its not all that accessible to most people. Our fault, but there must be other models to the same end. Anyway, kudos.

Maybe where YOU ARE, hydro isn't being fought by environmentalists.

I'm originally from Oregon, BTW. Bonneville Dam has been providing most of their electricity for a loooooong time.

[HeartIsAching]

Anyway, as I said you are an example to follow. I just wish I could convince you to actually explain to others the WHY since you are already DOING. The downside to science is, however right, its not all that accessible to most people. Our fault, but there must be other models to the same end. Anyway, kudos.

I know why I do it - and the reason actually has little to do with any of the above... that reason'd probably make you snort and chuckle.

I just think that it's far more important to let people see how EASY it is, and give them reasons that fit into their daily lives, than to appeal to their (mostly non-existent) intellectual and/or altruistic reasons. They're worried about where the gas/electric bill is coming from. They're worried about where the house and car payment are coming from. They're worried about their weight, they're not worried about whether or not there'll be crops in 50 years. People don't think long term, generally.

The only thing I think you're wrong about, BTW, is how to motivate people to do better.

[IndiReloaded]

The only thing I think you're wrong about, BTW, is how to motivate people to do better.

I know how to motivate a certain type of person. There is no single way to do it. At the risk of sounding like the fluff I abhor, its "one peak, many paths". The ones who are wandering off into the bush (or worse, dozing entire roads that lead off the mountain) are what concern me.

[IndiReloaded]

Maybe where YOU ARE, hydro isn't being fought by environmentalists.

Well, there are always the people who decry a dam being built. Sadly, when you speak to them, they can't wrap their brains around what it would mean to NOT have that dam built. They still want their computers and lights and such, and as cheaply as possible, yes please!

Re: IPCC, I think I know the cherry picking you refer to. Its the argument about CO2 levels and how to measure them. But again, its misdirection on the part of those who don't want to face what increasing GHG would mean: auto industry, coal, Big Oil. Except for a very few nutcases who don't think GHG is a concern, scientists are unanimous about increasing levels. As I said, its not a matter of IF just WHEN. 50ppm less isn't going to halt climate change, just delay the major effects by maybe a decade, or less with the way China is burning its carbon stores. There are different models for how much impact is natural vs. man-made but there is NO DOUBT the levels are going up and is having effects. You might imagine its not an entirely easy causality to place w/absolute certainty.

But, even if you are hardcore "Climate Change--no such!" there is NO denying the pollution and health effects from burning fossil fuels. Anyone who lives or has been to LA, Mexico City, even Toronto is , literally, dying from the smog. So, if not climate change, how about just clean air for our kids?

[MaidenMinx]

One question for you Indi, is it too late? Can we really turn it around and save the planet?

And I agree with both you and HIA when it comes to motivating people. I was born to a greenies so for me preservation of the planet is ingrained. When I met hubby I had a hard time getting him on the same page... Until I found him a t-shirt that says, 'Save the Planet. It's the only one with beer!' Joke shirt but he's been having shorter showers and turning off more lights since I got it for him. Speak to peoples passions.

And yes, I understand global warming is the most immediate problem, though I do think with so many people on the planet it's ok if some devote themselves to other areas of conservation.

The way I see it is if we are going to clean the planet up, we wanna make sure we still have a variety of species to share it with.

[IndiReloaded]

One question for you Indi, is it too late? Can we really turn it around and save the planet?

And I agree with both you and HIA when it comes to motivating people. I was born to a greenies so for me preservation of the planet is ingrained. When I met hubby I had a hard time getting him on the same page... Until I found him a t-shirt that says, 'Save the Planet. It's the only one with beer!' Joke shirt but he's been having shorter showers and turning off more lights since I got it for him. Speak to peoples passions.

And yes, I understand global warming is the most immediate problem, though I do think with so many people on the planet it's ok if some devote themselves to other areas of conservation.

The way I see it is if we are going to clean the planet up, we wanna make sure we still have a variety of species to share it with.

I'll never say its too late. That will just give a certain mindset an excuse to give up. Plus, it depends what you mean by 'too late'.

The truth is, we will never be able to get off Big Oil's tit for a long while b/c we want to feed our planet. Too much infrastructure is dependent on it. We simply CAN'T run our combines, make fertilizer and ship food around the world without it. None of the alternative energy sources have anything close to the necessary capacity.

BUT, we can do more locally. HIA already said this in his post but I will summarize:

1. Buy local, work local. Use transit, bike or walk when possible, carpool. CHECK where your groceries come from and buy as local as possible to reduce the carbon cost of shipping that food. Grow your own food.

(and YES HIA, I am doing all this, I do own a car which increases my footprint but I work VERY close to home and carpool. I should transit more tho. Biking to work is difficult here we have big mountains.)

