What was intended as an unapologetic flame of those of us who care about our planet, has ended up being a vehicle for raising awareness that all of us can do much more. So, er, thank you Drifter, it is quite possible that you have helped us all.
(10-25-2019, 10:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 10:23 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media.giphy.com/media/U1aN4HTfJ2SmgB2BBK/giphy.gif)
Triggered?
Nah, just reminding you that whatever you surrender won't ever be enough.
I drive a Fred Flintstone car.
(10-25-2019, 09:40 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 07:04 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]My other argument. For those so concerned and championing the green thumb on here. Few questions.
1. How much water do you use a day?
2. Do you use a dishwasher?
3. Do you use a washer?
4. Do you drive a gasoline based vehicle?
5. Do you use solar or standard energy?
6. Do you unplug all of your electronics?
7. How energy efficient is your home?
8. How often do you fly yearly?
Those are the kind of nosy questions that point towards a nanny state that will dictate the answers for you.
I think its important to minimize the total from everyone, but I don't want anyone coming into anyone else's home to unplug their electronics.
I do think there are good things that can come from regulations like building codes and the energy star program. New homes have double pane windows and new commercial buildings turn the lights off when no motion is detected.
But going beyond that is policing personal behavior and that will create more problems than it solves.
That's why I advocate for a carbon tax. Wanna use more fossil fuel? None of my business why you want to - just please pay more tax if so.
A good carbon tax would enable them to cut other taxes. My home does use solar power. I drive a very fuel efficient car. That's a tax cut for me.
If it saves money I am all for it. I agree with you. I don't want a nanny state. But that's the direction we're all headed in since we've allowed technology to dictate the driver's seat.
My main point was just being a smart [BLEEP]. Since it's typically people with double standards telling you to abide by this or abide by that. Especially your Hollywood Champions who love to fly first class from coast to coast on a regular basis preaching to us all about the importance of leaving less and less of a carbon footprint, etc.
Practice what you preach is what I am getting at. So respect to you. You're at least practicing what you preach. I have nothing against cleaner sources of energy. I have nothing against more efficient energy. When I visited my wife's family in Germany their entire little German village was pretty much outfitted to run off of solar energy. And they had windmill energy sources everywhere out in the country side.
I do disagree with you though about carbon taxes. I don't like taxes. Uncle Sam already bends me over enough as it is with his 3 month share of my hard earned cash. What I would rather see is the people up there in D.C be held more accountable for utilizing our tax money to get ahead of the curve and resolve any potential energy crisis down the road.
We don't want to be China 2.0 where it's the land of Golden Smog. There's certainly harm in not having clean air around to breath. That's a fair point. But over the grand scheme of things. As far as year over year and our overall blip on the map with the industrial age compared to the history of our planet correcting itself and dealing with sun spot heat increases, polar magnetic changes, ice cap's melting, etc.
We're just a flea on a dog's [BLEEP] in comparison to all of that.
Good post, Caldrac. Those of us who believe in the human effect on our environment need to walk the walk, not just talk the talk. There are many, such as yourself, who may dispute man's role in all of this, and whether or not, in the grand scheme of things, the earth won't simply correct itself. Notwithstanding either posture, the world view on this seems to be evolving into more agreement on what role mankind plays in all of this. I think the dialog is good and should continue. But we need a dialog of deeds as well as one based merely upon words. Thank you for your thoughts.
(10-25-2019, 12:06 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 10:51 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Triggered?
Nah, just reminding you that whatever you surrender won't ever be enough.
In ten years, when my daughter turns 16, that will be the first time in 27 years that I give a ? what a 16 year old girl thinks of me.
(10-25-2019, 07:04 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]My other argument. For those so concerned and championing the green thumb on here. Few questions.
1. How much water do you use a day?
2. Do you use a dishwasher?
3. Do you use a washer?
4. Do you drive a gasoline based vehicle?
5. Do you use solar or standard energy?
6. Do you unplug all of your electronics?
7. How energy efficient is your home?
8. How often do you fly yearly?
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
I think you have to separate the two questions:
1) Is it real?
