QUOTE: Originally posted by bobwilcox QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Well that's four, I'll let you ponder these before I add more. Don't bother. It is a waist of your time and ours. Perphaps an enviromentel site would be interested.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Well that's four, I'll let you ponder these before I add more.
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith Care to think what will happen if in the coming decade 50% of Florida and the gulf coast goes underwater and we have to perform a nationwide mass relocation that will make Katrina exodus look like a Mickey Mouse Club reunion? Better to get used to some of these possibilities so they wont be such a huge shock if they come to pass...everyone was sooooooo shocked by the flooding of New Orleans, everyone except the ones who were warning of it for YEARS before it finally happened, they just said 'we did warn you, you wouldnt listen, so there you are' Sounds like the scientist today warning of the coming flood.... how was the flooding of New Orleans the result of global warming? The hurricane didn't even hit the city head on. Most people agree the most devestating problem in NO was tha depletion of wetlands due to changes on the Mississippi River and ACE flood control. Okay and the walls of the dikes fell over due to (termites?) they were too small? Man does affect his enviroment but mostly at his own parrell not the entire earths.
QUOTE: Originally posted by solzrules QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith Care to think what will happen if in the coming decade 50% of Florida and the gulf coast goes underwater and we have to perform a nationwide mass relocation that will make Katrina exodus look like a Mickey Mouse Club reunion? Better to get used to some of these possibilities so they wont be such a huge shock if they come to pass...everyone was sooooooo shocked by the flooding of New Orleans, everyone except the ones who were warning of it for YEARS before it finally happened, they just said 'we did warn you, you wouldnt listen, so there you are' Sounds like the scientist today warning of the coming flood.... how was the flooding of New Orleans the result of global warming? The hurricane didn't even hit the city head on.
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith Care to think what will happen if in the coming decade 50% of Florida and the gulf coast goes underwater and we have to perform a nationwide mass relocation that will make Katrina exodus look like a Mickey Mouse Club reunion? Better to get used to some of these possibilities so they wont be such a huge shock if they come to pass...everyone was sooooooo shocked by the flooding of New Orleans, everyone except the ones who were warning of it for YEARS before it finally happened, they just said 'we did warn you, you wouldnt listen, so there you are' Sounds like the scientist today warning of the coming flood....
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith Wow I'm going to keep my feet out of all the political he said she said going on here and try to stick to the science of the discussion. The point of the PBS "dimming sun" episode was not that the reflection is offsetting global warming, mearly lessening its current effect, however if the increasing amount of CO2 and pollutant particles continues there will be a tipping point where the amount of solar radiation retained by the CO2 will offset the mitigating effects of the reflection and lead to a rapid, RAPID increase in atmospheric temperatures worldwide. If that happens better start seeing what there wearing in Addis Adaba cause it will be getting that hot even in the northern latitudes. Part of the issue isnt whether these are recurring natural phenom or not, its that we've spent the last 5000 years building our major cities hugging the coastlines of the world, a rise is sea levels is going to have tremendous effects on everyone. As to ice cap melting and an apparent "who cares" attitude being displayed, if too much fresh water gets into the gulf stream, it will shut down or get redirected farther south, which could mean northeastern US and Canada will become climaticly more like Siberia and Katchakan penisula. Northern and central Europe will become much colder. If the Antarctic ice sheets go, forget it. We are going to face massive worldwide coastal flooding and mass MASS exodus of populations forced to move to higher ground. Massive relocations of port facilities and industries, refineries, and everything else inside the flood planes and the associated effects of new coastal erosion the wave action and tides of higher seas on areas of land not previously in the surf zone. Most estimates say that 20 feet rise worldwide would be the worst effects, but are we prepared to build 35 foot seawalls over 1000's of miles of coastline near major American cities??? could we afford to? If our governmant is renigging on replacing barriers in New Orleans because of costs, what kind of whining about the cost of multi-billion$ in seawalls over the course of hundreds of miles all over the country are we going to get? This stuff is coming, even George Bush finally agreed Global Warming is REAL, it will have REAL effects on everyone in this country, either directly thru higher sea levels, shifting weather patterns, hotter temps, or indirectly by the cumulative effects on our economy. Care to think what will happen if in the coming decade 50% of Florida and the gulf coast goes underwater and we have to perform a nationwide mass relocation that will make Katrina exodus look like a Mickey Mouse Club reunion? Better to get used to some of these possibilities so they wont be such a huge shock if they come to pass...everyone was sooooooo shocked by the flooding of New Orleans, everyone except the ones who were warning of it for YEARS before it finally happened, they just said 'we did warn you, you wouldnt listen, so there you are' Sounds like the scientist today warning of the coming flood....
QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Hey!!! You've been watching TLC too!!! And the records in the ice prove this has happened over and over and over again too. In fact all the other times was before industrialization. This is a natural cycle. What's your point. [#dots] My point is that even though these climate fluctuations have been occurring since the formation of our planet, it is only in the last few centuries has man begun to inhabit in huge numbers the areas that are most affected by the climactic variations...hence the need for concern that human activity has tipped the scales of a system that has been functioning for millenia. Of course climate change has been happening for thousands of years. Ice ages come and go. 10,000 years ago Chicago and New York were under 1,000 feet of ice! The glaciers are what carved out the Great Lakes and gave the northern states their beautiful scenery. Who knows, maybe the climate is so sensitive to external fluctuations it will be like a big, heavy train at the top of a hill. Everything is fine as long as the weight on both sides of the hill are equal. But as soon as that train passes the point of no return by just one car length, it will begin its downhill roll. Very slowly at first, barely perceptable. But soon the momentum builds. And as any good engineer knows, once the hill is topped, you have to get the train under control RIGHT NOW, or else it soons becomes impossible and he has a runaway. No one yet knows how sensitive the atmosphere is to human influence. Perhaps, as futuremodal contends, human contribution is the proverbial drop in the bucket. Or perhaps human contribution will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back. I can't help but wonder if it is worth the risk?
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb Hey!!! You've been watching TLC too!!! And the records in the ice prove this has happened over and over and over again too. In fact all the other times was before industrialization. This is a natural cycle. What's your point. [#dots]
QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb If the polar ice cap melts there are already entrepenures who are negotiating for the shorter shipping routes from Russia to Europe across what they hope will be thru the former North Pole.[%-)] So where's the North Pole going to be when the ice melts then???
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrandb If the polar ice cap melts there are already entrepenures who are negotiating for the shorter shipping routes from Russia to Europe across what they hope will be thru the former North Pole.[%-)]
Have fun with your trains
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [ 4. Give states and localities final say over federal land use decisions. After all, they are the ones who are most impacted by land management decisions. And stewardship begins at home. Let the locals decide how much timber to cut, how much land should be off limits, etc. Forbid out of state entities from interfering in local land use decisions on federal land. Well that's four, I'll let you ponder these before I add more. Reply Edit rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Thursday, June 15, 2006 1:14 AM I heard on NPR this afternoon that if the entire glacial ice cap in Greenland melted it would raise the sea level aprox. 20 feet. That said it would take how long to melt? Ten,one hundred, even one thousand years. He said " tens of thousands of years." Due to the huge amount of ice this will not happen quickly. Walk do not run away from the ocean. If the polar ice cap melts there are already entrepenures who are negotiating for the shorter shipping routes from Russia to Europe across what they hope will be thru the former North Pole.[%-)] Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 8:20 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by bowlerp Dave, Pray tell exactly what are your "common sense" environmental protection proposals? Here's a start: 1. No more EIS requirements for projects which have a precident, rather allow a fast tracked EIS template to suffice. Example: Right now, each and every project requires a costly lengthy EIS, even if such projects are a mirror image of a previous project in the exact same local. If the EIS was sufficient for the first project, why do we need another and another? One will do, we will know all we need to know regarding environmental impacts based on that first EIS. 2. Require environmental challenges to projects to have irrevicable proof that the project will do harm to the environment before a judge can throw down a court order stopping or delaying the start of the project. Right now, the way the ESA works, it is assumed a project will cause harm to a species until the project promoters prove that it won't harm beyond reason. If we reverse that burden of proof, force opponents to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the project will (not might) do harm to a species, we can eliminate most of the frivilous lawsuits being filed. 3. Force environmental groups to post bond for each and every lawsuit they file. The size of the bond should be equivalent to the economic losses incurred due to delays to development projects. Unless the charges in the lawsuit prove valid, the money from the bond will go to pay the developers for the financial losses the delay incurred. 