Winnipesaukee Forum

Winnipesaukee Forum (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Discussion (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=3)
-   -   Global Warming (https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3050)

Great Idea 03-30-2006 05:00 PM

Thank you TIME.....
 
I refrained from responding to the "World is flat" responses earlier in the thread because I knew the article from Time was coming out... we should all read it and look at some ways to work on the problem. Check out Greenland.... this is a real and serious issue that we are contributing to. Lets not be the generation remember as the consumer pigs who ignored the signs and kept using and abusing..... Clean fuels and energy are out there. Its all just supply and demand. If we start demanding it someone will start supplying it.

Grant 03-30-2006 05:42 PM

And if you all want examples -- beyond global warming -- that strike close to home, consider the changes in Winnipesaukee in recent years.

I've been on the Lake for all of my 44+ years, and have seen some very disturbing developments recently. Winni is a glacial lake, so it's been around a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time, yet in a relative nanosecond, we've trashed it. Look at the algae blooms that come each summer. NEVER saw that when I was a kid...or even a teen...or in my twenties...and I spent a LOT of time with a mask on. Turbidity has changed as well. The water to our house always has come from the Lake...and, up until the last ten years or so, that is what we drank (smart or not...). Today, it's strictly the bottled stuff. Beach closings at Weirs due to bacteria. MTBE from fuel spills. Mercury-tainted fish. Mifoil from other bodies of water. Zebra mussels. What a mess. And it's all from us, the troublesome species that wants it all and trashes it at the same time.

Crank up the global temp a degree or two, and things get really weird. Sorry for the rant.

MAXUM 03-30-2006 05:48 PM

LOL what a bunch of garbage. Opening statement says it all...

No one can say exactly what it looks like when a planet takes ill, but it probably looks a lot like Earth.

Really.... because all the other planets in our solar system are looking like such better alternatives to earth to live on right? Great lets take all these tree huggers and ship them off to pluto! Enjoy your stay on a healthy planet! Notice how these "intellectual" people site global warming as a scientific "fact", even though the theory has been around for a while yet never has been proven. Let's talk fact, and the fact is that man has had NO proven effect on the temperature of the globe hence the reason why this is still a theory and probably always will be. Earth was a much warmer place before the ice age, who was to blame back then? How about global cooling...Oh yeah that evil killer asteroid that said EXXON on the side of it right? See back billions of years ago the "big oil" Neanderthals that are to blame! Crash the planet's climate into a cold state where everyone will need oil and gas to keep warm.

Please, I'm all for conservation and newer clean burning technologies, and of course exploiting natural forms of energy, but where are these people when it comes to defending that wind farm off the MA south shore? Oh that's right, not in my back yard. They way you give up your SUV but keep your hands off mine.

ITD 03-30-2006 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAXUM
Please, I'm all for conservation and newer clean burning technologies, and of course exploiting natural forms of energy, but where are these people when it comes to defending that wind farm off the MA south shore? Oh that's right, not in my back yard. They way you give up your SUV but keep your hands off mine.

Red hill and the other hills around the lake would be perfect for wind farms. Think of the amount of fossil fuels we would save.

Oh well, when politicians like Al Gore (the inventor of the internet ;) )start making speeches about doom day due to global warming my BS meter goes haywire.

There are enough serious problems with the "hockey stick" graph to make any expert who says global warming due to human use of fossil fuels is a fact suspect.

Time is trying to sell magazines, and this week I'm sure they did very well.

trfour 03-30-2006 07:49 PM

The scientists can't seem to agree on global warming! Don't let's get any politicians involved in this topic.

Politicians and diapers both need changing, and for the same reason. :laugh::)

Airwaves 03-30-2006 08:02 PM

This is pretty much my last comment (maybe) on this topic because I don't have the knowledge needed to carry on an intelligent conversation on this subject.

I am not a scientist. Not even close!

However, a vast majority of scientists who study such things, and devote their lives to this subject, believe our current way of living (our meaning the human race not just Americans) is having a severe impact on our planet.

I have seen photos of the ice melt on the polar caps. Again, these scientists say while those ice melts are cyclical, the fact that they are so dramatic in such a short period is alarming.

Do I consider myself a tree hugger? No, I drive an SUV. However I am open minded enough to consider what the folks who know much more than I know, might be right.

The U-S Govt says the issue needs more study. I ask you, who do you trust, a politician who needs more study (and needs to fundraise to be re-elected) or a scientist who has devoted his/her life and career to this topic (and needs grants to continue the research).