2) What are you willing to do about it?
I think it's real, for sure. But I'm not sure what I'm willing to do about it. I don't endorse ridiculous overreactions like the "Green New Deal."
(10-25-2019, 12:26 PM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 09:40 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Those are the kind of nosy questions that point towards a nanny state that will dictate the answers for you.
I think its important to minimize the total from everyone, but I don't want anyone coming into anyone else's home to unplug their electronics.
I do think there are good things that can come from regulations like building codes and the energy star program. New homes have double pane windows and new commercial buildings turn the lights off when no motion is detected.
But going beyond that is policing personal behavior and that will create more problems than it solves.
That's why I advocate for a carbon tax. Wanna use more fossil fuel? None of my business why you want to - just please pay more tax if so.
A good carbon tax would enable them to cut other taxes. My home does use solar power. I drive a very fuel efficient car. That's a tax cut for me.
If it saves money I am all for it. I agree with you. I don't want a nanny state. But that's the direction we're all headed in since we've allowed technology to dictate the driver's seat.
My main point was just being a smart [BLEEP]. Since it's typically people with double standards telling you to abide by this or abide by that. Especially your Hollywood Champions who love to fly first class from coast to coast on a regular basis preaching to us all about the importance of leaving less and less of a carbon footprint, etc.
Practice what you preach is what I am getting at. So respect to you. You're at least practicing what you preach. I have nothing against cleaner sources of energy. I have nothing against more efficient energy. When I visited my wife's family in Germany their entire little German village was pretty much outfitted to run off of solar energy. And they had windmill energy sources everywhere out in the country side.
I do disagree with you though about carbon taxes. I don't like taxes. Uncle Sam already bends me over enough as it is with his 3 month share of my hard earned cash. What I would rather see is the people up there in D.C be held more accountable for utilizing our tax money to get ahead of the curve and resolve any potential energy crisis down the road.
We don't want to be China 2.0 where it's the land of Golden Smog. There's certainly harm in not having clean air around to breath. That's a fair point. But over the grand scheme of things. As far as year over year and our overall blip on the map with the industrial age compared to the history of our planet correcting itself and dealing with sun spot heat increases, polar magnetic changes, ice cap's melting, etc.
We're just a flea on a dog's [BLEEP] in comparison to all of that.
The carbon tax is supposed to allow reduction of other taxes, like income or payroll tax. I don't like taxes either, but that's not a logical reason to oppose swapping a new tax for an old one.
(10-25-2019, 12:57 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 07:04 AM)Caldrac Wrote: [ -> ]My other argument. For those so concerned and championing the green thumb on here. Few questions.
1. How much water do you use a day?
2. Do you use a dishwasher?
3. Do you use a washer?
4. Do you drive a gasoline based vehicle?
5. Do you use solar or standard energy?
6. Do you unplug all of your electronics?
7. How energy efficient is your home?
8. How often do you fly yearly?
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
I think you have to separate the two questions:
1) Is it real?
2) What are you willing to do about it?
I think it's real, for sure. But I'm not sure what I'm willing to do about it. I don't endorse ridiculous overreactions like the "Green New Deal."
I am visualizing a flow chart.
(10-25-2019, 01:03 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 12:57 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I think you have to separate the two questions:
1) Is it real?
2) What are you willing to do about it?
I think it's real, for sure. But I'm not sure what I'm willing to do about it. I don't endorse ridiculous overreactions like the "Green New Deal."
I am visualizing a flow chart.
I think climate change denialists often retreat into the stance that they don't like the solutions to the problem. But that's not really the question, is it? The first question is, is it real, and the second question is, what are you willing to do about it.
It's like a guy is standing in the road, and you tell him there is an oncoming car, he better get out of the road. And his answer is, I don't want to get out of the road, therefore, there is no oncoming car.
Some people seem to think that if they accept the science, they have to accept a whole set of proposed solutions. So they deny the science, in order to avoid whatever draconian solutions they imagine.
(10-25-2019, 01:07 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 01:03 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ]I am visualizing a flow chart.
