Not so fast. Show me your proof or send me a check so I can do some more research. At this point I just cannot rule out the little green men. More study is definitely needed.
If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.
Great article! The IPCC and the other associated leeches who have the motive to perpetuate this fraud for their own benefit, are losing their public-relations-touch.
They're being exposed as the modern-day witch-doctors. It's all about making a living by telling a scare-story to the peasants. The whole AGW movement is run by a group of self-serving men driven by greed and fame, who use educational-degrees and political-posts to lend credence to their snowballing-hypothesis. They then get a bunch of sub-leeches who "go-with-the-flow" of the gravy-train, and then suck in the simple-minded, and those who are looking for a "ecological-Messiah-issue" to promote their "save-the-Earth" naieve agenda.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence that shows that there is any significant warming, that is different from other warming-periods in the past. Since any warming can't be differentiated from prior warmings, then One could not even begin to show evidence that man-is the-cause. If you can't prove there was a murder, then it is fairly hard to determine who the murderer would be!
Your NY Post story was written by an ExxonMobil-backed Anti-Green movement organization.
Green Watch is described by its host organization, the Capital Research Center (CRC) as a project "dedicated to monitoring the leadership, activities and funding of the liberal environmentalist movement. It is an on-line database and research apparatus that will help citizens, policymakers and the press find information about environmental policy and activist organizations that seek to use the power of government to achieve their objectives."
"Green Watch produces timely news reports and analyses that keeps you up-to-date on the latest developments in the environmental policy debate. Currently, CRC monitors and conducts research on over 500 environmental organizations. You can take an active role in the free market environmental movement by becoming a Green Watch Watchdog," CRC states in one of its publications. [1]
On its website it states that "Ever since the first annual Earth Day in 1970, environmental organizations have grown increasingly vocal. Supported by wealthy foundations and in some cases government grants, these tax-exempt groups orchestrate political, legal and public relations campaigns that aim to protect and improve the environment. But green activism, however well intentioned, often harms the environment it would save from Corporate America. It misrepresents the real gains made in cleaning the nations air and water. And its needlessly costly."
"As the most extensive on-line research tool profiling the environmental movement, GreenWatch.org informs the public and policy makers, it claims. [2]
But there are limits to the information that CRC reveals. ExxonMobil has voluntarily disclosed that in 2002 it donated $25,000 to the CRC for the Green Watch project [3] with another $25,000 following in 2003. [4] However, this is not mentioned on the CRC website.
So, yes, any denier group is going to try to hammer the IPCC.
ExxonMobil has voluntarily disclosed that in 2002 it donated $25,000 to the CRC for the Green Watch project [3] with another $25,000 following in 2003.
That is laughable. $25,000 when we have wasted $BILLIONs on flawed climate science. $25,000 is chump change man. BP in the Arctic has spent millions on grants to scientists to study everything under the sun. You are going to try and discredit an organization that got $25,000 lousy dollars? NICE TRY, but no cigar. IPCC and that bunch of UN crooks have been busted. AGW was supposed to be their scam after the Oil for Food program was exposed. There is very little the UN does that is legitimate. IPCC was not legit.
I'll give you credit you hang in there when there is little to cling to. No hockey stick, no melting glaciers, phony RAWS, etc etc.
You should look into the IAC. They are far more credible than anything the UN has going for them.
then suck in the simple-minded, and those who are looking for a "ecological-Messiah-issue" to promote their "save-the-Earth" naive agenda.
There is one less today. The cops shot him dead in Maryland. Probably be a full blown investigation, to determine if the guys civil rights were denied. There are a lot more just like him all around us. You can usually spot them They are in a VW microbus or 1973 Toyota Corolla, spewing black exhaust, completely plastered with stickers to save the whales, polar bears and the planet and Obama 08. Hanging out at the beaches, panhandling or dumpster diving.
I don't need to "discredit" anyone. They already discredited themselves by being a denier organization.
You can take anything a "pro-CC" organization says with the same grain of salt as a "denier" organization says. They both have agendas.
The only thing to do is try to rely on the fact that hopefully SOMEONE SOMEWHERE is doing some legitimate science.
Looking less and less like that's happening NEARLY as much as it needs to. . . sad state of affairs. . . The only thing I have going right now is that it's still a FACT that the WARMING IS HAPPENING.
We just need to have hope that someone is trying to figure out what man is doing to warm it up.
My fear has always been that the extreme heat kills the one animal or organism or plant which ends up curing AIDS, or cancer, or diabetes, or herpes, etc.
My fear has always been that the extreme heat kills the one animal or organism or plant which ends up curing AIDS, or cancer, or diabetes, or herpes, etc.
You need to think positive. If the planet heats up. It will open millions of acres of cropland to feed the starving people. Don't forget Greenland was all farmed about 1000 years ago. Before the industrial revolution, that is blamed for GW. Looks like we should get more rain at least in some places like Pakistan. That should help grow more food or in their case more drugs. :sick:
My fear has always been that the extreme heat kills the one animal or organism or plant which ends up curing AIDS, or cancer, or diabetes, or herpes, etc.
Since some of those issues are inherent to a person - genetics, and some of those are viruses, there is not much likelihood that any naturally occurring substance will be a cure for any of those. Unlike most science fiction movies, a "cure" does not kill 100% of all virus particles. Those that survive mutate, and are then resistant, and you would still have AIDS and other viruses. If we could cure aging, viruses, and cancer; I think you would find the Earth to be a very miserable place (very, very crowded).
The fact is that man's progress and use of fossil fuels has extended the lifespan of people in the developed countries. If we had not decided to burn those fossil fuels, we would be a lot worse off, than what you fear - the extreme heat killing the cures for diseases. So humanity has actually made the better choice - choosing a lifestyle full of improvements, versus being fearful and living in a 19th century mode, on some concern we may miss out on 1 improvement.
You throw around that "denier" word a lot. The person it fits best here is you. You seem to be blind to what everyone else here can see and you deny, deny, deny, in the face of quite obvious truths. Sad indeed.
The fact is that man's progress and use of fossil fuels has extended the lifespan of people in the developed countries.
I am reading EMPIRE OF THE CZAR by Marquis De Custine right now. He is commenting on how much wood the aristocracy burns in one winter to keep those huge palaces warm in Petersburg. He believes the forests of Russia will all be gone in a short time with that kind of usage. The year is 1825. Many parts of the world were using coal for heat in prehistoric times. we still have 100s of years of coal supply left. It seems each new generation comes up with something that will be our demise. Many of the same AGW people predicted the end of the oil supply before now.
My question is why do these people spend so much time worrying about such things? Adaptation to whatever your circumstances is a much better way to live. If you want to ride a bike or put up solar panels that is good. Just don't spend so much time, money and energy, stirring up fear in the masses of the unknown. Fear mongers, and that is exactly what Al Gore and the AGW Cult are, produce NOTHING. They are leeches on our society. When they sort out all the liars in the GW scam, they should be prosecuted and sent to prison. Preferably a hot one like the Yuma prison.
The word "DENIER" is used as derogatory name for anyone that does not go along with the AGW Cult without question. AGW was a "done deal" according to the high Priest of the Cult. Anyone that did not fall in line was a "DENIER".
Denier according to the dictionary is anyone that denies the TRUTH. I got news for you, much of the data used to push the AGW agenda is far from the truth. I think a much better word for those of US that do not follow goose step in line with the AGW cult is "Skeptic". I am a Skeptic of the first order any time the government is involved. I don't trust any of them to be honest and doing the will of the people. Except maybe your governor. :shades:
Following the embarrassing news that Mayor Dave Bing’s GMC Yukon was hijacked by criminals this week, Detroit’s Channel 7 reports that the Reverend’s Caddy Escalade SUV was stolen and stripped of its wheels while he was in town last weekend with the UAW’s militant President Bob King leading the “Jobs, Justice, and Peace” march promoting government-funded green jobs.
Read that again: Jackson’s Caddy SUV was stripped while he was in town promoting green jobs.
Add Jesse to the Al Gore-Tom Friedman-Barack Obama School of Environmental Hypocrisy. While preaching to Americans that they need to cram their families into hybrid Priuses to go shopping for compact fluorescent light bulbs to save the planet, they themselves continue to live large.
“We need an economy that creates employment that can't be shipped overseas,” the Green Rev wrote for CNN about the march. “Home-grown American labor will be installing windmills and solar panels. A green economy is not an abstract concept.”