4. Give states and localities final say over federal land use decisions. After all, they are the ones who are most impacted by land management decisions. And stewardship begins at home. Let the locals decide how much timber to cut, how much land should be off limits, etc. Forbid out of state entities from interfering in local land use decisions on federal land. Well that's four, I'll let you ponder these before I add more. Reply Edit Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:53 PM You mean those communist tools of global domination. [:)] Dave QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 After reading this thread, I thought maybe would should not fire up the Chinese steam locomotives in Iowa.[:o)][:-,] Bert Reply Edit n012944 Member sinceAugust 2004 From: The 17th hole at TPC 2,283 posts Posted by n012944 on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:32 PM After reading this thread, I thought maybe would should not fire up the Chinese steam locomotives in Iowa.[:o)][:-,] Bert An "expensive model collector" Reply solzrules Member sinceJanuary 2006 From: SE Wisconsin 1,181 posts Posted by solzrules on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 6:07 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by bowlerp Dave, Pray tell exactly what are your "common sense" environmental protection proposals? The devil IS in the details and until you can replace our hard won laws with something specific and actionable that continues to work to reduce environmental pollution, you are only full of so much hot air. Do you not think that part of our increasing life span in the United States is attributable to laws that protect us from wanton air and water pollution? If you do not see a direct correlation you are not really looking, you are just spouting so much typical conservative pablum. Try living on the other side for awhile. Travel to Shenzen City China near Hong Kong and live there for 2 weeks. You will experience a distinct difficulty breathing merely walking around outside without being very active. If you are prone to any sort of allergies or lung dysfunction, your long term health and your very life are at risk there. Now imagine the United States reverting to its turn of the 20th Century ways and you have an idea what it is like in China (or Russia). If it appeals to you, you are welcome to go and live there, but don't try to impose your empty approach on the rest of us. If the failures of China and Russia are not teaching you the value of environmental laws, then nothing short of a disaster to where you personally live will ever persuade you. The earth's ecosystem is ultimately tied together as one and when you damage a region, you damage the entire planet. Perhaps you don't give a hoot, but I do, my family does, my region does, and the world should. Physicist Steven Hawking is now so pessimistic about the human species ruining the earth that he believes that mankind will destroy itself unless we colonize space. The problem is, there is no place like home. Akron, Ohio, once home of one of the most polluted cities in the United States, now a pleasant place to live except when someone else's dirty air floats our way. So what do you propose to do??? Go over to the red Chinese and kindly ask them to sign the Kyoto treaty? And then assume that they will follow it? (remember what happens when you assume something? You make an '***' out of 'u' and 'me'. [(-D]) People should really understand how efficient communism is when it comes to the matters of the enviroment. No world treaty is going to change the behavior of communist governments. Heck no world treaty will change the behavior of any government unless it benefits the country involved. As for humanity ruining the earth - here I agree with you, mankind does have a habit of ruining things, either through pollution or reckless tampering with the enviroment through restrictive enviromental regulations. Case in point. The last couple of years we have had a rash of forest fires brought on by dry conditions and heavy winds. Nothing new there, that has been going on for thousands of years. If some jag isn't lighting the fire out of stupidity than nature does it with lighting. The problem is that since we have decided to fight every fire and put them out completely we are left with a forest that has an overabundance of fuel. Mix in dry months and high winds with a little fire and you have a raging inferno. Suddenly a small brush fire in the forest (which has the added benefit of cleaning out dead brush without destroying the trees) develops into a huge fire that not only kills people but kills all the living trees. Then you are left with the situation in Yellowstone Park - it will be a hundred years before the park returns to its former beauty. One way to reduce the risk of a clear-cutting fire like Yellowstone is to do selective logging in the forests. But at the mention of logging out some of the wood in order to maintain a forest without a fire (fire is the natural way before man got involved and screwed everything up) NIMBYS go into convulsions and claim that we have no heart for the small fuzzy brown things that prance about in the woods. Then they run TV adds where a field full of tree stumps is shown with a squirrel sitting on one of them with tears pouring down both cheeks asking 'WHY?' 