More Global Warming

[DanB]

Lots of opinion here.  Seems like most of the climate change skeptics live in TX!  (funny - the highest per capita energy consumption in the world is in TX)

just kidding sort of... thats not a totally fair thing to say though, TX refines much of our oil and has a lot of industry *

I've read a great deal about this stuff and I must say I think that human activity is *likely causing climate change (warming in most places) and the evidence to support it gets stronger all the time.  Even if the odds of this being true are 50%, we probably ought to consider changing things and promoting a more sustainable lifestyle.  

This is a very good article in my opinion 'Climate Change - a guide for the perplexed' I read a couple months back in New Scientist: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

[wdyasq]

Whether one believes that man is significant enough to cause global warming or understands how insignificant one species is on this earth doesn't mean they don't think man is being a terrible steward of the earth. Each of us can find those articles that bolster the particular or peculiar view one has.

What one can believe is one of the chief proponents is high on the list of individual wasters of energy and has a HUGE carbon footprint. While in political life, he nor the commander in chief at the time did not present the Kyoto treaty to congress.

This particular ex-politician is now involved in selling carbon offsets so we may feel good about wasting resources. I just think the entire mess stinks. It doesn't matter which manure pit one is in, it is still manure. No matter what they say, I won't believe it smells of roses.

It also seems every few years we have to have a 'crisis' to capture the attention of the public. While berating the public, solutions must be presented because we are too 'stupid' to solve these things ourselves. We were given MTBE to solve the air pollution and when it ruined the drinking water, they bring up ethanol - again, forgetting it failed the last time it was to solve our 'energy crisis'.

In the 50's we solved many of disease problems in Africa. After extending life length and improving child survival ....they are faced with famines.

This post could go on for pages showing the incompetence of any side one cared to pick on. I'm sure not enough data has been collected to state exactly what causes climate change and how one particular part effects it.

I am sure one can't get an honest answer from a  politician, plumber, policeman, painter or preacher. I'm sure I've missed several trades also.

Ron

[electrondady1]

Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science.

( i disagree, a  reduction in emissions and our rate of consumption is prudent
 
 Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded.

(every one has an agenda , the oil companies and the environmental movement)

 
 Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions.

(i don't think this really applies.)

 Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences.

(if the obscenely rich oil companies take a financial hurt due to a reduction in sales i can shrug that off)

 Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice --- terms that have no agreed definition --- are employed in the service of a new crisis.

(sustainability! lets try it !)




i've seen a documentary on the eugenics movement,
it is a black mark.

as far as our  6.6 billion cousins,
tonight , i wish them well
merry christmass
 to all





 

[electrondady1]

Once again, the measures being urged have little basis in fact or science.

( i disagree, a  reduction in emissions and our rate of consumption is prudent

 Once again, groups with other agendas are hiding behind a movement that appears high-minded.

(every one has an agenda , the oil companies and the environmental movement)

 Once again, claims of moral superiority are used to justify extreme actions.

(i don't think this really applies.)

 Once again, the fact that some people are hurt is shrugged off because an abstract cause is said to be greater than any human consequences.

(if the obscenely rich oil companies take a financial hurt due to a reduction in sales i can shrug that off)

 Once again, vague terms like sustainability and generational justice --- terms that have no agreed definition --- are employed in the service of a new crisis.

(sustainability! lets try it !)

i've seen a documentary on the eugenics movement,

it is a black mark.

as far as our  6.6 billion cousins,

tonight , i wish them well

merry christmass

 to all

[Volvo farmer]

Glad to see you weighing in here Dan.

I am in agreement with you that there is a good likelihood that mankind is warming up the earth.

Here's where I get pessimistic. Where do we consider changing things to promote a more sustainable lifestyle? I'd like some answers, really. The numbers don't work for RE. You cannot support a population of 6.5 billion people on solar panels, waste vegetable oil, and wind turbines. You and I live in Utopian conditions, lots of land, in a wealthy country, with access to high technology yet not smothered in human beings.

There are six million human souls living in Rio De Janeiro, over 12,000 people per square mile

Imagine living where there are 10,000 people between your's and Matt's house and they all want a wind turbine and solar panels and have to get to town for supplies.