Well, its certainly abstract to Jesse, but I digress.
Well, since you don't seem to mind the term "denier", I will continue to use it for those who still deny that most climate change is natural and that man's activities have very little effect.
After all the media hysteria about the new "explosion" yesterday, things have been very quiet today. The little that has been reported confirms that there was no explosion, but only a fire. No one was injured and no oil was spilled. I guess that "mile long oil sheen" mysteriously vanished.
There are over 100 of these oil rig fires in the gulf each year. Very seldom do they receive any attention. Still, watch for some in the media to report that this justifies the Obama drilling ban.
The school named after Rachel Carson the woman responsible for millions dying in Aftica. And Al Gore the AGW cult Priest that has lead many down a dead end street, is sitting on a toxic waste dump. I cannot stop laughing. This is the funniest thing in ages of putting up with eco nuts destroying America.
"Renaming this terribly contaminated school after famous environmental advocates is an affront to the great work that these individuals have done to protect the public's health from harm," an environmental coalition wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Unified School District. Making sure the school is safe "would be an even better way to honor their contribution to society."
Construction crews were working at the campus up to the Labor Day weekend, replacing toxic soil with clean fill. All told, workers removed dirt from two 3,800-square-foot plots to a depth of 45 feet, space enough to hold a four-story building. The soil had contained more than a dozen underground storage tanks serving light industrial businesses.
Additional contamination may have come from the underground tanks of an adjacent gas station. A barrier will stretch 45 feet down from ground level to limit future possible fuel leakage.
An oil well operates across the street, but officials said they've found no associated risks. Like many local campuses, this school also sits above an oil field, but no oil field-related methane has been detected.
Groundwater about 45 feet below the surface remains contaminated but also poses no risk, officials said.
So what's Earth now telling its old friend, Nobel physicist Laughlin? Earth is exposing the real problem that's forcing us into the sixth species extinction, the elimination of toxic species threatening Earth's survival: The "real problem is human population pressure generally -- overharvesting, habitat destruction, pesticide abuse, species invasion and so forth."
So what's the solution? "Slowing manmade extinctions in a meaningful way would require drastically reducing the world's human population. That is unlikely to happen." Get it? Population growth will continue inexorably from six billion to nine billion. Earth doesn't want 50% growth. So the sixth species extension is in progress.
Whether you're an activist or a climate-denier, you can rant and rave all you want -- for or against all the politically correct campaigns to cut carbon emissions, recycle plastic water bottles, eat locally grown organic food, tax breaks for solar energy, buying hybrids or greenophying urban skyscrapers. At best, all that jockeying around may delay the endgame -- the inevitable sixth species extinction -- by a few seconds on the geologic time-clock. But it won't stop the clock. Fifty percent growth guarantees extinctions
And ...
Climate change "is a matter of geologic time, something that the Earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself," warns Laughlin. Earth "doesn't include the potentially catastrophic effects on civilization in its planning. Far from being responsible for damaging the earth's climate, civilization might not be able to forestall any of these terrible changes once the earth has decided to make them ... climate ought not to concern us too much ... because it's beyond our power to control."
So if climate change is "beyond our control," why not accept it and enjoy life? Yes, forget about recycling, hybrids, solar cells, wind power, clean coal, desalination and living green. They're ineffective, can't stop the "sixth species extinction" ... as long as population continues growing out of control from six billion to nine billion.
Quoted Scientist: So if climate change is "beyond our control," why not accept it and enjoy life? Yes, forget about recycling, hybrids, solar cells, wind power, clean coal, desalination and living green. They're ineffective, can't stop the "sixth species extinction" ... as long as population continues growing out of control from six billion to nine billion.
Regardless of "global climate," recycling and hybrids and solar power and clean coal and living green all have to do with REDUCING POLLUTION. That reason ALONE justifies these actions and their importance.
I do most of those things, and believe me, they don't take any "enjoyment" away from my life. Just the opposite. They make my life MORE enjoyable, because I know I am being the best steward I can be of the planet which gives me life.
Anyone who says otherwise, REGARDLESS of their qualifications, is just being short-sighted and ridiculous.
I will add this about pollution. Why is it that cigarette smokers feel that out-of-doors anywhere is their personal ashtray? My wife and I live on one of Elko, NV's main north-south streets, near downtown. The speed limit is pretty low, but, there is a lot of Elko traffic moving past our rental unit daily. For whatever reason, I pick up more ciggy-poo butts on my landlord's property and nearby surrounding areas. How grose!
Are cigarette smokers GW-ists? Al-Gore-ites? Or just very, very selfish? No, as far as pollution goes, larsb, I agree with you. Let's all do what we can, but, as you've no doubt noticed, it (polluting or not) is a very personal thing that varies like different shaped noses do. Eh?
I do most of those things, and believe me, they don't take any "enjoyment" away from my life.
What the man is saying is do what you want to enjoy life. If doing what you do is making you happy. Go for it. Don't expect the guy driving a gas guzzling Maybach living in a 12,000 square foot McMansion to share your enjoyment. He is not going to. And neither one of you will make any difference in the long haul.
Look around, you are in the minority and not reproducing at the rate most 3rd World countries are. Do you think that horde of illegals that have made the southern edge of AZ a cesspool covered with trash care about pollution? We just had two illegals start a fire, that put more pollution in the air than 100s of 1000s of cars would produce in a year. You can use alternative energy and enjoy recycling. It makes NO difference in the big picture.
I agree with Laughlin.
PS I do not recycle as it is NOT cost effective. It just raises our disposal costs.
ILUV, I am with you on cigarette butts everywhere. What a nasty habit.
Gary says, "And neither one of you will make any difference in the long haul."
That's where you are wrong, amigo.
Let's get philosophical for a second:
Do you have a dollar if you only have 1 penny?
No, because it takes a hundred pennies to make a dollar.
Do you make a dent in pollution and landfill problems if only 10,000 people recycle?
No, you need millions of people doing it.
Which IS happening.
Do you make a difference if you sell ONE Prius?
No, you need 100s of thousands of them.
Which IS happening.
The point being: You can't accomplish anything by disrespecting the individual contributors to reducing pollution. Each individual contributes to the group, and the group makes the impact. Thus, the individual is just as important as the group.
So don't try to fall for the "one person can't make a difference anyway" line because it's not true at all. from a philosophical and logical perspective.
That is merely cop out that people who don't want to bother use as a rationalization for their non-participation. . . . .
the issue you raise is fine, if you care about reducing pollution, and things like conservation. It is true that what you individually do makes a difference.
I'm sure Al Gore would prefer that everyone as a group start conserving more. And use less energy. And conserve materials and energy, etc.
I think that gagrice is saying that so many people in their individual situation are not walking the walk, though they may or may not even talk the talk. And treating the environment right can be expensive, just like eating right can be expensive, but obviously worth it.
It boils down to being a very personal issue. An individual one. Can we individually live with polluting and wasting earth's resources? And being poor stewards of what's not really ours? Kind of Smokey the Bear material, us boomers starting seeing those commercials in the late 60's it seems.
No matter how many people picked up a bucket and chipped in to bail water on the Titanic, it would be all a waste of time. If you understand anything about mathematics, and human nature - you'd understand that the majority of the world who are dirt-poor, and will have large dirt-poor families, do not put conservation and pollution-control first.
People who are hungry and cold will consume and burn whatever they can get their hands on.
It is true that what you individually do makes a difference.
It is not true on a global basis. It does not matter what the state of CA does, or the entire U.S., or even the entire U.S.+Europe+developed world. What matters is what happens in the entire world, and the entire world is growing and stressing the ability to maintain civilization as we know it. It is just like our situation with Mexico and other Latin American countries. Their populations have grown beyond their ability to sustain them. There is then pressure to move where things are relatively good - like the U.S. The U.S. is then dragged down with societal and increased population problems. A high population = more pollution from desperate poorer people; and more energy burned.
Since I was a kid in the 1960's aid agencies have tried to improve life in the underdeveloped countries of the world. There are now more poor and desperate people in the world, DESPITE the many good things that were done. The problems of population growth overwhelm every effort to maintain the world as it is.
and it may not be a big butt to any one on here at all, if it bothers you individually to pollute and not give a hoot, then it's not gonna work. I do believe that individually we can make a difference. Though, like kernick and gagrice have said (with much merit I might add) it's hard to get real enthusiastic about these things when someone tosses a cigarette butt out of their car and hits you in the head whilst walking down your small town's busy street. Huh?
