He just needs to serious reduce his numbers and keep them under control. Instead he tries to cure every disease and live forever. We are a pill away from that last one i'm sure.
--
http://www.pbase.com/paulyoly/root
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Are you an environmentalist?
- Thread starter shoot123
- Start date
--
http://www.pbase.com/paulyoly/root
tbcass
Forum Pro
Lets not talk about Meteorites here. If you show me where I can find cold hard unbiased data refuting Dr Lomborgs data I will be happy to study it. Remember, he was a member of Green Peace so if anything his bias may have been the opposite of what you think. I don't have to have published to know what it's about. It's too easy to dismiss someone you don't agree with that way. Show me the data. Try not to get emotionally involved. It damages the thought processes.
--
Tom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
--
Tom
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/
sugar208304
Senior Member
Well I suggest that YOU prvoe to me that the way we use our oil, uranium, and all other minerals in a sustainable way
I also would like you to prove that the way we fish the seas is sustainable
Just to name two exemples. there is more to 'environtalism' than the greenhous effect
sugar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I can crop at the long end myself if I want to
some humble pictures : http://www.flickr.com/photos/67259727@N00/
I also would like you to prove that the way we fish the seas is sustainable
Just to name two exemples. there is more to 'environtalism' than the greenhous effect
sugar
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I can crop at the long end myself if I want to
some humble pictures : http://www.flickr.com/photos/67259727@N00/
Granted, we could do nothing. However, if we were all fearful of making a mistake, we all waited for everything to be proven to the nth degree, nothing would ever get done.
Most things in life are uncertain; we have to act on the best evidence available at any point in time.
-Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond
JoePhoto
Veteran Member
Just like oil ... the "known" reserves may only be enough for a specific time. But, just like Oil .... when they go "looking" .... they usually find more.
ANWR is an example .... many are saying that there is not "enough" there anyway to justify drilling ... BUT ... they have not fully explored ANWR yet ... so no-one-knows yet how much is there.
Heck ... there may be more there than in Saudi Arabia ... no one knows yet.
The enviromentalists will not even allow more exploration.
So there is probably more Uranium also, if we simply need/LOOK for it. (they were finding a lot of it in the western-U.S ..... but that exploration stopped in the 50's.)
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
Sorry Joe,
I'm not much for conspiracy theories involving large numbers of people.
-Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond
JoePhoto
Veteran Member
But you have already FALLEN for it. You just repeated the words of them when you gave me your own "predictions" of increased Global Warming.
Those were the predictions of the "conspiracists" ....
Since I have taken the time to learn the FACTS ... and "think" about them ... I have found that there has simply been no "warming" in the last 8 years.
What is wrong with FACTS ??? Is there a problem when facts get in the way of "predictions"; when the facts do not support it.
You earlier admitted there were "cycles" .... yet your "predictions" assumed that the warming would continue ... and not "cycle".
--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto
( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )
I found some with a cursory search on the net.
That's what I used to think.
The people of the planet consume about 14TW from all energy sources, utilizing about 4 of those TWs (the rest is waste heat). Total global resources of oil, coal and natural gas amount to about 4-6TW for 100 years for each fuel. Total global biomass production is on the order of 20TW. Total geothermal energy production (nuclear decay) is on the order of 4TW. Do any of those numbers sound promising for sustainability beyond this century? Let's say they're wrong by a factor of 2-10. Does that matter much?
On the other hand, total global wind energy production is around 1,000-2,000TW and total global solar insolation is around 100,000TW. So you tell me, where do you think we should go for our energy?
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
PhotoTraveler
Forum Pro
I don't know where you got that from. There is probably enough processed uranium to fuel reactors for the next 30 years already on the shelf ready to go.
At any rate, any projection for uranium quantities is into the thousands of years, 500 years is about as low as I have ever seen. Which is massively farther out then oil. Just recycling what we put into nuclear weapons will hold us for a while.
We may have the first production Fusion reactor on line in 30-40 years. From there, we will be fine.
At any rate, any projection for uranium quantities is into the thousands of years, 500 years is about as low as I have ever seen. Which is massively farther out then oil. Just recycling what we put into nuclear weapons will hold us for a while.
We may have the first production Fusion reactor on line in 30-40 years. From there, we will be fine.
Well there are cycles and there are cycles. Sure there are some long term cycles will eventually put the earth back into an ice age......but right now we're in a long term warming trend.
It's like the stock market, the long term trend is upwards, but there are daily and weekly and multi-year cycles within the long term trend. As to the facts, because there are many variables, I don't see that you can draw many conclusions from an 8 year time frame when it comes to something as large a mass as the earth...it's just in the noise.
The predictions (they are not mine) come from something more concrete that just looking at the past temperature variations of the earth....they come from estimates based on measurable changes that are taking place in the earths' atmosphere.
-Don
http://www.pbase.com/dond
Koosla
Senior Member
(n/t)
Frank from AZ
Senior Member
--
Frank from Phoenix
Canon1DMk2,1D,Oly5060 and lots of typos
Frank from Phoenix
Canon1DMk2,1D,Oly5060 and lots of typos
Frank from AZ
Senior Member
So, we should leave all our decisions regarding science to scientists because they know best. An elitist argument if ever there was.