I read one section of that link you posted. The most important one to me was only 300 words or so.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11658

It suggested giving/loaning money to the third world to prevent climate change. Man, if you haven't read those books by John Perkins and why money is loaned to third world countries by the US, I suggest the research, because it is truly eye opening.

Our buddy Ron is a curmudgeonly old cur but he brings up good points. Why are the people using the most energy telling others that they need to feel guilty about using it?

Here's what I consider sustainable. American Indians of the early 1800s. They warred amongst themselves to keep the population in line and had plenty of resources to have a comfortable sustainable lifestyle.

Now someone explain to me how we can get back to a "sustainable" lifestyle, considering what we've got now in the world.  I hate to say it but I think it involves nuclear weapons. Maybe pathogens will do the job first though.

I feel like a heel posting this opinion at this time of year, but from a pagan POV, the days are getting longer and there is hope for the world. Sorry for the pessimism, but like the light, I think my attitude will improve in coming days.

[TAH]

Ok I missed by 10,000 KWHs a month. Besides that he gets it cheap. Back when I had to pay an electric bill it averaged $300 per month for 1200 KWH per month average usage. He must get the wholsale rate.

[zeusmorg]

 I was really going to stay out of this argument, but i guess....

 So what are you doing to save the planet and why? ME? Well, my total utility bills average around 90/mo, for gas, electric,and water. That's with 4 people.

 Gasoline usage? Well, I do use a car about a few times a month (but that gets 32-45 mpg). My primary form of transportation is a bicycle (which I built out of dumpster dives) and I'm 50..This is without any form of wind genny or solar power, currently. I don't waste energy. why? Because I'm a cheapskate! that's why! OH did i mention lazy? If i don't have to spend it, i don't have to earn it.If i build it, or recycle it,I don't have to buy it. My current project is insulating wall cavities, and that's with Styrofoam that i found a free source of.

  If this planet goes to hell, it'll most likely be after I'm dead.

[TAH]

I don't have any problem with reducing use and conservation. I wouldn't mind seeing the oil companies lose money. The problem is that doing all of that will do nothing to even slow down the increase in temperature if what Al Gore and others are saying is true. Al Gore's movie says that the temperature would continue to increase for many years even if there were Zero new CO2 being emmited. Any conservation would at best slow annual increase in the rate of temperature increase. There are only two possible solutions that seem possible, either find a way to absorb massive amounts of CO2 out of the atmosphere or reduce the population to a small fraction of the current size and very quickly (bird flu?)

[zeusmorg]

 What i find hypocritical is California's per capita energy usage. Here's a state full of people that want to tell the rest of the world how and what they should do, have passed the most stringent pollution laws, supposedly extremely RE friendly yet in per capita usage they are #2 in every category? (Except coal)

 This is in a state that has much milder climates than a lot of the usa? Makes ya go Hmmmm... I guess they have to sip their starschmuck's cappuccino's with their healthy granola bars in a smokefree environment with the A/C cooling off their perspiration over their worries of rolling brownouts..

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/states/sep_sum/plain_html/rank_use_per_cap.html

ok, so call me a practical environmentalist..HEY I'M RIDING MY BIKE IN THIS LANE!

[DamonHD]

Hi,

My understanding is that Mr Gore has recently made huge energy efficiency improvements at home, so he's walking the talk.

I think he still uses many time more than me, but the average Brit apparently uses 2x more than me and the average American at least 4x more than me...

In finance, the costs of things not certain to happen or certain to be fixable by us is calculated as the change times the cost.

So if you take DanB's 50% number as th chance that GW is due to us and we can do something about it, then we should take the vast costs resulting from not doing anything about it at all and multiply by 50%, which means that we are willfully squandering 50% of that huge number.

I think the number is nearer 90%, BTW.

Anyone who tells you it's 100% is a fool, or at least not any sort of scientist.

We don't need 100% certainty to work out the cost of apathy and to avoid it, such as not putting safety glass in skyscrapers or proper insulation on wiring or brakes in cars.

Rgds

Damon

[DamonHD]

"the chance times the cost"

[catweazle]

You are talking of risk:

risk = probability  x cost (of something happening)

Something can be extremely likely to happen (sealevel rising 6 m), let's assume the probability of that is just 1%, yet it can still be an enormous risk due to the large costs associated with a 6 m sealevel rise.