'Why does humanity hate me?' This is a case of enviromentalists doing more harm then good. You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in..... Reply solzrules Member sinceJanuary 2006 From: SE Wisconsin 1,181 posts Posted by solzrules on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 5:50 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by EUCLID TRAVIS Political scientists know that socialism can only expand by hiding its intent. It either has to pretend that it is something that it is not or it must come on so slowly that nobody notices; a mode referred to as creeping socialism. Saving the planet from global warming is the latest mask being used to hide the advancement of world socialism, which is intended to transfer wealth from the richest nations to all other nations. In the deepest terms, it is accurate to say that global warming has nothing to do with climate. Saving the planet is just the sales pitch for the bitter medicine that hides behind the mask. The doctrine that is intended to promulgate this principle is the Kyoto Treaty on climate change. Basically, it divides up the right to emit carbon dioxide and other pollutants equally among all nations, thus permitting the United States no more of this right than a country the size of Cuba for example. The treaty allows these basic assigned pollution credits to be sold to, or purchased by all countries as if the credits were a trading currency. The United States, being a large manufacturing country, produces the greatest amount of pollutants, so it will need to purchase pollution credits from smaller countries that will naturally have an excess of such credits. In this way, the wealth of the United States will be transferred to all of the third world countries. What it boils down to is a world carbon tax administered by the United Nations. The result will be a leveling of the playing field in terms of world wealth. The mechanics of the Kyoto Treaty require the United States to cut its energy consumption by 30% within ten years. Aside from the wealth transfer, the economic result of this energy cutback alone is too staggering to imagine. If the American people were somehow made aware of it, they would reject the Kyoto Treaty on that basis alone, even if they did not see the sinister agenda that lurks behind it. Many Americans think they are clever to see through the motives of Big Oil, which opposes Kyoto for its own economic self-interest. But too many of them are not clever enough to see the main motive behind this smoke screen. All it will take is enough people believing in global warming as it is being sold, and Kyoto or some version of it will happen. The mainstream media is selling global warming every day now as if it were an infomercial. They don't see the agenda behind it. They are just giddy over the p.c., green, save the planet message, which is as deep as they go. The way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush and the Republicans in congress suddenly came out and said they were ready to sign Kyoto. Certainly the Democrats will if they get in power. So when it comes to $3.50 per gallon gas, I say enjoy it while it lasts. That -- was great! You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in..... Reply rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:49 PM And the people in London felt the same way at the begining of urbanization. When they burned wood and then coal to heat every home you could not go outside without your white shirt turning first grey then black from the soot. Hard to breath, smelled bad and could not open windows even in the summer because of factories. The ice cores show this clearly. What we do not have is proof of what the outcome will be. Only educated even thou well educated guesses. That is called a theory. When there are verifiable historic corelations they become facts. What we need is a reliable economic alternative replacement for our consumption of fossil fuels. We will not just stop moving forward so science can catch up. These very situations are what have inspired societies best minds to find answers from Da Vinci to Edison to Ford etc.[yeah] Reply bowlerp Member sinceMarch 2002 78 posts Posted by bowlerp on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 1:04 PM Dave, Pray tell exactly what are your "common sense" environmental protection proposals? The devil IS in the details and until you can replace our hard won laws with something specific and actionable that continues to work to reduce environmental pollution, you are only full of so much hot air. Do you not think that part of our increasing life span in the United States is attributable to laws that protect us from wanton air and water pollution? If you do not see a direct correlation you are not really looking, you are just spouting so much typical conservative pablum. Try living on the other side for awhile. Travel to Shenzen City China near Hong Kong and live there for 2 weeks. You will experience a distinct difficulty breathing merely walking around outside without being very active. If you are prone to any sort of allergies or lung dysfunction, your long term health and your very life are at risk there. Now imagine the United States reverting to its turn of the 20th Century ways and you have an idea what it is like in China (or Russia). If it appeals to you, you are welcome to go and live there, but don't try to impose your empty approach on the rest of us. If the failures of China and Russia are not teaching you the value of environmental laws, then nothing short of a disaster to where you personally live will ever persuade you. The earth's ecosystem is ultimately tied together as one and when you damage a region, you damage the entire planet. Perhaps you don't give a hoot, but I do, my family does, my region does, and the world should. Physicist Steven Hawking is