You'd rather us follow blindly certain "scientists" with their own agendas?
We can all read the reports and put such information into historical context.
Oh, and FYI, the scientific community is far from unaminous on the causes of global warming. If you bother to do some basic research, you'll see the cycles of global warming--cooling since time immemorial. In recent times, look at a map of the 1500's then compare it to one from the early 1800's, before the industrial revolution. You'll see missing large tracts of coastal land and islands from rising oceans. Caused by global warming. What caused it? I suppose you can blame the native indians with all their campfires.
Let's look at the current hysteria over last year's devasting hurricane season here in the USA. All the kooks have come out of the woodwork claiming these hurricanes as Exhibit "A" in their case for man made global warming. Yet, in the period from 1965 to 2005, which saw the greatest increase in man made pollutants, yearly hurricane rates went down. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that if there was truly a connection, the hurricane rates would have steadily increased along with the pollution.
You've merely substituted faith based science for the gods and high priests of old in trying to explain natural phenomena. And God help those who have the nerve to question these modern priests of "science".
I prefer the views of Richard Lindzen, a link to his opinion is below. I suppose you know more than Mr. Lindzen? He just happens to be the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Is there anyone more qualified on this subject then he his? Is there anyone less susceptible to political agendas than he is? What do you know that Mr. Lindzen doesn't know?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Frank from Phoenix
Canon1DMk2,1D,Oly5060 and lots of typos
You'd rather us follow blindly certain "scientists" with their own agendas?
We can all read the reports and put such information into historical context.
Oh, and FYI, the scientific community is far from unaminous on the causes of global warming. If you bother to do some basic research, you'll see the cycles of global warming--cooling since time immemorial. In recent times, look at a map of the 1500's then compare it to one from the early 1800's, before the industrial revolution. You'll see missing large tracts of coastal land and islands from rising oceans. Caused by global warming. What caused it? I suppose you can blame the native indians with all their campfires.
Let's look at the current hysteria over last year's devasting hurricane season here in the USA. All the kooks have come out of the woodwork claiming these hurricanes as Exhibit "A" in their case for man made global warming. Yet, in the period from 1965 to 2005, which saw the greatest increase in man made pollutants, yearly hurricane rates went down. It doesn't take a genious to figure out that if there was truly a connection, the hurricane rates would have steadily increased along with the pollution.
You've merely substituted faith based science for the gods and high priests of old in trying to explain natural phenomena. And God help those who have the nerve to question these modern priests of "science".
I prefer the views of Richard Lindzen, a link to his opinion is below. I suppose you know more than Mr. Lindzen? He just happens to be the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. Is there anyone more qualified on this subject then he his? Is there anyone less susceptible to political agendas than he is? What do you know that Mr. Lindzen doesn't know?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Frank from Phoenix
Canon1DMk2,1D,Oly5060 and lots of typos
coolpixboy
Senior Member
I see. Do you trust the judgements of marketing and business people like those at CNET over those of photographers when it comes to photographic equipment?
There is some disagreement about the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry as there is in any field of active research. That doesn't mean it's faith-based science or any of the other ridiculous things that the anti-science know-nothings like to toss around. There are data backing up the position that our contributions to the changes in atmospheric chemistry are having and effect or will have an effect. Some of those data are more compelling than others but making judgments based on current understanding and available data is a far cry from "faith based science". Faith is, by definition, belief in something in the absence of supporting data.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Frank from AZ
Senior Member
Sorry, that's my whole point, there is not any such data linking man made pollutants to the current natural cycle of global warming. My hurricane example is glaring evidence that it is not occuring. You are making judgments based on what you BELIEVE will happen or what you BELIEVE is causing the current warming trend. That is by definition faith based science: filling in gaps with your personal beliefs.
--
Frank from Phoenix
Canon1DMk2,1D,Oly5060 and lots of typos
At the rate they are cutting down trees in the area I live, soon there will be no forest and then I am certain to see your wisdom.
Darn trees anyway, who needs them, just taking up space and obscuring the view. Cement! That's what we need, more cement!
I've seen a lot of change in a half century of living. My generation has lived through the most polluted history of the world and seen the most change to the face of the planet. Not all things are worse. There are actually fewer days now when the mountains are obscured because of pollution compared to when I was young. But my God! How could we have let it get like that in the first place!
My concern is that this planet is like a diseased tree. The problem with a tree is that unless you know what to look for, by time it becomes obvious that it is sick, it is usually too late to save. If global warming is real, and every report I've seen indicates so, and if man's actions are contributing significantly to the problem, and many in the scientific community seem to think so, then doesn't man have a reasonable obligation to take corrective action in his behavior, even if it is costly? And isn't doing so in his own best interest?
Think what you like, but unless there is some serious change in our use and abuse of this planet, there will come a day when environmental issues can no longer be ignored by the masses.
-Gene L.
The only judgement I'm making is that we shouldn't be screwing with something we don't fully understand.
--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum