For the global warming agnostics

http://climatedebatedaily.com/
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Michael Bulatovich wrote:

Spend a little time at http://www.climateaudit.org and you'll quickly realize that there is much of the stuff listed under "Climate Debate Daily" "Calls to action" is severely flawed. Also much of it isn't climate related, but based on zero growth theories.
http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id 4002
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Have been there.

This is more or less my short term position on the issue. I have quite a bit of confidence in homo sapiens sapiens' ability to adapt, but I still grieve for the irretrievable losses. My gut tells me we are at least partially responsible....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

THe problem is that Global Warming and Pollution have become interchangeable. They aren't - related, yes; interchangeable, no.
There is no doubt whatsoever that pollution causes damage, not only to other species, but to humans as well. Dealing with pollution, trying to reduce it, is important to human health, as well as to trying to preserve some semblance of environmental balance, and natural beauty.
If we decreased pollution, one can argue that it would also help slow or decrease global warming, at least, whatever part of it that is anthropogenic.
What pisses me off is idiots who whine and kvetch that "global warming is a myth!" and then use that as an excuse to crap up as much of the environment as they possibly can. Regardless of whether one "beleives in" global warming, the fact is that pollution is *known* to be detrimental to the health and well-being of biological entities (including humans). And there are prob. peoblems from it that haven't yet been discovered.
The whole global warming thing aside, what the heck is wrong with reducing pollution, when inmproving the environemnt would improve our (and our descendents') own health and well-being? That's what I don't comprehend - why people blither and yowl as though pollution is great.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I concur. I live in a place where the predominant airflow comes off the Coral Sea and hence the South Pacific. Should be the freshest air anywhere. No one out there dumping shit in the atmosphere eh? On the other hand, The place is in danger of becoming a polluters paradise. They come to town, get out the idiot meter, and it goes off the dial. There is a strong possibility that nickel and other ores are regularly being spilled on arrival at the port, along with airborn pollution from transport and processing. There is a problem of black "dust" which is a complex cocktail of lead, zinc, silicas and moulds. The mould is probably tricodesmium, naturally occurring as 'red tides' but maybe being modified by the brew ?. With the coastal drift, everyone gets a bit, and the main city water containment is downwind of one of the processing plants - which is known to release cadmium ...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Someone in another forum I visit is always going on about the "soot". He makes some pretty valid arguments about soot vs carbon, but in the end it is a combination of all those things.
--
Edgar



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh my but that sounds deliciously exotic <G!>
ANyhoo, you point out:

That's disgusting. IMO ther eis no excuse - it's just laziness.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The current Canadian government tried to use the substitution of pollution reduction (smog) for carbon emissions in a relation to Kyoto targets. That drove me nuts. Smog is one thing, runaway greenhouse effect is another. Now that it is so oligopolistic, mainstream media is failing us as the fourth estate.
I appreciate now more than ever our relatively robust public broadcaster, www.cbc.ca. They might be shallow botoxed fools, but they're *our* shallow botoxed fools, and at least Murdoch doesn't sign their checks.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don;t even think it's that - I think it's the general reduction of quality (and intelligence) in journalism. THere are a lot fo news stories that sound to me like some crappy little report that any 78th- grader could write after spending maybe a half-hour on the internet. The level of both writing and research has been steadily decreasing. IWO, what I suspect is that very *very* few people in the mainstream media have any idea whatsoever of what the difference is between smog, and greenhouse gasses. They just repeat what someone else said or wrote, and if that someone was a dooflolly, well.....

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We only differ as to the root cause of it, with you thinking it a bit more innocent than me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, not innocent - rude is prob. a better word ;) . It's just that, as I've gotten older, I increasingly realize that most peole just are not smart enough to perpetrate some ofthe plots/conspircies attributed to them by others.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Kris Krieger wrote:

A what?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Especially when you start mangling the stuff you read and reiterate it as an offsetting fact.
The study you read calculated the total environmental vehicle impact - including manufacturing, operating expenses, emissions, waste handling of the dead vehicle, etc. - not just the mileage. The big surprise, for some, is that the 'green' vehicles aren't necessarily all that green when you look at the larger picture. The best vehicles overall were small, cheap-to-produce, easy-to-recycle vehicles. The Scion brand did particularly well. The Hummer did not.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_17/b4031064.htm
Tatas for the masses!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Expensive to the owner, or expensive in terms of waste/environmental impact?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.