now so pessimistic about the human species ruining the earth that he believes that mankind will destroy itself unless we colonize space. The problem is, there is no place like home. Akron, Ohio, once home of one of the most polluted cities in the United States, now a pleasant place to live except when someone else's dirty air floats our way. Reply CSSHEGEWISCH Member sinceMarch 2016 From: Burbank IL (near Clearing) 13,540 posts Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 12:30 PM What he's trying to say is that the residue in the air from industrialization has accelerated and intensified the process. The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul Reply rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:47 AM Hey!!! You've been watching TLC too!!! And the records in the ice prove this has happened over and over and over again too. In fact all the other times was before industrialization. This is a natural cycle. What's your point. [#dots] Reply zardoz Member sinceJanuary 2003 From: Kenosha, WI 6,567 posts Posted by zardoz on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 10:07 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15 So the fact that the polar ice caps have been shown to be melting (which will cause a 6; rise in sea levels!) doesn't alarm you! Do the ice in the bowl of water experiment first, then tell us if you think an alleged melt-off of polar ice will raise sea levels. The melting of the NORTH polar ice cap will do nothing to the sea level as the ice is already floating on the water. What the melting WILL do is dilute the salinity of the water causing a disruption of the thermohaline circulation, which is the process where the cold salty water sinks, which in turn helps advect the warm waters from the Gulf of Mexico up to the North Sea, which in turns warms most of northern Europe. For a good, detailed description of the Gulf Stream process (actually called the Atlantic North Equatorial Current) see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_Stream It is the melting of the Greenland as well as the Antarctic ice that is the concern of those that believe it is really happening. The Greenland ice is all on land, as is most of the Antarctic ice. When the ice on land melts, it WILL raise ocean water levels to some degree. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, June 14, 2006 7:03 AM QUOTE: Originally posted by EUCLID TRAVIS Political scientists know that socialism can only expand by hiding its intent. It either has to pretend that it is something that it is not or it must come on so slowly that nobody notices; a mode referred to as creeping socialism. Saving the planet from global warming is the latest mask being used to hide the advancement of world socialism, which is intended to transfer wealth from the richest nations to all other nations. In the deepest terms, it is accurate to say that global warming has nothing to do with climate. Saving the planet is just the sales pitch for the bitter medicine that hides behind the mask. The doctrine that is intended to promulgate this principle is the Kyoto Treaty on climate change. Basically, it divides up the right to emit carbon dioxide and other pollutants equally among all nations, thus permitting the United States no more of this right than a country the size of Cuba for example. The treaty allows these basic assigned pollution credits to be sold to, or purchased by all countries as if the credits were a trading currency. The United States, being a large manufacturing country, produces the greatest amount of pollutants, so it will need to purchase pollution credits from smaller countries that will naturally have an excess of such credits. In this way, the wealth of the United States will be transferred to all of the third world countries. What it boils down to is a world carbon tax administered by the United Nations. The result will be a leveling of the playing field in terms of world wealth. The mechanics of the Kyoto Treaty require the United States to cut its energy consumption by 30% within ten years. Aside from the wealth transfer, the economic result of this energy cutback alone is too staggering to imagine. If the American people were somehow made aware of it, they would reject the Kyoto Treaty on that basis alone, even if they did not see the sinister agenda that lurks behind it. Many Americans think they are clever to see through the motives of Big Oil, which opposes Kyoto for its own economic self-interest. But too many of them are not clever enough to see the main motive behind this smoke screen. All it will take is enough people believing in global warming as it is being sold, and Kyoto or some version of it will happen. The mainstream media is selling global warming every day now as if it were an infomercial. They don't see the agenda behind it. They are just giddy over the p.c., green, save the planet message, which is as deep as they go. The way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush and the Republicans in congress suddenly came out and said they were ready to sign Kyoto. Certainly the Democrats will if they get in power. So when it comes to $3.50 per gallon gas, I say enjoy it while it lasts. Words fail me. Hide! Bring the ammo ma. The Greens are on the March! And..... "the beardies flag is deepest green we'll keep our sandels nice and green"...... Reply Edit rrandb Member sinceDecember 2001 From: K.C.,MO. 1,063 posts Posted by rrandb on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 11:27 PM Can we