All I'm saying is that I believe we are all personally accountable to a higher power, one that owns the land we're cultivating and polluting and using. It's an individual thing, and religion and man/God relationships play a part in it. Not just in my opinion, either. :surprise:
Going further, earth and it's usage and resources and such are only a portion of that relationship I'm speaking of, too. But to ignore them would be a very naive and dumb thing to do. Hope that makes my viewpoint on the matter more understandable and less mysterious.
So don't try to fall for the "one person can't make a difference anyway" line because it's not true at all. from a philosophical and logical perspective.
I haven't. I also do not fall for the Millions can make a difference. They cannot, in the over all scope of the earth. Are our landfills overflowing? Yes they are. What is the biggest contributor to that? I will tell you, it is throwaway diapers. So what happens if we go back to washable diapers. We pollute the ground water with soap residue and use a lot more of our precious water supply. Maybe if billions were to move into caves and survive as hunter gatherers it may make a small change. What you are doing with your lifestyle is "P***ing into the wind. If it makes you feel good. That is fine. Your efforts are being counterbalanced at an alarming rate. The wasted spending on alternatives and research is coming home to roost. We are going broke with all that ignorance. Every thing we try costs more and helps less. We have been on an environmental down hill ride for at least the last decade. Our air in CA has not improved with all the extra hybrids.
Here may be the most telling statement in the whole story we are discussing. And this includes anyone in the US with a car, refrigerator and AC in their home.
Remember, if all 6 billion Earth inhabitants used resources and generated as much waste as America today, we'd already need six Earths.
Think what will happen when 3 billion people in China and India all have a car and refrigerator. Something most Americans consider a necessity.
Gary says, "what you are doing with your lifestyle is "P***ing into the wind. If it makes you feel good. That is fine. Your efforts are being counterbalanced at an alarming rate. "
Hog. Wash.
Gary, one question to allow you see the point.
If NO ONE recycled, would the problem be less or more severe?
Submit your answer so I can make the definitive point which will change your mind.. . . .
I completely understand that some people are unable to conserve/recycle.
Conserve and recycle are not synonymous. I am very conservative. I refill my water bottle from my reverse osmosis tap at my sink. So I rarely have a plastic bottle to recycle. I can count on one hand the cans of anything I have had to drink over the last year. The local recycle place does not want my glass bottles. They want me to haul them 16 miles to another recycle center. And they are not worth a penny. No recycle charge on glass containers. And they don't reuse any of the ones I have piled up alongside my house. A guy wants the gallon wine bottles to use for some kind of horse liniment. If there was any real sense of recycling in our government they would require glass bottles and reusing them with a deposit, like when we were kids. It is safer than drinking out of most of the plastic bottles we get these days.
I don't take the paper so no news print to get rid of. I will repeat, for me recycling is a waste of time and effort. And we have a nice collection of cloth grocery bags that we keep in every vehicle. So we don't end up with all those plastic bags to haul back to the store. You can conserve WITHOUT recycling.
If NO ONE recycled, would the problem be less or more severe?
Which problem is that? I have already given you my opinion on people that recycle plastic bottles. They are wasting money. Rinse and reuse is what you should be doing. It costs more to recycle plastic than make it from raw materials. So it is far from conservative to throw a plastic bottle in a recycle bin. Aluminum cans is also a waste of gas. My kids years ago had a crusher and drank way more soda than I would have bought them. I hauled them and their bags of crushed cans to the recycle place. They got less money than the gas cost me to take them down there. Another HUGE waste of resources. Don't buy anything in aluminum cans is my advice. Drink beer and wine from glass bottles and live longer. Plus NO charge for the bottle.
Well, in many larger cities, the city provides recycling bins at one's home.
I have those in Phoenix.
Recycling to me is as easy as putting recyclables into the brown can (kitchen) and then into the blue bin (garage) and then onto the curb on Mondays when it gets full.
For people in my situation, which consists of MANY millions of Americans, recycling is easier than dirt.
My recycle can goes onto the curb about once every three weeks.
My green garbage can goes on the curb about 4 times a YEAR.
No so for everyone, I understand.
My sister, for example. lives in a rural area and pays for garbage pickup. She could also pay for recycle pickup if she CHOSE to, but for her reasoning, why would she pay for it?
Saying what an individual or a country does is insignificant is ignoring the logic I posted in Post #8461. Maybe you missed that one?
Yours is an untenable position, facing the logic I have already outlined. Here it is again, and it's unassailable.
################################## Let's get philosophical for a second:
Do you have a dollar if you only have 1 penny?
No, because it takes a hundred pennies to make a dollar.
Do you make a dent in pollution and landfill problems if only 10,000 people recycle?
No, you need millions of people doing it.
Which IS happening.
Do you make a difference if you sell ONE Prius?
No, you need 100s of thousands of them.
Which IS happening.
The point being: You can't accomplish anything by disrespecting the individual contributors to reducing pollution. Each individual contributes to the group, and the group makes the impact. Thus, the individual is just as important as the group.
So don't try to fall for the "one person can't make a difference anyway" line because it's not true at all. from a philosophical and logical perspective.
That is merely cop out that people who don't want to bother use as a rationalization for their non-participation.
Do you make a dent in pollution and landfill problems if only 10,000 people recycle?
No, you need millions of people doing it.
If 10 million people recycle that is 1 in every 600 people in the world. And every month another 10 million people are added to the global population, and those are mainly poor people.
And you do understand that most materials that are recycled consume almost as much energy hauling them away, separating them and reprocessing the materials as it does for new. There is so much energy in the world in the form of coal, gas, and oil, and whether you make new or recycle you draw those energy resources down and emit CO2.
Do you make a difference if you sell ONE Prius?
No, you need 100s of thousands of them.
No you would need hundreds of MILLIONS of them, to save 50% of the gasoline, not hundreds of thousands. And at best that would save you about 10% of the oil the world uses everyday. So even hundreds of millions of hybrids would not greatly reduce oil consumption. That would simply mean that if there is 90 years of recoverable oil in the ground, it would then last 100 years. The end result is the same - all the oil gets burnt and converted into CO2. All conservation does is change the date slightly.
The end result is the same - all the oil gets burnt and converted into CO2. All conservation does is change the date slightly.
I just do not understand why so many people like our friend Larsb do not see the lack of reality in their thinking. I guess it must be our horrible education system. They tell me to recycle so I recycle. No real analysis involved, just monkey see, monkey do.
Both of his analogies are perfect examples of that lack of logic. Recycling was good when it was done in a logical manner. Evidently before he was born. Making a soda bottle, filling it with soda, charging a deposit, returning it to the store to get your deposit back, and the company washing it and refilling it. No need to grind it up and make a new bottle or whatever. Making stuff out of plastic bottles is a huge waste of natural resources. It is not cost effective.
Building a high tech hybrid goes along the same lines. You waste a lot more natural resources building and recycling than are saved on gasoline to run the vehicle. There is a slight net gain on a couple forms of pollution, kind of a pollution wash at a much higher cost.
We could argue these things until blue in the face. When you have been so indoctrinated that these eco theories are good, it is difficult to make a proper analysis of your own.
can we really discourage our friend from the big city in Arizona? It comes off as still doing what he feels is best for the earf in the long run, no?
I could do more, I have read the analyzes you're describing for years, gagrice. If you don't keep these sad truths in costs and effectiveness in mind you can get swept along the greenshaven highway and feel you must get reactively-over-reactive again (or for the first time) and start that particular engine up again.
And, this just in...
If 10 million people recycle that is 1 in every 600 people in the world. And every month another 10 million people are added to the global population, and those are mainly poor people.
10 mil. people a month are added to the earf's population? AARRRGGGGHHHHHH! :sick: I'm sick. And I work in the Allied Healthcare field, too. Currently contemplating getting a Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis(whooping cough) vaccination at the NE Nevada hospital I work at. It's not required, but RT's are on the front lines of disease. We treat a lot of babies that get whooping cough, so it might behoove me to acquire one. :sick:
Apparently the arm that gets the shot feels like you were hit by a Randy Johnson fastball the next day.
can we really discourage our friend from the big city in Arizona?
I would not want to do that at all. I admire his diligence in trying to be a good citizen of the planet. I have a much higher regard for someone that does what he preaches, than someone like Al Gore that preaches a low Carbon lifestyle and spews more CO2 than a small country in Africa.