Remember, once people thought the world was flat and the Earth was the center of the Universe.
:eek:

Lakegeezer 03-30-2006 09:58 PM

Look locally, act globally
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Grant
And if you all want examples -- beyond global warming -- that strike close to home, consider the changes in Winnipesaukee in recent years.

Well said Grant. I've only been on the lake for 25 years, but also notice significant changes. There seems to be 1000 points of change if you just look around a bit.

I've often wondered what those from 100-200 years ago, such as Ben Franklin and Edison would think of all the technology of 2000. At the same time, I wish I could see 200 years into the future and know what 2200 will be like. How much will the climate really change? If it is significant, what will the citizens of the earth have done about it?

VarneyPoint 03-31-2006 12:49 AM

I've tried to refrain from this debate but I do want to make one point. The people who do climate research have very little to gain from raising awareness on global warming. Do you really think that they are becoming rich off this stuff? Do you think they have a hidden agenda? Do you think climatologists run around saying "global warming is real," because they think it is fun??? The answer is no. A climatologist doesn't get rich by educating people about global warming. He or she doesn't become famous or ink a book deal. Nope, they live a normal, quiet life trying to do their small part, yet they get referred to as "tree huggers" or "liberals" or "whack-jobs," by people who know nothing about science and even less about climatology.

However, the people who vehemently deny that global warming is occuring, do have an agenda. They have a lot to lose in terms of money, power and influence.

I am not a tree hugger and I am not a liberal. But when I read that polar bears are being found drowned everywhere I get worried because polar bears didn't just forget how to swim and they certainly didn't forget that they belong on the ice. Ever stop to think why they are drowning?? Because they got caught on a piece of ice that breaks off a glacier and floats out to sea, melts, and the polar bear ends up so far from land that he drowns from exhaustion.

Wake up people, global warming is real. Is the complete and full truth known, no, of course not. As we continue to study it, we will learn more. But a lot is known and it all points to a problem right now and down the road.

Sorry for the long post, but some people are so closeminded. Is your personal existence threatened by someone with a Ph.D. (btw, having a Ph.D. means you pretty much know everything there is to know in your field) who works at a reputable university, does some experiments and publishes the results in a peer-reviewed journal?

ps- there is no proof that God exists either, but the majority of the people on the planet have no trouble with that one...

MAXUM 03-31-2006 10:41 AM

It's been estimated that the 1980's eruption of Mt St. Helens put more green house gases in the atmosphere than man has EVER put in the atmosphere in the modern era. Hmm better put filters on all those volcanos out there to make them more earth friendly when they erupt!

Enough said, I'd prefer my tax dollars that are spent studing "global warming" be either returned to me so I can spend it more wisely, or better yet take that money and develop alternate power sources that are useful. There is no dispute that we can do better than fossil fuels, so lets do it and quit wasting money trying to prove some dumb theory. I don't need to waste millions upon millions of dollars to know that pushing for new clean burning or alternative technologies is good for everyone, the earth included.

Grant 03-31-2006 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAXUM
There is no dispute that we can do better than fossil fuels, so lets do it and quit wasting money trying to prove some dumb theory. I don't need to waste millions upon millions of dollars to know that pushing for new clean burning or alternative technologies is good for everyone, the earth included.

Well said. And now you'll have to excuse me -- I need to go fuel up my Suburban. Am I a hypocrite?

ITD 03-31-2006 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grant
Well said. And now you'll have to excuse me -- I need to go fuel up my Suburban. Am I a hypocrite?


Only if you have a "Mother Earth" bumper sticker on it.:D

Grant 03-31-2006 03:02 PM

What if I'm fueling it with BioDiesel?

Are there enough french fry joints in the Lakes Region to fill my 30 gallon tank?

If not, y'all better belly up to the counter and satisfy yer RDA for GREASE!

BioDiesel...noble cause...but it seems that the primary emission, water vapor, is also a chief GREENHOUSE EFFECT contributor.