I think climate change denialists often retreat into the stance that they don't like the solutions to the problem. But that's not really the question, is it? The first question is, is it real, and the second question is, what are you willing to do about it.
It's like a guy is standing in the road, and you tell him there is an oncoming car, he better get out of the road. And his answer is, I don't want to get out of the road, therefore, there is no oncoming car.
Some people seem to think that if they accept the science, they have to accept a whole set of proposed solutions. So they deny the science, in order to avoid whatever draconian solutions they imagine.
Yes, but it's more complicated than that. For those that refute or deny the science, their solution is to do nothing. So they get pissed off by congress dictating what they have to do to address a problem that they feel does not exist.
Ironically, those that see a valid threat, often get pissed off by those same proposed mandated solutions, in whole or in part, for various reasons. Some of the rules are overbearing, some are viewed as inconsequential or of little help.
My personal point of view is that the problem does exist, and while I am hopeful for a viable solution, but am unsure what that is. So though I feel that we need action on a global level as well as in a personal one, I don't know what that means exactly, what it should look like. I think that you are correct in saying that the solution starts at home. I think that Caldrac is correct that there is a lot of hypocrisy to be found. I feel that we can do more. I am not predisposed to panic on the issue, as some are. But I do feel as though it is time for action. What that means exactly, I don't know. Separating plastic and metal, paper and plastic into bins by itself simply will not get the job done. It doesn't even get at the root of the problem, which is excessive amounts of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide in our atmosphere. We must do more. So dialog is good, in fact it's pretty great. But we must try to figure out somehow, that dialog in and of itself does nothing. So the flow chart keeps on circling around on itself. I think it is time for us to ask ourselves the question, calmly, methodically, expediently and without delay:
NOW WHAT?
[BLEEP] hole messiahs always looking for a Crusade.
(10-24-2019, 09:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2019, 02:05 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]The holebin the ozone is at its smallest. More polar bears than ever before...
#makeearthgeeatagain
the ozone hole was created by human emissions of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons.
Human governments decided to ban the emission of these chemicals, and they stopped getting emitted.
So the reduction in the size of the ozone hole actually teaches quite a different lesson than you seem to suppose.
Lmao no fool...that's not how it happened...they found it was tearing and repairing it's self on its own...has nothing to do with man....do you really think the ozone and the Earth is that fragile.....do you really think banning hair spray fixed it... LMFAO ?
(10-25-2019, 07:43 PM)nejagsfan Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2019, 09:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]the ozone hole was created by human emissions of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons.
Human governments decided to ban the emission of these chemicals, and they stopped getting emitted.
So the reduction in the size of the ozone hole actually teaches quite a different lesson than you seem to suppose.
Lmao no fool...that's not how it happened...they found it was tearing and repairing it's self on its own...has nothing to do with man....do you really think the ozone and the Earth is that fragile.....do you really think banning hair spray fixed it... LMFAO ?
The ozone layer is in a delicate balance. immediately above it is a process where ozone is created. Immediately below it is a process where ozone is destroyed.
when things are in balance, the two processes run at the same rate, and the layer is stable.
A little bit of chlorine in the lower level will speed up the process of ozone being destroyed.
Chlorofluorocarbon tend to degrade over time and produce free chlorine gas as they degrade.
Yes the hole is repairing itself now that there is less chlorine in the atmosphere.
The main application of chlorofluorocarbons is for refrigeration, not hairspray cans.
(10-25-2019, 07:43 PM)nejagsfan Wrote: [ -> ] (10-24-2019, 09:30 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]the ozone hole was created by human emissions of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons.
Human governments decided to ban the emission of these chemicals, and they stopped getting emitted.
So the reduction in the size of the ozone hole actually teaches quite a different lesson than you seem to suppose.
Lmao no fool...that's not how it happened...they found it was tearing and repairing it's self on its own...has nothing to do with man....do you really think the ozone and the Earth is that fragile.....do you really think banning hair spray fixed it... LMFAO ?
Too much carbon dioxide.
Too much methane.
Too much nitrous oxide.
Where do these excesses come from?
Are they man made?
Do our actions play a role?
If so, what can we do to help resolve the issue?