My contention on recycling is directed at plastic bottles one of the biggest scams perpetrated on gullible Americans. First off many of those bottles are not all that safe to drink from in the first place. The grade of poly plastic is important. Some is known to leach out dangerous chemicals. Others are questionable. So why use it instead of glass that is safe with a long history of not causing cancer and other maladies?
The energy used to recycle the plastic into something else useful is not cost effective. My pet peeve is with CA where the CRV charge is added onto plastic bottles then sales taxed. So in many cities you pay 10 cents CRV and another penny in taxes. The CRV is not what you get from the recycle company. That comes from a separate fund that recently ran out of money. So you paid 11 cents for that personal bottle to the state and cannot get anything for it. In our throwaway mentality we just toss it in the RECYCLE bin. How stupid and wasteful is that? There is only ONE way to be green with plastic bottles. Buy the safest you can get and reuse them until they fall apart. My wife hates using any plastic bottle. She buys glass bottles of tea and refills them with water. Unlike those that recycle plastic bottles. We do not add to the nonsense.
I happen to like the 24 oz bottles Arrowhead uses for Spring water with the pop top. So I bought a case from Costco 3 or 4 years ago and use the same bottle for months refilling it. I keep several full in the refrigerator and take one with me when I go someplace. We only use REAL glasses for our guests drinking enjoyment. They have done some wonderful things with plastics. Using them for food and drink is not close to the top of the list.
PS We never warm things in the MW with plastic anything. Glass or ceramic with wax paper or paper towel covering. The plastic tubs that food like cottage cheese comes in we reuse to store things in. We also send food home with guests and they are good for that. We never have margarine tubs as I would not put that plastic fake butter on any food.
We can help by buying products in glass containers. Force the producers to use glass and refill if possible. Not many soda or beer companies left doing the RIGHT thing.
It also reduces pollution. If you use less fuel, less resources, then you pollute less,
You mean the RATE is less. Conservation slows down the rate of use. So if you stretch the 40-years (or whatever number you believe) of oil that's left, to 50 years, so what? The problems just exist then, with the oil gone, the CO2 being in the atmosphere then, and the pollution in the air then.
Whether you smoke a cigarette in 1.5 or 2 minutes, you've still smoked the cigarette, and still have all the repercussions.
A slight change in your personal Rate doesn't really matter; the fact is you're still drawing down the energy and natural resources of the planet. And even when you cut back, there are more people on earth tomorrow, and the energy and resources go down FASTER. Yes - tomorrow and every day after the energy and resources of the planet get used up faster, despite more people recycling and buying hybrids. The leak in the Titantic, overwhelms the people who are trying to bail it out with buckets. Even your recycling uses up our energy supplies, needing trucks to haul it away, and factories using fuels to reprocess the materials. The Earth's gas tank is running lower no matter what you do.
You challenge my education, my ability to understand logic, my ability to think on my own, and my ability to analyze a situation.
Very insulting. And all completely OFF the mark, I might add.
But if you REALLY READ my posts, the logic is clear.
I did not "find" that logic on a website. It poured out of my head into my fingers as I was typing it.
Did I ever say "recycling plastic bottles is the best thing in the world?" No. I said, it's better than landfilling them. And that's true, is it not? Of course it's true. Think about the WHOLE process. You already have plastic - why throw it away and make more? NOT recycling is the idiot move, not the other way around.
You are wrong about this too, and I don't know why you stubbornly hold to this completely incorrect belief:
Gary says, You waste a lot more natural resources building and recycling than are saved on gasoline to run the vehicle.
I'm not going into it, because I proved that wrong a LONG time ago.
But it's really not the point. The point is a high mileage hybrid is superior from a pollution point of view to a regular gas engine car in ALMOST every case. If car companies make a stupid hybrid (Big Lexus Hybrid comes to mind, as does the BMW competitor, Honda Accord) that's not the fault of the "idea" for hybrids. It's just a car company doing something stupid, which is nothing new.
Gary says, "When you have been so indoctrinated that these eco theories are good, it is difficult to make a proper analysis of your own. "
I haven't been "indoctrinated" into anything. Recycling, conserving, and lowering your own personal pollution is not a "cult" move - it's COMMON SENSE.
If there are mistakes being made, it's the people who DON'T try to do that who are making the mistake, not the people who DO.
You still are missing the actual point, in your urgent need to make your own faulty point.
Your points would be true if this faulty statement was true:
If EVERY recycling effort , conservation plan, clean energy source, solar panels, wind turbines, clean diesel facilities, et al ALL VANISHED tomorrow, the world's pollution would not be affected.
That's just completely untrue, the farthest thing from true that a statement CAN be.
All those things DO have an effect. They are not "cancelled out" by other actions.
Let's take it to a smaller scale, maybe you can make the connection this way.
Say there is a closed environment. Biosphere, or a Domed City.
Say you had half the city's population living "clean" with hybrid cars, and solar panels on their homes, wind turbines, etc.
You have the other half driving diesel duallies, burning firewood. living like most poor rednecks - polluting their tails off.
NOW, divide the city into two parts, maybe with a sealed glass panel, with the clean half having to live with THEIR pollution, and the dirty half also having to wallow in THEIR pollution.
I haven't been "indoctrinated" into anything. Recycling, conserving, and lowering your own personal pollution is not a "cult" move - it's COMMON SENSE.
I disagree. You somehow believe that recycling has something to do with conserving. It does NOT. Recycling is an act of someone that bought something they did not need in the first place. Now they want to feel good about throwing it away. Recycling is the panacea for those that buy into the throw away society we now live in.
I'm not going into it, because I proved that wrong a LONG time ago.
You only proved that hybrids were a good thing in your own mind. I have proved them not to be eco friendly a long time ago. So we are at the same impasse reached years ago.
I do apologize if you felt Insulted by my comments. I just do not think your logic is correct. Though I do believe you are doing the best you can with what you believe. There are much better ways to conserve the planet, if you are interested in doing that. I am more in the Kernick camp that living as waste free as possible will only prolong the ultimate end by a few short moments in the overall scope of the earth.
Which half dies faster?
Why not look at it from a truly realistic position. You can live in a dirty city with gangs and a concentration of every kind of pollution known to man or 35 miles out of the city in a relatively clean rural setting.
Which person has the better lifestyle? You are hoping for an Urban utopia, that will NEVER Exist. Phoenix was a healthy place to live 50 years ago. Not so now.
Gary says, "You somehow believe that recycling has something to do with conserving."
No, I never said that. They are not the same. Doing both of them WHEN IT'S REASONABLE is a smart move, however. They are not the same.
As to Kernick's beliefs:
Someday, pollution will be conquered. At some point in the future, technology created by Man will conquer pollution. We need to keep the planet livable and clean enough LONG ENOUGH for that day to arrive.
Anything we do to extend the livability of Earf has the possibility of getting us to the point to where Earf can be inhabitable (pleasantly) until the date the Sun goes Supernova.
If it takes a few of us "going a little bit out of our own comfort zone" for that to happen, then don't be a selfish person and leave it up to other people. Have some integrity and do the right thing. . . .
Did I ever say "recycling plastic bottles is the best thing in the world?" No. I said, it's better than landfilling them. And that's true, is it not? Of course it's true. Think about the WHOLE process. You already have plastic - why throw it away and make more? NOT recycling is the idiot move, not the other way around.
You may be right, but it's not a definite. I don't think you put enough thought into the details. The devil is in the details, and the details are that a lot of energy is used to recycle something. Let's walk step-by-step thru the energy usage, here. Are you okay with using the Christian Science Monitor as a legitimate source?
Step 1: consumer gets in their personal auto and drives to the recycle center. The recycle center probably has a heated building, backhoe, truck, and workers who drive to work. The typical recycle center has thousands of people who drive in each week. Step 2: from the article: Trucks haul them to a recycling facility, diesel used. Step 3: ... where the plastic is sorted. Hmm, sounds like a building was put up with all the energy needed to do that and make the construction materials. Oh and this building has workers who drive to it each day. Step 4: Each type of plastic is squished into a huge bale for shipping. Sounds like a big machine is needed. And the shipping sounds like another truck. Step 5: At the reclaimers, bales are torn apart by a machine called a bale breaker, which rakes the plastic onto a conveyor belt. It sounds like another factory and workers. Step 6: Machines shred the plastic into tiny flakes, and then they wash, rinse, and dry it. I bet the drier uses quite a bit of energy. Probably natural gas which causes CO2? Step 7: Then the flakes are melted and put through a machine called an extruder, which squishes the plastic into spaghettilike strands. These plastic strands are chopped into pellets. The melting of the plastic sure sounds like the big energy user here.