2. Consume less energy, recycle. Get to zero waste or as close as you can. THINK about the life cycle of anything you buy.

3. Get off the grid as much as possible. Put back INTO the grid if you can.

4. Stop having babies. Tell your politicians to adopt foreign policies that focus on education and improving women's rights. Take a stance on cultures that think its okay to be baby machines. Less babies = less starvation = more resources to develop responsible, productive members of society.

5. SUPPORT RESEARCH. TELL YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS THIS IS AN ISSUE TO YOU. Yes, I'm biased, but we really need to be investing in tech that will capture carbon. Planting trees isn't enough. Reducing consumption isn't enough. Necessary, yes, but not enough to deal with what is coming.

I'm sure I've missed stuff but those are the major ones, right there.

[HeartIsAching]

(and YES HIA, I am doing all this, I do own a car which increases my footprint but I work VERY close to home and carpool. I should transit more tho. Biking to work is difficult here we have big mountains.)

Good for you! My wife owns a car too... and I fly regularly, so I'm not perfect nor claiming to be.

4. Stop having babies. Tell your politicians to adopt foreign policies that focus on education and improving women's rights. Take a stance on cultures that think its okay to be baby machines. Less babies = less starvation = more resources to develop responsible, productive members of society.

One minor issue with this post:

The people that need to stop having babies aren't the industrialized world. Just about every heavily industrialized nation in the world has a static or negative population growth, excluding immigration.

I can't find a more recent one, but here's a fairly decent chart from 1995:


Ok, this one is more recent, but is a bar chart:

Darnit, image wouldn't load. Try this link: [url]http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0&v=24&l=en[/url]

You see a pattern here?

[KingZ]

I contribute to global warming because I want the human race to be wiped out.

Well just kill yourself you piece of shit.

[MaidenMinx]

One thought about pro-creation, I mostly agree with HIA, that the problem isn't procreation in general, it's who's procreating prolifically, and it's not just the countries that are doing it, it's the people within those countries that are doing it. Watch Idiocracy. Yes it's a comedy and yes it's a gross exaggeration but it's also plausible and scary.

Point being, we need people with ideas and morals and intelligence to procreate because this mess is going to take a few generations to clean up. If we tell the smart people not to procreate, a lot of them won't because it makes sense. Intelligence is at risk of being bred out of humanity, so is true artistic and musical talent but that is another argument all together. Common sense is nearly all gone. We need the next few generations to be raised by people that have these dying skills so that we don't screw it all up completely....

[rafterman]

Hate to break it to you, but water costs energy also. Especially in Oz. You may not be saving anything, just shifting your consumption.

So what do we do,Sit on the couch and rot? Everything requires energy. Take a look at these "wind farms". They contain copper wire that comes out of mines. These wind farms also cause noise polution too.
Also maybe google......Snowy mountains hydro-electric scheme.....Its one of the biggest engineering feats in the world.

[IndiReloaded]

So what do we do,Sit on the couch and rot? Everything requires energy. Take a look at these "wind farms". They contain copper wire that comes out of mines. These wind farms also cause noise polution too.
Also maybe google......Snowy mountains hydro-electric scheme.....Its one of the biggest engineering feats in the world.

Wow, you must be a socket scientist. Did I say that^? Reread my posts. Of course everything costs energy.

Different types of energy have different impacts on GHG emission. Coal and fossil fuels the most, renewables the least. I'm for the ones that have the least impact of on climate change. Wind generators can make noise and kill birds... its nothing compared to rising GHG levels. Deal with that issue first. THEN the other issues can be dealt with. Replacing wind turbines with kites, for example.

Google, btw, is buying up power from various wind farms in order to offset their data centre electricity from coal sources. They have a subsidiary called Google Energy. Its more complicated than I can bother posting here, but you can look it up.

[IndiReloaded]

One minor issue with this post:

The people that need to stop having babies aren't the industrialized world. Just about every heavily industrialized nation in the world has a static or negative population growth, excluding immigration.
You see a pattern here?

I'm pretty sure I tried to address your point already, but obviously I wasn't clear about it. I assumed my foreign policy comment made the point. Which goes back to my earlier comment about scientists thinking that things are more obvious to the general public than they actually are:

Tell your politicians to adopt foreign policies that focus on education and improving women's rights. Take a stance on cultures that think its okay to be baby machines. Less babies = less starvation = more resources to develop responsible, productive members of society..

Your posts made the point much better than mine, HIA and Minx. Thanks.

[MaidenMinx]

Lol Indi. That's where too much education can let you down sometimes. See I never would have been able to make the jump from here is the problem to here is a possible solution. I don't think I've ever told a politician anything.... and there have been many times I have been meaning to write to someone about how crappy the disability services are here in Aus.

Interesting that as I am typing in this thread, the kids news show is explaining the carbon tax.