do something like in the US except only for Americans cause I know there are a whole lots of folks with more money than me. Reply Anonymous Member sinceApril 2003 305,205 posts Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 10:17 PM Political scientists know that socialism can only expand by hiding its intent. It either has to pretend that it is something that it is not or it must come on so slowly that nobody notices; a mode referred to as creeping socialism. Saving the planet from global warming is the latest mask being used to hide the advancement of world socialism, which is intended to transfer wealth from the richest nations to all other nations. In the deepest terms, it is accurate to say that global warming has nothing to do with climate. Saving the planet is just the sales pitch for the bitter medicine that hides behind the mask. The doctrine that is intended to promulgate this principle is the Kyoto Treaty on climate change. Basically, it divides up the right to emit carbon dioxide and other pollutants equally among all nations, thus permitting the United States no more of this right than a country the size of Cuba for example. The treaty allows these basic assigned pollution credits to be sold to, or purchased by all countries as if the credits were a trading currency. The United States, being a large manufacturing country, produces the greatest amount of pollutants, so it will need to purchase pollution credits from smaller countries that will naturally have an excess of such credits. In this way, the wealth of the United States will be transferred to all of the third world countries. What it boils down to is a world carbon tax administered by the United Nations. The result will be a leveling of the playing field in terms of world wealth. The mechanics of the Kyoto Treaty require the United States to cut its energy consumption by 30% within ten years. Aside from the wealth transfer, the economic result of this energy cutback alone is too staggering to imagine. If the American people were somehow made aware of it, they would reject the Kyoto Treaty on that basis alone, even if they did not see the sinister agenda that lurks behind it. Many Americans think they are clever to see through the motives of Big Oil, which opposes Kyoto for its own economic self-interest. But too many of them are not clever enough to see the main motive behind this smoke screen. All it will take is enough people believing in global warming as it is being sold, and Kyoto or some version of it will happen. The mainstream media is selling global warming every day now as if it were an infomercial. They don't see the agenda behind it. They are just giddy over the p.c., green, save the planet message, which is as deep as they go. The way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush and the Republicans in congress suddenly came out and said they were ready to sign Kyoto. Certainly the Democrats will if they get in power. So when it comes to $3.50 per gallon gas, I say enjoy it while it lasts. Reply Edit solzrules Member sinceJanuary 2006 From: SE Wisconsin 1,181 posts Posted by solzrules on Tuesday, June 13, 2006 9:18 PM QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith I guess we'll only be sure global warming is real when Florida is under 10 feet of water, even then, I'm positive there will be some who will blame it on illegal immigrants or Saddam Hussien or someother straw man. PS did anyone see the PBS Nova science show on how pollutants in the atmosphere have been reflecting some sunlight back into space, dampening the overall increase in global climate warming? Scary stuff....it could be a harbinger of the beginnig of a true greenhouse effect globally. Of course we dont even know if anything today can alter changes that began decades ago, we may just have to be ready for the coming heatwave that no amount of political spin can offset Well, I personally think that all the problems in the world are the fault of illegal immigrants and high taxes. I am so glad you've found me out! [:D] Now, I'm a little confused. With all the pollution in the atmoshpere dampening the overall increase in global climate warming, how would this increase the greenhouse effect? I though pollution cause the greenhouse effect. Now it actually negates the effect of it? Seems like circular reasoning to me. We assume that there is global warming, yet the pollutants are having a cooling effect on the atmosphere. What is the result of this equation? Status quo? Seems like Al Gore needs to crank out another movie to explain all this. I am completely confused now. You think this is bad? Just wait until inflation kicks in..... Reply 1234 Join our Community! Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account. Login » Register » Search the Community Newsletter Sign-Up By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy More great sites from Kalmbach Media Terms Of Use | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy
[ 4. Give states and localities final say over federal land use decisions. After all, they are the ones who are most impacted by land management decisions. And stewardship begins at home. Let the locals decide how much timber to cut, how much land should be off limits, etc. Forbid out of state entities from interfering in local land use decisions on federal land. Well that's four, I'll let you ponder these before I add more.
QUOTE: Originally posted by bowlerp Dave, Pray tell exactly what are your "common sense" environmental protection proposals?