And from the article: Companies usually pay less for recycled plastic than for new materials, but that's not the only reason they use it. It's also better for the planet because it saves resources. "There is plenty of [old] plastic available; there is no need to use new," says Mary Jarrett, president of Amazing Recycled in Denver. In fact, Americans toss out 14.4 million tons of plastic every year, according to the Plastics Museum in Leominster, Mass.
Well yeah. The material was donated by the consumer, the consumers paid the energy to get the materials together to the center, the consumers' taxes paid for the recycle center and the workers, and the consumers' taxes may actually pay for the Recycling Center to pay their customer to take the plastic.
So how much better is this then making new plastic? Some? But it is certainly not free to the environment, or our energy supplies. As gagrice said you'd be better off reusing your own plastic, and mainly use glass.
And forget about recycling electronics! I'd rather bury them in the backyard, rather than being responsible for making 3rd world countries toxic-wastelands.
Someday, pollution will be conquered. At some point in the future, technology created by Man will conquer pollution.
Isn't Al Gore working on that invention to followup on the Internet invention, and get himself another Nobel prize?
Anyway, keep looking out that window for that flying pig! You're a good man larsb, but you need a more balanced view from the "glass is full" philosophy.
Comments
Now where did I put that grant application ?? :P
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
If this keeps up, no one's going to trust any scientists.
The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.
For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world's governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium -- and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to "save the planet."
But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of "the best scientists and engineers worldwide" (as the group's own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give "high-quality advice to international bodies," has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices -- and found them badly wanting.
Read it and weep
They're being exposed as the modern-day witch-doctors. It's all about making a living by telling a scare-story to the peasants. The whole AGW movement is run by a group of self-serving men driven by greed and fame, who use educational-degrees and political-posts to lend credence to their snowballing-hypothesis. They then get a bunch of sub-leeches who "go-with-the-flow" of the gravy-train, and then suck in the simple-minded, and those who are looking for a "ecological-Messiah-issue" to promote their "save-the-Earth" naieve agenda.
I have yet to see any scientific evidence that shows that there is any significant warming, that is different from other warming-periods in the past. Since any warming can't be differentiated from prior warmings, then One could not even begin to show evidence that man-is the-cause. If you can't prove there was a murder, then it is fairly hard to determine who the murderer would be!
Your NY Post story was written by an ExxonMobil-backed Anti-Green movement organization.
Green Watch is described by its host organization, the Capital Research Center (CRC) as a project "dedicated to monitoring the leadership, activities and funding of the liberal environmentalist movement. It is an on-line database and research apparatus that will help citizens, policymakers and the press find information about environmental policy and activist organizations that seek to use the power of government to achieve their objectives."
"Green Watch produces timely news reports and analyses that keeps you up-to-date on the latest developments in the environmental policy debate. Currently, CRC monitors and conducts research on over 500 environmental organizations. You can take an active role in the free market environmental movement by becoming a Green Watch Watchdog," CRC states in one of its publications. [1]
On its website it states that "Ever since the first annual Earth Day in 1970, environmental organizations have grown increasingly vocal. Supported by wealthy foundations and in some cases government grants, these tax-exempt groups orchestrate political, legal and public relations campaigns that aim to protect and improve the environment. But green activism, however well intentioned, often harms the environment it would save from Corporate America. It misrepresents the real gains made in cleaning the nations air and water. And its needlessly costly."
"As the most extensive on-line research tool profiling the environmental movement, GreenWatch.org informs the public and policy makers, it claims. [2]
But there are limits to the information that CRC reveals. ExxonMobil has voluntarily disclosed that in 2002 it donated $25,000 to the CRC for the Green Watch project [3] with another $25,000 following in 2003. [4] However, this is not mentioned on the CRC website.
So, yes, any denier group is going to try to hammer the IPCC.
Just another political agenda.
That is laughable. $25,000 when we have wasted $BILLIONs on flawed climate science. $25,000 is chump change man. BP in the Arctic has spent millions on grants to scientists to study everything under the sun. You are going to try and discredit an organization that got $25,000 lousy dollars? NICE TRY, but no cigar. IPCC and that bunch of UN crooks have been busted. AGW was supposed to be their scam after the Oil for Food program was exposed. There is very little the UN does that is legitimate. IPCC was not legit.
I'll give you credit you hang in there when there is little to cling to. No hockey stick, no melting glaciers, phony RAWS, etc etc.
You should look into the IAC. They are far more credible than anything the UN has going for them.
There is one less today. The cops shot him dead in Maryland. Probably be a full blown investigation, to determine if the guys civil rights were denied. There are a lot more just like him all around us. You can usually spot them They are in a VW microbus or 1973 Toyota Corolla, spewing black exhaust, completely plastered with stickers to save the whales, polar bears and the planet and Obama 08. Hanging out at the beaches, panhandling or dumpster diving.
You can take anything a "pro-CC" organization says with the same grain of salt as a "denier" organization says. They both have agendas.
The only thing to do is try to rely on the fact that hopefully SOMEONE SOMEWHERE is doing some legitimate science.
Looking less and less like that's happening NEARLY as much as it needs to.
.
.
sad state of affairs.
.
.
The only thing I have going right now is that it's still a FACT that the WARMING IS HAPPENING.
We just need to have hope that someone is trying to figure out what man is doing to warm it up.
My fear has always been that the extreme heat kills the one animal or organism or plant which ends up curing AIDS, or cancer, or diabetes, or herpes, etc.
You need to think positive. If the planet heats up. It will open millions of acres of cropland to feed the starving people. Don't forget Greenland was all farmed about 1000 years ago. Before the industrial revolution, that is blamed for GW. Looks like we should get more rain at least in some places like Pakistan. That should help grow more food or in their case more drugs. :sick:
Since some of those issues are inherent to a person - genetics, and some of those are viruses, there is not much likelihood that any naturally occurring substance will be a cure for any of those. Unlike most science fiction movies, a "cure" does not kill 100% of all virus particles. Those that survive mutate, and are then resistant, and you would still have AIDS and other viruses. If we could cure aging, viruses, and cancer; I think you would find the Earth to be a very miserable place (very, very crowded).
The fact is that man's progress and use of fossil fuels has extended the lifespan of people in the developed countries. If we had not decided to burn those fossil fuels, we would be a lot worse off, than what you fear - the extreme heat killing the cures for diseases. So humanity has actually made the better choice - choosing a lifestyle full of improvements, versus being fearful and living in a 19th century mode, on some concern we may miss out on 1 improvement.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
Not an insult, just a way to differentiate the two parties involved.
.
.
.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
I am reading EMPIRE OF THE CZAR by Marquis De Custine right now. He is commenting on how much wood the aristocracy burns in one winter to keep those huge palaces warm in Petersburg. He believes the forests of Russia will all be gone in a short time with that kind of usage. The year is 1825. Many parts of the world were using coal for heat in prehistoric times. we still have 100s of years of coal supply left. It seems each new generation comes up with something that will be our demise. Many of the same AGW people predicted the end of the oil supply before now.
My question is why do these people spend so much time worrying about such things? Adaptation to whatever your circumstances is a much better way to live. If you want to ride a bike or put up solar panels that is good. Just don't spend so much time, money and energy, stirring up fear in the masses of the unknown. Fear mongers, and that is exactly what Al Gore and the AGW Cult are, produce NOTHING. They are leeches on our society. When they sort out all the liars in the GW scam, they should be prosecuted and sent to prison. Preferably a hot one like the Yuma prison.
Just specify that in your posts so people can understand that you are going against convention, thus avoiding confusion.
Denier according to the dictionary is anyone that denies the TRUTH. I got news for you, much of the data used to push the AGW agenda is far from the truth. I think a much better word for those of US that do not follow goose step in line with the AGW cult is "Skeptic". I am a Skeptic of the first order any time the government is involved. I don't trust any of them to be honest and doing the will of the people. Except maybe your governor. :shades:
I just use it to differentiate.