I'm confused... :rolleye1:

SIKSUKR 03-31-2006 03:59 PM

Thanks for the voice of reason Maxum.I said it in an earlier post and I''ll say it again,global warming may very well be occuring.That catchy phrase "global warming" is a hot buzzword now but that's not the issue.The debate is whether it's man-made or a natural occurance,or the combination of both.I don't know how you can measure temp. change over the last 100+ years and conclude this is manmade.The earth is how many millions or billion years old?We have had numerous radical climate changes hot and cold way before man arrived on this planet.I love polar bears too but just because they are drowning does mean it is at the hands of a manmade climate change.

cowislander 03-31-2006 06:42 PM

Global Warming
 
It’s all a conspiracy by those limp wristed commies at Harvard. I for one have far more faith in the judgment of Exxon/Mobil lobbyists than the chief atmospheric scientist for NASA, and his ilk, who are pushing the commie conspiracy. We should ask the boys down in DC for another round of tax breaks for the poor folks driving Hummers and Suburbans! :cool:

jeffk 03-31-2006 06:53 PM

I respectfully disagree
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint
I've tried to refrain from this debate but I do want to make one point. The people who do climate research have very little to gain from raising awareness on global warming. Do you really think that they are becoming rich off this stuff? Do you think they have a hidden agenda? Do you think climatologists run around saying "global warming is real," because they think it is fun??? The answer is no. A climatologist doesn't get rich by educating people about global warming. He or she doesn't become famous or ink a book deal. Nope, they live a normal, quiet life trying to do their small part, yet they get referred to as "tree huggers" or "liberals" or "whack-jobs," by people who know nothing about science and even less about climatology.

However, the people who vehemently deny that global warming is occuring, do have an agenda. They have a lot to lose in terms of money, power and influence.

The people who study these issues certainly do have a lot at stake. They have built up a very large industry to push their point of view. Vast amounts of funding is at stake for both research and marketing. If they can't "prove" their point the funding dries up and their jobs go away. There is also a lot of prestige associated with these positions. I don't think they are necessarily dishonest but they are biased and they are certainly not disinterested parties.

The businesses and others that are questioning the global warming theory are asking for reasonable proof that 1) global warming IS happening to a degree that it could be harmful 2) man IS adding significantly to the warming effect 3) proposed changes WOULD BE EFFECTIVE in significantly reducing the warming effect.

It is known that the proposed "fixes" would have severe worldwide economic consequences. Yet, as far as I know, no one has produced a climate model that correctly models the changes in climate over the past few decades. The experts are still guessing as to why the changes that they have been able to measure have happened. Once we have a model that has some level of confidence we might be able to project into the future and decide if there really is a problem that we can do something about and if we want to accept the economic impacts that might be required to fix it.

ITD 04-18-2006 07:11 PM

Whoops, maybe Global Warming isn't a "fact"
 
Check out this article, bet we won't see this in the Boston Globe or NY Times.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ge/1017204.stm


And another one from a PHD, who "pretty much knows all there is to know in his field"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/...ge/1023334.stm

jrc 04-18-2006 07:40 PM

This is from a bunch of Canadian scientists:

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."

The whole thing is here:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/f...e-4db87559d605

Guess I'll still need to winterize the boat next year.

Lakegeezer 04-18-2006 09:39 PM

We need many points of view
 
Thanks, ITD and jrc, for your good examples of these important and opposing points of view. The article about Professor Bill Gray, from Colorado State University, is especially interesting. It describes how the famous hurricane predictor is passing the baton of his job to a new guy, so that he can spend more time studying global warming.

My gut still tells me that the earth has already passed a tipping point, and the climate will get warmer for the foreseeable future. Its good to read articles which present evidence that the melting we are seeing is a short term event. My real question isn’t “if the earth is warming”, but for how long? Will it be years, decades, centuries, or millenniums?

Grant 04-19-2006 10:14 AM

Bumper sticker recently sighted on a Suburban:

"I'm changing the environment -- ask me how."

Great Idea 04-19-2006 04:26 PM

Read/Watch all the info out there.....
 
Fact.... The average global temperature has increased one or two degrees in the last 10-15 years...... sound meaningless? That is the quickest change in temps in the last 3 MILLION YEARS. I like my toys and burnin fossil fuels too however its time for us all to open our eyes and ears and see the evidence for what it is...... I suggest everyone watch the NOVA special regarding Solar Shading that is currently on PBS.... real science, real data, real scary. The world is no longer flat.....

ITD 04-19-2006 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Idea
Fact.... The average global temperature has increased one or two degrees in the last 10-15 years...... sound meaningless? That is the quickest change in temps in the last 3 MILLION YEARS. I like my toys and burnin fossil fuels too however its time for us all to open our eyes and ears and see the evidence for what it is...... I suggest everyone watch the NOVA special regarding Solar Shading that is currently on PBS.... real science, real data, real scary. The world is no longer flat.....