I have a slightly different opinion from you on Mr. Gore 'walking the walk'. He's a politician, he did nothing for global change when he had the chance to, and even today his energy consumption is way above average. I certainly don't admire him, even if he succeeds in reducing his energy usage by 50%.

His observation that the sealevel will rise 6 m (15 times what the IPCC scientists expect) seriously detracts from his credibility. It's outright misleading the audience. So much so that I do not believe any other claim or statement he makes. IMHO he has done the cause (educating the public) more harm than good with his 'documentary'.

But Mr. Gore is entirely irrelevant to the issue. He's a politician and thus not to be trusted, by definition. It does not mean that the scientific basis for global climate change (with anthropogenic cause) is by definition wrong simply because mr. Gore is a hypocrite who uses the problem to advance his own career.

Nothing is 100% certain about global climate change, but the current evidence, with all the uncertainty, unknowns and unknown unknowns certainly seems to point into a certain direction.

[ghurd]

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/g/gore-bush-houses.htm

G-

[hvirtane]

Now someone explain to me

how we can get back to a "sustainable" lifestyle,

considering what we've got now in the world.  

I hate to say it but I think it involves nuclear weapons.

I think that there are some people, who want a nuclear war.

I think that the desire for a nuclear war

is a far more dangerous than talks about

'global warming' etc, (even if they are

nowadays a little related).  

To get rid of desires for a nuclear war,

we should get rid of nuclear weapons.

We should somehow solve the dependency

for oil, too because that dependency creates

creates a lot of tension in the oil rich areas.

So we need better technologies.

Better technologies for self-sustainability,

better small-scale technologies?  

- Hannu

[TomW]

Hannu;

We should somehow solve the dependency

for oil, too because that dependency creates

creates a lot of tension in the oil rich areas.

My response to that comment is

"What are you doing, besides words on a forum?? Politicians and corporations use words to avoid true action. Don't fall into that trap.

Words are easy, those of us biting the bullet and doing even when the payback does not exist in our lifetime will at least change our own patterns and thats the start, leading by example.

This all started as a hobby for me. Now I am an energy tyrant. One turbine up, 300 watts of solar and about 900 AH of storage at 24 volts is my statement. Much more powerful than words.

I guess my point is, I get tired of seeing posts by know it alls with absolutely no RE experience and the "solution". Thats as bad as Gore. I don't recall seeing you post any personal projects so I may be wrong.

Don't get me started.

TomW

[hvirtane]

"What are you doing, besides words on a forum??

Politicians and corporations use words to avoid

true action. Don't fall into that trap.

Words are easy, those of us biting the bullet and

doing even when the payback does not exist in our

lifetime will at least change our own patterns and

thats the start, leading by example.

This all started as a hobby for me. Now I am an energy tyrant.

I hope that I will never become an energy tyrant.

I think that we can do 'these things' many ways.

(To be 'an energy tyrant' might suit to you, however.

I have no idea about your living style or about

the people, with whom you are cooperating. )

It is quite sure that we cannot stop using oil or

nuclear energy either quickly. But I don't see big

problems with that just now, we just need to be

tolerant and let people to take their time.  

Competition for oil reserves will maybe lead

into  more wars in the future, if the consumption

patterns would not change.

Waste problems of nuclear energy need some kind

of permanent solutions, too. I think that the

whole idea of using uranium for energy production

(and even more for weapons) was a big mistake.

Nuclear power stations should be closed.

Concerning my own activities.

I returned home from a quite long trip (about six

months) to India and Nepal about 7 weeks ago. In

India I helped some of my friends with their

political agendas and some of them with their

development of renewable energy technology

(wind machines, steam engines and such stuff).

In Nepal similar things with politics and doing

plans for some renewable energy things.  

In Finland I'm living in a house owned by the

state. I cannot build much energy systems here.

In Finland I'm as well mainly working to help some

of my friends to build their systems, not my own

energy systems.

In my opinion some kind of politics is as well

quite important. Most of American politicians

(including AlGore and Mr. Bush) are rather bad.

They should be changed, of course.

Most Finnish politicians are rather bad, too.

They should be changed, too.  

In my opinion politicians should be selected by

lotteries, not by voting. Votes you can too easily

buy as you see.  

- Hannu

[feral air]

It's kind of scary when you think about what we're capable of, that's all I gotta say.