I can start using Skeptic though, no bigs. :shades:
Following the embarrassing news that Mayor Dave Bing’s GMC Yukon was hijacked by criminals this week, Detroit’s Channel 7 reports that the Reverend’s Caddy Escalade SUV was stolen and stripped of its wheels while he was in town last weekend with the UAW’s militant President Bob King leading the “Jobs, Justice, and Peace” march promoting government-funded green jobs.
Read that again: Jackson’s Caddy SUV was stripped while he was in town promoting green jobs.
Add Jesse to the Al Gore-Tom Friedman-Barack Obama School of Environmental Hypocrisy. While preaching to Americans that they need to cram their families into hybrid Priuses to go shopping for compact fluorescent light bulbs to save the planet, they themselves continue to live large.
“We need an economy that creates employment that can't be shipped overseas,” the Green Rev wrote for CNN about the march. “Home-grown American labor will be installing windmills and solar panels. A green economy is not an abstract concept.”
Well, its certainly abstract to Jesse, but I digress.
http://www.detnews.com/article/20100903/MIVIEW/100903001/1467/opinion01/Payne--T- he-irony-of-Jesse-Jackson-s-stripped-SUV
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
There are over 100 of these oil rig fires in the gulf each year. Very seldom do they receive any attention. Still, watch for some in the media to report that this justifies the Obama drilling ban.
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
"Renaming this terribly contaminated school after famous environmental advocates is an affront to the great work that these individuals have done to protect the public's health from harm," an environmental coalition wrote in a letter to the Los Angeles Unified School District. Making sure the school is safe "would be an even better way to honor their contribution to society."
Construction crews were working at the campus up to the Labor Day weekend, replacing toxic soil with clean fill. All told, workers removed dirt from two 3,800-square-foot plots to a depth of 45 feet, space enough to hold a four-story building. The soil had contained more than a dozen underground storage tanks serving light industrial businesses.
Additional contamination may have come from the underground tanks of an adjacent gas station. A barrier will stretch 45 feet down from ground level to limit future possible fuel leakage.
An oil well operates across the street, but officials said they've found no associated risks. Like many local campuses, this school also sits above an oil field, but no oil field-related methane has been detected.
Groundwater about 45 feet below the surface remains contaminated but also poses no risk, officials said.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gore-school-20100906,0,719678.story
The two of them have contaminated little minds before. So what difference does it make? Maybe the kids will go home glowing in the dark. :P
So what's Earth now telling its old friend, Nobel physicist Laughlin? Earth is exposing the real problem that's forcing us into the sixth species extinction, the elimination of toxic species threatening Earth's survival: The "real problem is human population pressure generally -- overharvesting, habitat destruction, pesticide abuse, species invasion and so forth."
So what's the solution? "Slowing manmade extinctions in a meaningful way would require drastically reducing the world's human population. That is unlikely to happen." Get it? Population growth will continue inexorably from six billion to nine billion. Earth doesn't want 50% growth. So the sixth species extension is in progress.
Whether you're an activist or a climate-denier, you can rant and rave all you want -- for or against all the politically correct campaigns to cut carbon emissions, recycle plastic water bottles, eat locally grown organic food, tax breaks for solar energy, buying hybrids or greenophying urban skyscrapers. At best, all that jockeying around may delay the endgame -- the inevitable sixth species extinction -- by a few seconds on the geologic time-clock. But it won't stop the clock. Fifty percent growth guarantees extinctions
And ...
Climate change "is a matter of geologic time, something that the Earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself," warns Laughlin. Earth "doesn't include the potentially catastrophic effects on civilization in its planning. Far from being responsible for damaging the earth's climate, civilization might not be able to forestall any of these terrible changes once the earth has decided to make them ... climate ought not to concern us too much ... because it's beyond our power to control."
So if climate change is "beyond our control," why not accept it and enjoy life? Yes, forget about recycling, hybrids, solar cells, wind power, clean coal, desalination and living green. They're ineffective, can't stop the "sixth species extinction" ... as long as population continues growing out of control from six billion to nine billion.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/forget-going-green-earth-doesnt-care-2010-09-07- ?pagenumber=1
Quoted Scientist: So if climate change is "beyond our control," why not accept it and enjoy life? Yes, forget about recycling, hybrids, solar cells, wind power, clean coal, desalination and living green. They're ineffective, can't stop the "sixth species extinction" ... as long as population continues growing out of control from six billion to nine billion.
Regardless of "global climate," recycling and hybrids and solar power and clean coal and living green all have to do with REDUCING POLLUTION. That reason ALONE justifies these actions and their importance.
I do most of those things, and believe me, they don't take any "enjoyment" away from my life. Just the opposite. They make my life MORE enjoyable, because I know I am being the best steward I can be of the planet which gives me life.
Anyone who says otherwise, REGARDLESS of their qualifications, is just being short-sighted and ridiculous.
Are cigarette smokers GW-ists? Al-Gore-ites? Or just very, very selfish? No, as far as pollution goes, larsb, I agree with you. Let's all do what we can, but, as you've no doubt noticed, it (polluting or not) is a very personal thing that varies like different shaped noses do. Eh?
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
What the man is saying is do what you want to enjoy life. If doing what you do is making you happy. Go for it. Don't expect the guy driving a gas guzzling Maybach living in a 12,000 square foot McMansion to share your enjoyment. He is not going to. And neither one of you will make any difference in the long haul.
Look around, you are in the minority and not reproducing at the rate most 3rd World countries are. Do you think that horde of illegals that have made the southern edge of AZ a cesspool covered with trash care about pollution? We just had two illegals start a fire, that put more pollution in the air than 100s of 1000s of cars would produce in a year. You can use alternative energy and enjoy recycling. It makes NO difference in the big picture.
I agree with Laughlin.
PS
I do not recycle as it is NOT cost effective. It just raises our disposal costs.
ILUV, I am with you on cigarette butts everywhere. What a nasty habit.
That's where you are wrong, amigo.
Let's get philosophical for a second:
Do you have a dollar if you only have 1 penny?
No, because it takes a hundred pennies to make a dollar.
Do you make a dent in pollution and landfill problems if only 10,000 people recycle?
No, you need millions of people doing it.
Which IS happening.
Do you make a difference if you sell ONE Prius?
No, you need 100s of thousands of them.
Which IS happening.
The point being: You can't accomplish anything by disrespecting the individual contributors to reducing pollution. Each individual contributes to the group, and the group makes the impact. Thus, the individual is just as important as the group.
So don't try to fall for the "one person can't make a difference anyway" line because it's not true at all. from a philosophical and logical perspective.
That is merely cop out that people who don't want to bother use as a rationalization for their non-participation.
.
.
.
.
I'm sure Al Gore would prefer that everyone as a group start conserving more. And use less energy. And conserve materials and energy, etc.
I think that gagrice is saying that so many people in their individual situation are not walking the walk, though they may or may not even talk the talk. And treating the environment right can be expensive, just like eating right can be expensive, but obviously worth it.
It boils down to being a very personal issue. An individual one. Can we individually live with polluting and wasting earth's resources? And being poor stewards of what's not really ours? Kind of Smokey the Bear material, us boomers starting seeing those commercials in the late 60's it seems.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
People who are hungry and cold will consume and burn whatever they can get their hands on.
It is not true on a global basis. It does not matter what the state of CA does, or the entire U.S., or even the entire U.S.+Europe+developed world. What matters is what happens in the entire world, and the entire world is growing and stressing the ability to maintain civilization as we know it. It is just like our situation with Mexico and other Latin American countries. Their populations have grown beyond their ability to sustain them. There is then pressure to move where things are relatively good - like the U.S. The U.S. is then dragged down with societal and increased population problems. A high population = more pollution from desperate poorer people; and more energy burned.
Since I was a kid in the 1960's aid agencies have tried to improve life in the underdeveloped countries of the world. There are now more poor and desperate people in the world, DESPITE the many good things that were done. The problems of population growth overwhelm every effort to maintain the world as it is.
All I'm saying is that I believe we are all personally accountable to a higher power, one that owns the land we're cultivating and polluting and using. It's an individual thing, and religion and man/God relationships play a part in it. Not just in my opinion, either. :surprise:
Going further, earth and it's usage and resources and such are only a portion of that relationship I'm speaking of, too. But to ignore them would be a very naive and dumb thing to do. Hope that makes my viewpoint on the matter more understandable and less mysterious.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
But the problem is that SO MANY of those who CAN DO SO, don't take the effort to do so.