That's not a fact, it's a theory and I don't believe anyone believes the temperature has gone up more than a 0.5 degrees so far and others think number is much less to the point of being in the "noise" decade to decade, year to year variation. Please read the articles jrc and I posted and you will see that the data collection and interpretation is suspect. BTW the earth was never flat, contrary to POPULAR belief back in history.

Rose 04-19-2006 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ITD
Please read the articles jrc and I posted and you will see that the data collection and interpretation is suspect.

Likewise, you should watch the Nova episode on Dimming the Sun which Great Idea references. As a meteorologist and atmospheric scientist, I know I'm more likely to listen to the NASA climatologist who has been studying this for 30 years than the tropical meteorologist who is just joining the fray.

chipj29 04-20-2006 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Idea
Fact.... The average global temperature has increased one or two degrees in the last 10-15 years...... sound meaningless? That is the quickest change in temps in the last 3 MILLION YEARS. I like my toys and burnin fossil fuels too however its time for us all to open our eyes and ears and see the evidence for what it is...... I suggest everyone watch the NOVA special regarding Solar Shading that is currently on PBS.... real science, real data, real scary. The world is no longer flat.....

Wow, that is pretty amazing. I wonder how they got the data from way back then? :confused: Let me guess, it is found in the ice. No wait, in the trees. No, the dinosaurs told us. :laugh:

Great Idea 04-20-2006 02:24 PM

Yikes.....
 
Study it very thoroughly and comprehensively then come back and debate the subect...... its not constructive (or fun) to debate an issue when your opinion comes from only what you want the answer to be rather than what the evidence supports. Like I said before I would love to keep burning my two stroke oil, driving my go fast boat and driving my big high power SUV but something tells me that is quickly going to change. I don't want to be one of the folks who ignored all the evidence and listened to oil industry lobbyists and paid researchers who's only goal is to create confusion regarding the issue so that we would continue the use of fossil fuels. 20 years from now we will be remembered as the generation that either made the right choice and started the changes aggressively or the one that ignored all the warning signs and really @%$$%$#@ the plant.

In this case ignorance won't be bliss....... STUDY and READ the material that is out there. The NASA scientist that Rose speaks of is one of THE most respected authorities in the field. Read his stuff, watch Nova , talk to the folks who study climate on Mt. Washington.... then come back and talk to us. Your laughing at us having read little if any real data on the subject???? (Read about fossilized tree/plant rings and ice cores regarding past temperature cycles) We should be the ones laughing at you but we won't waste time on it. Become knowledgable and join us in trying to come up with solutions.

jrc 04-20-2006 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Great Idea
...its not constructive (or fun) to debate an issue when your opinion comes from only what you want the answer to be rather than what the evidence supports...

That pretty much sums it up, that door swings both ways.

BTW which one of the sixty scientists on that Canadian letter, works for the oil industry?

The global warming rhetoric is approaching peak shrillness, a sure sign of collapse.
(This is in reference to the world not this forum, I'm not calling anyone shrill)

lakershaker 04-20-2006 05:11 PM

Debate not encouraged in Global Warming research
 
As the insightful Wall St. Journal editorial linked to below shows, true debate is not encouraged within acedemia when it comes to global warming. The author of the article, Dr. Richard Lindzen, is an endowed chair professor at MIT. I think that all would agree he could be described as objective. Unfortunately, when it comes to those government grants paying for study of global climate change, if you aren't supporting the thesis that global warming is occuring, and caused by human intervention, you tend to get cut off and banished...

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Lakegeezer 04-20-2006 07:57 PM

Document the changes?
 
Is there any reason for local action? Global climate change could have an impact on the lake, and even as the debate goes on we see the changes occurring in the lake. Coincidence? Causality? Has there been an impact yet on the lakes region in NH? We should document the changes that we perceive for future historians? For example, the past winter season saw no ice-in, a poor snowmobile economy, and an early spring.

chipj29 04-21-2006 08:31 AM

Honest Questions
 
OK so maybe the Earth really IS warmer than it was last year, 10 years ago, 100 years ago. OK call it global warming if you wish. However, how do we KNOW that it is being caused by man? Is it POSSIBLE it is being caused by other reasons that we do not know about? From what I have read and heard, there are a million theories on the cause, but the absolute cause is not known. Science is all about proven theories...are there any? Every "proven" theory seems to have an opposite theory, therefore I am not ready to buy into it yet.