Do we even care?
Some of us do.
(10-25-2019, 08:00 PM)ferocious Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 07:43 PM)nejagsfan Wrote: [ -> ]Lmao no fool...that's not how it happened...they found it was tearing and repairing it's self on its own...has nothing to do with man....do you really think the ozone and the Earth is that fragile.....do you really think banning hair spray fixed it... LMFAO ?
Too much carbon dioxide.
Too much methane.
Too much nitrous oxide.
Where do these excesses come from?
Are they man made?
Do our actions play a role?
If so, what can we do to help resolve the issue?
Do we even care?
Some of us do.
If you really cared you would be the first one in line to "opt out."
But you don't care
that much...
Fun facts:
Over 95% of the greenhouse affect comes from water vapor. Co2 isn't nearly the most potent Nd human beings only represent minority of co2 production...
There isn't a historical causal relationship between co2 levels and surface temperatures. In fact according to the ice cores the OPPOSITE is true.
There have been times in the Earths history when there were no or very little ice caps.
The giant fusion engine that provides 99.999999999999999999999999 of the energy on the planet has power cycles.
Last but not least the earth has been warming and cooling for all of its 4.1 billion years. Glacial periods, ice ages, tropical climates etc.
(10-25-2019, 08:45 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Fun facts:
Over 95% of the greenhouse affect comes from water vapor. Co2 isn't nearly the most potent Nd human beings only represent minority of cow production...
There isn't a historical causal relationship between co2 levels and surface temperatures. In fact according to the ice cores the OPPOSITE is true.
There have been times in the Earths history when there were no or very little ice caps.
The giant fusion engine that provides 99.999999999999999999999999 of the energy on the planet has power cycles.
Last but not least the earth has been warming and cooling for all of its 4.1 billion years. Glacial periods, ice ages, tropical climates etc.
So your argument against global warming is that, and I quote
"human beings only represent minority of cow production."
That is so astonishingly brilliant that I have placed your name in nomination for a nobel prize. Let me be the first to congratulate you for your contributions. I am in awe of you, and the field of science will forever be in your debt.
(10-25-2019, 08:45 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Fun facts:
Over 95% of the greenhouse affect comes from water vapor. Co2 isn't nearly the most potent Nd human beings only represent minority of cow production...
There isn't a historical causal relationship between co2 levels and surface temperatures. In fact according to the ice cores the OPPOSITE is true.
There have been times in the Earths history when there were no or very little ice caps.
The giant fusion engine that provides 99.999999999999999999999999 of the energy on the planet has power cycles.
Last but not least the earth has been warming and cooling for all of its 4.1 billion years. Glacial periods, ice ages, tropical climates etc.
Some of what you wrote is correct.
The sun's output really does vary over time.
however, ever since Sputnik, the scientists have been able to measure this without the Earth's atmosphere getting in the way.
There have found that the solar output is actually a little bit down over the last 50 years.
Meanwhile, we have more and more record-breaking years in terms of Earth's high surface temperature.
Even while solar output is down.
Do you have an explanation for that?
(10-25-2019, 09:14 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] (10-25-2019, 08:45 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]Fun facts:
Over 95% of the greenhouse affect comes from water vapor. Co2 isn't nearly the most potent Nd human beings only represent minority of cow production...
There isn't a historical causal relationship between co2 levels and surface temperatures. In fact according to the ice cores the OPPOSITE is true.
There have been times in the Earths history when there were no or very little ice caps.
The giant fusion engine that provides 99.999999999999999999999999 of the energy on the planet has power cycles.
Last but not least the earth has been warming and cooling for all of its 4.1 billion years. Glacial periods, ice ages, tropical climates etc.
Some of what you wrote is correct.
The sun's output really does vary over time.
however, ever since Sputnik, the scientists have been able to measure this without the Earth's atmosphere getting in the way.
There have found that the solar output is actually a little bit down over the last 50 years.
Meanwhile, we have more and more record-breaking years in terms of Earth's high surface temperature.
Even while solar output is down.
Do you have an explanation for that?
human beings only represent minority of cow production.