That's just sad.
.
.
.
I haven't. I also do not fall for the Millions can make a difference. They cannot, in the over all scope of the earth. Are our landfills overflowing? Yes they are. What is the biggest contributor to that? I will tell you, it is throwaway diapers. So what happens if we go back to washable diapers. We pollute the ground water with soap residue and use a lot more of our precious water supply. Maybe if billions were to move into caves and survive as hunter gatherers it may make a small change. What you are doing with your lifestyle is "P***ing into the wind. If it makes you feel good. That is fine. Your efforts are being counterbalanced at an alarming rate. The wasted spending on alternatives and research is coming home to roost. We are going broke with all that ignorance. Every thing we try costs more and helps less. We have been on an environmental down hill ride for at least the last decade. Our air in CA has not improved with all the extra hybrids.
Here may be the most telling statement in the whole story we are discussing. And this includes anyone in the US with a car, refrigerator and AC in their home.
Remember, if all 6 billion Earth inhabitants used resources and generated as much waste as America today, we'd already need six Earths.
Think what will happen when 3 billion people in China and India all have a car and refrigerator. Something most Americans consider a necessity.
Hog. Wash.
Gary, one question to allow you see the point.
If NO ONE recycled, would the problem be less or more severe?
Submit your answer so I can make the definitive point which will change your mind..
.
.
.
Conserve and recycle are not synonymous. I am very conservative. I refill my water bottle from my reverse osmosis tap at my sink. So I rarely have a plastic bottle to recycle. I can count on one hand the cans of anything I have had to drink over the last year. The local recycle place does not want my glass bottles. They want me to haul them 16 miles to another recycle center. And they are not worth a penny. No recycle charge on glass containers. And they don't reuse any of the ones I have piled up alongside my house. A guy wants the gallon wine bottles to use for some kind of horse liniment. If there was any real sense of recycling in our government they would require glass bottles and reusing them with a deposit, like when we were kids. It is safer than drinking out of most of the plastic bottles we get these days.
I don't take the paper so no news print to get rid of. I will repeat, for me recycling is a waste of time and effort. And we have a nice collection of cloth grocery bags that we keep in every vehicle. So we don't end up with all those plastic bags to haul back to the store. You can conserve WITHOUT recycling.
Which problem is that? I have already given you my opinion on people that recycle plastic bottles. They are wasting money. Rinse and reuse is what you should be doing. It costs more to recycle plastic than make it from raw materials. So it is far from conservative to throw a plastic bottle in a recycle bin. Aluminum cans is also a waste of gas. My kids years ago had a crusher and drank way more soda than I would have bought them. I hauled them and their bags of crushed cans to the recycle place. They got less money than the gas cost me to take them down there. Another HUGE waste of resources. Don't buy anything in aluminum cans is my advice. Drink beer and wine from glass bottles and live longer. Plus NO charge for the bottle.
What is your answer?
If NO ONE recycled, would the problems you brought up in Post #8467 be less sever or more severe?
I have those in Phoenix.
Recycling to me is as easy as putting recyclables into the brown can (kitchen) and then into the blue bin (garage) and then onto the curb on Mondays when it gets full.
For people in my situation, which consists of MANY millions of Americans, recycling is easier than dirt.
My recycle can goes onto the curb about once every three weeks.
My green garbage can goes on the curb about 4 times a YEAR.
No so for everyone, I understand.
My sister, for example. lives in a rural area and pays for garbage pickup. She could also pay for recycle pickup if she CHOSE to, but for her reasoning, why would she pay for it?
Yours is an untenable position, facing the logic I have already outlined. Here it is again, and it's unassailable.
##################################
Let's get philosophical for a second:
Do you have a dollar if you only have 1 penny?
No, because it takes a hundred pennies to make a dollar.
Do you make a dent in pollution and landfill problems if only 10,000 people recycle?
No, you need millions of people doing it.
Which IS happening.
Do you make a difference if you sell ONE Prius?
No, you need 100s of thousands of them.
Which IS happening.
The point being: You can't accomplish anything by disrespecting the individual contributors to reducing pollution. Each individual contributes to the group, and the group makes the impact. Thus, the individual is just as important as the group.
So don't try to fall for the "one person can't make a difference anyway" line because it's not true at all. from a philosophical and logical perspective.
That is merely cop out that people who don't want to bother use as a rationalization for their non-participation.
.
.
.
No, you need millions of people doing it.
If 10 million people recycle that is 1 in every 600 people in the world. And every month another 10 million people are added to the global population, and those are mainly poor people.
And you do understand that most materials that are recycled consume almost as much energy hauling them away, separating them and reprocessing the materials as it does for new. There is so much energy in the world in the form of coal, gas, and oil, and whether you make new or recycle you draw those energy resources down and emit CO2.
Do you make a difference if you sell ONE Prius?
No, you need 100s of thousands of them.
No you would need hundreds of MILLIONS of them, to save 50% of the gasoline, not hundreds of thousands. And at best that would save you about 10% of the oil the world uses everyday. So even hundreds of millions of hybrids would not greatly reduce oil consumption. That would simply mean that if there is 90 years of recoverable oil in the ground, it would then last 100 years. The end result is the same - all the oil gets burnt and converted into CO2. All conservation does is change the date slightly.
And that is a good thing.
But that's not "all" it does.
It also reduces pollution. If you use less fuel, less resources, then you pollute less, Yourself and 10 million Indo-Chinese.
I just do not understand why so many people like our friend Larsb do not see the lack of reality in their thinking. I guess it must be our horrible education system. They tell me to recycle so I recycle. No real analysis involved, just monkey see, monkey do.
Both of his analogies are perfect examples of that lack of logic. Recycling was good when it was done in a logical manner. Evidently before he was born. Making a soda bottle, filling it with soda, charging a deposit, returning it to the store to get your deposit back, and the company washing it and refilling it. No need to grind it up and make a new bottle or whatever. Making stuff out of plastic bottles is a huge waste of natural resources. It is not cost effective.
Building a high tech hybrid goes along the same lines. You waste a lot more natural resources building and recycling than are saved on gasoline to run the vehicle. There is a slight net gain on a couple forms of pollution, kind of a pollution wash at a much higher cost.
We could argue these things until blue in the face. When you have been so indoctrinated that these eco theories are good, it is difficult to make a proper analysis of your own.
I could do more, I have read the analyzes you're describing for years, gagrice. If you don't keep these sad truths in costs and effectiveness in mind you can get swept along the greenshaven highway and feel you must get reactively-over-reactive again (or for the first time) and start that particular engine up again.
And, this just in...
If 10 million people recycle that is 1 in every 600 people in the world. And every month another 10 million people are added to the global population, and those are mainly poor people.
10 mil. people a month are added to the earf's population? AARRRGGGGHHHHHH! :sick: I'm sick. And I work in the Allied Healthcare field, too. Currently contemplating getting a Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis(whooping cough) vaccination at the NE Nevada hospital I work at. It's not required, but RT's are on the front lines of disease. We treat a lot of babies that get whooping cough, so it might behoove me to acquire one. :sick:
Apparently the arm that gets the shot feels like you were hit by a Randy Johnson fastball the next day.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
I would not want to do that at all. I admire his diligence in trying to be a good citizen of the planet. I have a much higher regard for someone that does what he preaches, than someone like Al Gore that preaches a low Carbon lifestyle and spews more CO2 than a small country in Africa.
My contention on recycling is directed at plastic bottles one of the biggest scams perpetrated on gullible Americans. First off many of those bottles are not all that safe to drink from in the first place. The grade of poly plastic is important. Some is known to leach out dangerous chemicals. Others are questionable. So why use it instead of glass that is safe with a long history of not causing cancer and other maladies?
The energy used to recycle the plastic into something else useful is not cost effective. My pet peeve is with CA where the CRV charge is added onto plastic bottles then sales taxed. So in many cities you pay 10 cents CRV and another penny in taxes. The CRV is not what you get from the recycle company. That comes from a separate fund that recently ran out of money. So you paid 11 cents for that personal bottle to the state and cannot get anything for it. In our throwaway mentality we just toss it in the RECYCLE bin. How stupid and wasteful is that? There is only ONE way to be green with plastic bottles. Buy the safest you can get and reuse them until they fall apart. My wife hates using any plastic bottle. She buys glass bottles of tea and refills them with water. Unlike those that recycle plastic bottles. We do not add to the nonsense.