SIKSUKR 04-21-2006 09:13 AM

Chip,that answer makes way too much sense,formulated by clear thinking.I feel this is another in a long line of liberal scare tactics that may or may not have any merit.I remain very skeptical.

lakershaker 04-21-2006 10:44 AM

Not to keep posting articles...
 
But I will post one more from today's Washington Times. Good summary for those not wanting to read the whole thing:
"Using temperature readings from the past 100 years, 1,000 computer simulations and the evidence left in ancient tree rings, Duke University scientists announced yesterday that "the magnitude of future global warming will likely fall well short of current highest predictions." "

I certainly hope they are right, as I never got to go out on the ice this winter!

But my favorite warning recently: On Wednesday, two geophysics professors at the University of Chicago warned those who eat red meat that their increased flatulence contributes to greenhouse gases. :emb:


http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...5953-7360r.htm

ApS 04-21-2006 11:13 AM

Governor Schwarzenegger (R-CA) speaks on the FACT of Global Warming:
 
Quote:

"Global warming and the pollution and burning of fossil fuels that cause it are threats we see here in California and everywhere around the world. These pollutants blanket the globe, trapping heat and creating the "greenhouse" effect - the warming of the earth's atmosphere. All of this impacts California's water supply, public health, agriculture, coastlines, forestry, and much more.

"We have no choice but to meet this challenge. So, we will mobilize with an aggressive plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions:

* We will fully implement California's landmark greenhouse gas law which requires cleaner burning vehicles sold in our state starting in 2009.

* We are going to accelerate the timetable to get more energy from renewable sources with a 20% reduction by 2010 and a 33% reduction by 2020.

* We are greening the state's fleet of government vehicles - 70,000 of them - to be the most fuel-efficient in the world.

* And we are recruiting businesses up and down the state to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions because it makes sense for our environment and our economy. Those who have already reduced their greenhouse gas emissions have saved billions of dollars.

Pollution reduction has long been proven to be a money-saver for businesses. It reduces operating costs, increases profits and creates new and expanded markets for environmental technology.


California can and must reduce pollution, reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming and at the same time improve our economy.
I've excerpted this one to comment on it:
Quote:


* We will continue to push my initiative to have one million solar powered homes and buildings in California to save energy and reduce pollution.
My BIL lives in Sacramento, and hand-built a solar panel array to benefit from California's Energy incentives. Most of the day, his electric meter runs backwards :look: sending electricity back to the grid and reducing his electric bill at the same time. California homeowners have the lowest electric bills of any state.

When he (BIL) arrives at Lake Winnipesaukee, he sets up a portable solar array to charge battery-packs to power his kayak electrically! Even with my most conscientious efforts, I can't beat this individual effort!

Anyway, maybe the fact of Global Warming "sounds better" coming from a celebrity? :confused:

VarneyPoint 04-21-2006 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lakershaker
The author of the article, Dr. Richard Lindzen, is an endowed chair professor at MIT. I think that all would agree he could be described as objective.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220


Lindzen is on the payroll of big oil. Google him and you will find that he has many ties oil and coal interests, specifically "consulting" fees. Doesn't seem to be objective to me.

Island Girl 04-21-2006 01:02 PM

Giving up red meat
 
Oh, no!!! Giving up fresh grilled hamburgers on the island may just be too much for me... Then again... if the season gets extended by all this red meat eating... we could boat for more weeks, though we might have to give up snowmobiling on the lake.

What to do.. What to do??

red meat? snowmobiling?
red meat? snowmobiling?
red meat? snowmobiling?

I just cannot make up my mind.. guess I will go grill a hamburger now!

Hey, Pepper... I might consider giving up the red meat today if you will bring a lobster roll to Minge Cove... bring yourself something to eat as well and I will pick you up and bring you out here!!!! :D

(the sun came out here on Rattlesnake Island a couple of hours ago and the east wind died down.... paradise!!!}

Tongue in Cheek
IG

John A. Birdsall 04-21-2006 03:09 PM

[QUOTE=SAMIAM]If we stopped using every internal combustion engine in the world tomorrow....it would have no effect on global warming when compared to the carbon dioxide caused by rotting vegetation.
************************************************** ***
If this is the case then everybody should cease eating baked beans, especially those from Boston who are full of "hot" air!
:emb:

Winnigirl 04-21-2006 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VarneyPoint
Lindzen is on the payroll of big oil. Google him and you will find that he has many ties oil and coal interests, specifically "consulting" fees. Doesn't seem to be objective to me.


Exactly. Thank you, VarneyPoint!

Great Idea 04-21-2006 05:08 PM

Thank you....
 