QUOTE: Originally posted by n012944 After reading this thread, I thought maybe would should not fire up the Chinese steam locomotives in Iowa.[:o)][:-,] Bert
An "expensive model collector"
QUOTE: Originally posted by bowlerp Dave, Pray tell exactly what are your "common sense" environmental protection proposals? The devil IS in the details and until you can replace our hard won laws with something specific and actionable that continues to work to reduce environmental pollution, you are only full of so much hot air. Do you not think that part of our increasing life span in the United States is attributable to laws that protect us from wanton air and water pollution? If you do not see a direct correlation you are not really looking, you are just spouting so much typical conservative pablum. Try living on the other side for awhile. Travel to Shenzen City China near Hong Kong and live there for 2 weeks. You will experience a distinct difficulty breathing merely walking around outside without being very active. If you are prone to any sort of allergies or lung dysfunction, your long term health and your very life are at risk there. Now imagine the United States reverting to its turn of the 20th Century ways and you have an idea what it is like in China (or Russia). If it appeals to you, you are welcome to go and live there, but don't try to impose your empty approach on the rest of us. If the failures of China and Russia are not teaching you the value of environmental laws, then nothing short of a disaster to where you personally live will ever persuade you. The earth's ecosystem is ultimately tied together as one and when you damage a region, you damage the entire planet. Perhaps you don't give a hoot, but I do, my family does, my region does, and the world should. Physicist Steven Hawking is now so pessimistic about the human species ruining the earth that he believes that mankind will destroy itself unless we colonize space. The problem is, there is no place like home. Akron, Ohio, once home of one of the most polluted cities in the United States, now a pleasant place to live except when someone else's dirty air floats our way.
QUOTE: Originally posted by EUCLID TRAVIS Political scientists know that socialism can only expand by hiding its intent. It either has to pretend that it is something that it is not or it must come on so slowly that nobody notices; a mode referred to as creeping socialism. Saving the planet from global warming is the latest mask being used to hide the advancement of world socialism, which is intended to transfer wealth from the richest nations to all other nations. In the deepest terms, it is accurate to say that global warming has nothing to do with climate. Saving the planet is just the sales pitch for the bitter medicine that hides behind the mask. The doctrine that is intended to promulgate this principle is the Kyoto Treaty on climate change. Basically, it divides up the right to emit carbon dioxide and other pollutants equally among all nations, thus permitting the United States no more of this right than a country the size of Cuba for example. The treaty allows these basic assigned pollution credits to be sold to, or purchased by all countries as if the credits were a trading currency. The United States, being a large manufacturing country, produces the greatest amount of pollutants, so it will need to purchase pollution credits from smaller countries that will naturally have an excess of such credits. In this way, the wealth of the United States will be transferred to all of the third world countries. What it boils down to is a world carbon tax administered by the United Nations. The result will be a leveling of the playing field in terms of world wealth. The mechanics of the Kyoto Treaty require the United States to cut its energy consumption by 30% within ten years. Aside from the wealth transfer, the economic result of this energy cutback alone is too staggering to imagine. If the American people were somehow made aware of it, they would reject the Kyoto Treaty on that basis alone, even if they did not see the sinister agenda that lurks behind it. Many Americans think they are clever to see through the motives of Big Oil, which opposes Kyoto for its own economic self-interest. But too many of them are not clever enough to see the main motive behind this smoke screen. All it will take is enough people believing in global warming as it is being sold, and Kyoto or some version of it will happen. The mainstream media is selling global warming every day now as if it were an infomercial. They don't see the agenda behind it. They are just giddy over the p.c., green, save the planet message, which is as deep as they go. The way things are going, I wouldn’t be surprised if Bush and the Republicans in congress suddenly came out and said they were ready to sign Kyoto. Certainly the Democrats will if they get in power. So when it comes to $3.50 per gallon gas, I say enjoy it while it lasts.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15 So the fact that the polar ice caps have been shown to be melting (which will cause a 6; rise in sea levels!) doesn't alarm you! Do the ice in the bowl of water experiment first, then tell us if you think an alleged melt-off of polar ice will raise sea levels.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Tulyar15 So the fact that the polar ice caps have been shown to be melting (which will cause a 6; rise in sea levels!) doesn't alarm you!
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith I guess we'll only be sure global warming is real when Florida is under 10 feet of water, even then, I'm positive there will be some who will blame it on illegal immigrants or Saddam Hussien or someother straw man. PS did anyone see the PBS Nova science show on how pollutants in the atmosphere have been reflecting some sunlight back into space, dampening the overall increase in global climate warming? Scary stuff....it could be a harbinger of the beginnig of a true greenhouse effect globally. Of course we dont even know if anything today can alter changes that began decades ago, we may just have to be ready for the coming heatwave that no amount of political spin can offset
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.