I happen to like the 24 oz bottles Arrowhead uses for Spring water with the pop top. So I bought a case from Costco 3 or 4 years ago and use the same bottle for months refilling it. I keep several full in the refrigerator and take one with me when I go someplace. We only use REAL glasses for our guests drinking enjoyment. They have done some wonderful things with plastics. Using them for food and drink is not close to the top of the list.
PS
We never warm things in the MW with plastic anything. Glass or ceramic with wax paper or paper towel covering. The plastic tubs that food like cottage cheese comes in we reuse to store things in. We also send food home with guests and they are good for that. We never have margarine tubs as I would not put that plastic fake butter on any food.
We can help by buying products in glass containers. Force the producers to use glass and refill if possible. Not many soda or beer companies left doing the RIGHT thing.
http://www.grrn.org/beverage/refillables/USrefill.html
You mean the RATE is less. Conservation slows down the rate of use. So if you stretch the 40-years (or whatever number you believe) of oil that's left, to 50 years, so what? The problems just exist then, with the oil gone, the CO2 being in the atmosphere then, and the pollution in the air then.
Whether you smoke a cigarette in 1.5 or 2 minutes, you've still smoked the cigarette, and still have all the repercussions.
A slight change in your personal Rate doesn't really matter; the fact is you're still drawing down the energy and natural resources of the planet. And even when you cut back, there are more people on earth tomorrow, and the energy and resources go down FASTER. Yes - tomorrow and every day after the energy and resources of the planet get used up faster, despite more people recycling and buying hybrids. The leak in the Titantic, overwhelms the people who are trying to bail it out with buckets. Even your recycling uses up our energy supplies, needing trucks to haul it away, and factories using fuels to reprocess the materials. The Earth's gas tank is running lower no matter what you do.
You challenge my education, my ability to understand logic, my ability to think on my own, and my ability to analyze a situation.
Very insulting. And all completely OFF the mark, I might add.
But if you REALLY READ my posts, the logic is clear.
I did not "find" that logic on a website. It poured out of my head into my fingers as I was typing it.
Did I ever say "recycling plastic bottles is the best thing in the world?" No. I said, it's better than landfilling them. And that's true, is it not? Of course it's true. Think about the WHOLE process. You already have plastic - why throw it away and make more? NOT recycling is the idiot move, not the other way around.
You are wrong about this too, and I don't know why you stubbornly hold to this completely incorrect belief:
Gary says, You waste a lot more natural resources building and recycling than are saved on gasoline to run the vehicle.
I'm not going into it, because I proved that wrong a LONG time ago.
But it's really not the point. The point is a high mileage hybrid is superior from a pollution point of view to a regular gas engine car in ALMOST every case. If car companies make a stupid hybrid (Big Lexus Hybrid comes to mind, as does the BMW competitor, Honda Accord) that's not the fault of the "idea" for hybrids. It's just a car company doing something stupid, which is nothing new.
Gary says, "When you have been so indoctrinated that these eco theories are good, it is difficult to make a proper analysis of your own. "
I haven't been "indoctrinated" into anything. Recycling, conserving, and lowering your own personal pollution is not a "cult" move - it's COMMON SENSE.
If there are mistakes being made, it's the people who DON'T try to do that who are making the mistake, not the people who DO.
.
.
.
Jeez, Louise.
Your points would be true if this faulty statement was true:
If EVERY recycling effort , conservation plan, clean energy source, solar panels, wind turbines, clean diesel facilities, et al ALL VANISHED tomorrow, the world's pollution would not be affected.
That's just completely untrue, the farthest thing from true that a statement CAN be.
All those things DO have an effect. They are not "cancelled out" by other actions.
Let's take it to a smaller scale, maybe you can make the connection this way.
Say there is a closed environment. Biosphere, or a Domed City.
Say you had half the city's population living "clean" with hybrid cars, and solar panels on their homes, wind turbines, etc.
You have the other half driving diesel duallies, burning firewood. living like most poor rednecks - polluting their tails off.
NOW, divide the city into two parts, maybe with a sealed glass panel, with the clean half having to live with THEIR pollution, and the dirty half also having to wallow in THEIR pollution.
Which half dies faster?
Duh..
I disagree. You somehow believe that recycling has something to do with conserving. It does NOT. Recycling is an act of someone that bought something they did not need in the first place. Now they want to feel good about throwing it away. Recycling is the panacea for those that buy into the throw away society we now live in.
I'm not going into it, because I proved that wrong a LONG time ago.
You only proved that hybrids were a good thing in your own mind. I have proved them not to be eco friendly a long time ago. So we are at the same impasse reached years ago.
I do apologize if you felt Insulted by my comments. I just do not think your logic is correct. Though I do believe you are doing the best you can with what you believe. There are much better ways to conserve the planet, if you are interested in doing that. I am more in the Kernick camp that living as waste free as possible will only prolong the ultimate end by a few short moments in the overall scope of the earth.
Which half dies faster?
Why not look at it from a truly realistic position. You can live in a dirty city with gangs and a concentration of every kind of pollution known to man or 35 miles out of the city in a relatively clean rural setting.
Which person has the better lifestyle? You are hoping for an Urban utopia, that will NEVER Exist. Phoenix was a healthy place to live 50 years ago. Not so now.
No, I never said that. They are not the same. Doing both of them WHEN IT'S REASONABLE is a smart move, however. They are not the same.
As to Kernick's beliefs:
Someday, pollution will be conquered. At some point in the future, technology created by Man will conquer pollution. We need to keep the planet livable and clean enough LONG ENOUGH for that day to arrive.
Anything we do to extend the livability of Earf has the possibility of getting us to the point to where Earf can be inhabitable (pleasantly) until the date the Sun goes Supernova.
If it takes a few of us "going a little bit out of our own comfort zone" for that to happen, then don't be a selfish person and leave it up to other people. Have some integrity and do the right thing.
.
.
.
You may be right, but it's not a definite. I don't think you put enough thought into the details. The devil is in the details, and the details are that a lot of energy is used to recycle something. Let's walk step-by-step thru the energy usage, here. Are you okay with using the Christian Science Monitor as a legitimate source?
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0913/p18s02-hfks.html
Step 1: consumer gets in their personal auto and drives to the recycle center. The recycle center probably has a heated building, backhoe, truck, and workers who drive to work. The typical recycle center has thousands of people who drive in each week.
Step 2: from the article: Trucks haul them to a recycling facility, diesel used.
Step 3: ... where the plastic is sorted. Hmm, sounds like a building was put up with all the energy needed to do that and make the construction materials. Oh and this building has workers who drive to it each day.
Step 4: Each type of plastic is squished into a huge bale for shipping. Sounds like a big machine is needed. And the shipping sounds like another truck.
Step 5: At the reclaimers, bales are torn apart by a machine called a bale breaker, which rakes the plastic onto a conveyor belt. It sounds like another factory and workers.
Step 6: Machines shred the plastic into tiny flakes, and then they wash, rinse, and dry it. I bet the drier uses quite a bit of energy. Probably natural gas which causes CO2?
Step 7: Then the flakes are melted and put through a machine called an extruder, which squishes the plastic into spaghettilike strands. These plastic strands are chopped into pellets. The melting of the plastic sure sounds like the big energy user here.
And from the article:
Companies usually pay less for recycled plastic than for new materials, but that's not the only reason they use it. It's also better for the planet because it saves resources.
"There is plenty of [old] plastic available; there is no need to use new," says Mary Jarrett, president of Amazing Recycled in Denver. In fact, Americans toss out 14.4 million tons of plastic every year, according to the Plastics Museum in Leominster, Mass.
Well yeah. The material was donated by the consumer, the consumers paid the energy to get the materials together to the center, the consumers' taxes paid for the recycle center and the workers, and the consumers' taxes may actually pay for the Recycling Center to pay their customer to take the plastic.
So how much better is this then making new plastic? Some? But it is certainly not free to the environment, or our energy supplies. As gagrice said you'd be better off reusing your own plastic, and mainly use glass.
And forget about recycling electronics! I'd rather bury them in the backyard, rather than being responsible for making 3rd world countries toxic-wastelands.
Isn't Al Gore working on that invention to followup on the Internet invention, and get himself another Nobel prize?
Anyway, keep looking out that window for that flying pig! You're a good man larsb, but you need a more balanced view from the "glass is full" philosophy.