Thank you Varney Point.....
drill down further and you will find that many of the Canadian "scientists" work as consultants/lobbyists for the coal/shale conversion industry up there. They want to sell/promote the coal shale industry. Fossil fuel... Do your homework and STUDY ALL the aspects of the subject and make note of who is paying who for the various research. I once thought as you did until I did the due diligence. I have spent many hours over serveral years reading/researching the subject. The evidence is so overwhelming its not funny. I was blown away when I noticed in almost 90 percent of the cases in which a contrary to global warming arguement was presented the research/opinion had come from someone paid or affiliated with the oil and coal industry. Keep one thing in mind...... all the major scientific communities/groups in the world have NEVER really disputed the fact that Global Warming exists,just to what extent it exists. If you do what I am suggesting it will make you angry that folks seem to think it is ok to actually deceive the public as long as they benefit financially from it. Go ahead and do the reading....... me telling you isn't going to do anything to change your opinion. Please look on line at the NASA climate change report and the edits made by the current administration's EPA head before it was published..... THAT will really open your eyes ......

ITD 04-21-2006 05:16 PM

Imagine that, an oil company sponsoring studies relevant to their industry, oh the horrors. Next there will be medical companies sponsoring medical studies, oh where will it end. I'm willing to bet if I drilled down the alarmists of global warming I'll find they're sponsored by let's say Greenpeace or the Sierra Club or some other such environmental group, I haven't checked but I bet I'm right.

VarneyPoint 04-21-2006 07:15 PM

So Great Idea,

Am not sure if you are challenging me or agreeing with me? I am confused by your position. I actually am a scientist, have dual degrees in chemisty and biology, and am a published author, so I have a pretty good idea as to how industry sponsored research works and places to look that are peer-reviewed instead of op-ed pieces in newspapers.


ITD, ever stop to wonder if there has EVER been a study sponsored by an oil/coal company that has said "global warming is real and man is causing it?" I bet you haven't, I wonder why? Do you think that perhaps they would lose a lot of money if that happened? Last time I checked, Greenpeace wasn't making a $25 billion profit in a single quarter.

Great Idea 04-21-2006 09:29 PM

I am in complete agreement...
 
with your comments Varney Point and was thanking you for pointing out the fact that the researcher in question was paid by the coal industry. Thank you also for pointing out the obvious to ITD. Never have these paid researchers come up with anything in opposition to what the oil companies want us to hear. Like you said ITD.... you haven't really looked into it. Before you argue further perhaps you should study it? Please do. Your in for a shock. Did you also know that 80 percent of the US population now believes that some form of human influenced global warming is now taking place? 5 years ago it was less than 50 percent. Education is a wonderful thing! STUDY the subject and READ ALL the data that is scientifically verifiable (not just the opinion pages) and then look at the sources of funding behind the opinion or research. Is NASA who gets it funding from the current administration paid for by the "Greenies"??? Read what there EXTENSIVE research and data has to say and then tell me its biased liberal BS tree hugger stuff.....

By the way , I am politically conservative and never considered myself a "tree hugger" however I do value education and I took the time to educate myself on this topic and it opened my eyes WIDE to the oil/coal industry CRAP we are being fed by the hired climate "experts" .... Protecting the environment will become a "conservative" issue once it starts to dig into people's pockets ...... it has started already.

Lakegeezer 04-21-2006 09:34 PM

New energy source needed
 
The shale era is inevitable, but maybe the carbon can be consumed more cleanly. The energy companies are going to make tons of money hording the last bit of fossil fuel. Maybe the industry should be nationalized for a while? It is not in the interest of the oil companies to have a quick switch-over to a new energy. That would lower its profits and upset its stockholders. Wouldn’t it be nice if the carbon energy industry would re-invest its profits in developing successful non-carbon sources of energy?

It will take at least 20 and more likely 100 years to convert to a non-carbon based energy source, but there isn’t much progress yet. Hydro electric is pretty much tapped, wind farms are failing to be accepted, solar power still isn't efficient enough, and nuclear safety problems are still questioned. Locally, perhaps we could harness the power in the weekend boat wake and use it to power our lights for the rest of the week. J

What ever the energy answer turns out to be, the conversion has not yet really begun. There is no desperation yet – even in the face of shortages and suspicion of climate impact. It would be exciting to live through the evolutionary period where more than 20% of new houses and cars are built to use non-carbon energy sources. It would be the most exciting change since the dawn of the space age.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:09 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.