He who says there's no such thing as global warming.
A friend of mine today firmly told me that there's no global warming and we should all stop trying to struggle improve efficiency (and then as an afterthought added "especially with policies, and liberalness and the such). It was a dumb inconsiderate reply but non the less, I snapped at him. I told him that we should just let ourselves cut down all the trees and pollute our atmosphere so much that marathon running would become a dangerous sport. He looked at me sheepishly and said something to the effect of well you shoulden't worry so much and Al Gore is a nutcase. Typical conservative catholic response. The point of telling you this story was to encourage you to say what you think in the comments section, and to inspire you to create ways to make us (the race of polluters) better.
So go on, debate it up!
169
comments
|
Add Comment
|
sort by:
active |
newest |
oldest
| 1-100 of 169 | next » |
Jan 16, 2009. 2:48 PMlittlechef37
says:
Global warming = Real...
Considering the increase of odd weather (eg; more hurricanes, a snowstorm in Vancouver, melting ice caps) there ought to be something going on. However the increase in greenhouse gasses isn't completely caused by humans....(13% is actually cause by cows) The earth itself releases greenhouse gasses...
What worries me the most is the residue of tar sand production that is causing two headed fish too appear in lake Athabasca. All the waste from oil production is pumped into lakes and man made ponds (where birds try to swim) , once the water is filled with this greasy toxic substance we get mutated suffering animals.... Every time water is sucked out of these beautiful clean lakes used and put back, its ALWAYS dirtier, usually ALLOT dirtier. These beautiful lakes are becoming toxic wastelands.... Birds, fish are dieing, people who eat the birds and fish are getting cancers.....
Will your kids get to go fishing ?
Considering the increase of odd weather (eg; more hurricanes, a snowstorm in Vancouver, melting ice caps) there ought to be something going on. However the increase in greenhouse gasses isn't completely caused by humans....(13% is actually cause by cows) The earth itself releases greenhouse gasses...
What worries me the most is the residue of tar sand production that is causing two headed fish too appear in lake Athabasca. All the waste from oil production is pumped into lakes and man made ponds (where birds try to swim) , once the water is filled with this greasy toxic substance we get mutated suffering animals.... Every time water is sucked out of these beautiful clean lakes used and put back, its ALWAYS dirtier, usually ALLOT dirtier. These beautiful lakes are becoming toxic wastelands.... Birds, fish are dieing, people who eat the birds and fish are getting cancers.....
Will your kids get to go fishing ?
Oct 21, 2010. 10:41 AMblauschmetterling
says:
You bring up a good point, which is still valid to people who don't believe in global warming of climate change, or those who believe it is natural in origin. While I do believe in climate change, I can't say what the causes are, because I'm not a scientist. However, I can say that that pumping huge amounts of noxious gases into the atmosphere and the many oceanic oil spills that we never hear about throughout the year are a great reason to enact the policies that are put forth to prevent climate change.
Jan 16, 2009. 3:02 PM11010010110
says:
a word about the cows - its humans that raise them in huge amounts to eat the cows or drink their milk
Still we could milk off the methane gas and use that too ;-)
What for, as in what are we using the Methane for? Heat, running vehicles, whatever :-)
Jan 21, 2009. 8:32 AMlittlechef37
says:
....So we just mount some type of tank to the cows ? ...or to prevent angry cows, keep them in some sort of GIANT dome that collects methane gas from the roof (as methane is lighter than air) ......any other methane "milking" methods ?
Hmm, to lessen the stress on the cows, maybe instead of tank, we could use sealed bags of some sort. They would inflate them as the day went on, and would be lighter then tanks :-)
Jan 21, 2009. 8:59 AMlittlechef37
says:
Thats not a bad idea but what about the solids ? LOL : )
I believe something could be rigged to let the solids pass, and still bag the gas :-)
Apr 20, 2009. 1:06 PMheat-seeker
says:
well what also starts this is a very high population that should be decreased but not how china dose it
Jan 16, 2009. 9:18 PMpurduecer
says:
Since I'm not going to wade through pages of comments, who's gonna bring up the impact of solar activity, which global warming enthusiasts seldom bring up. Also, I couldn't help but noticed we switched pop media terms from global warming to climate change...are the enthusiasts just covering all bases here because they don't actually know?
Solar activity is one of the reasons that the "obvious" trend in rising global-average temperatures over the past century isn't actually that obvious. There are substantial year-on-year fluctuations which, to the non-expert reader, obscure the significant long-term trend. Variations in solar output are a part, if a small part, of those fluctuations. One way to reduce the effect is to take multiyear averages.
Jan 17, 2009. 6:06 AMpurduecer
says:
Small, huh? Then what do the global warming fans conclude from the warming that also appears to be occurring on Mars? Would this not suggest a stronger role played by solar activity?
Here's a recent summary article showing the speciousness of the "solar variability" argument. I encourage you to actually read the primary research documents.
Jan 20, 2009. 8:42 PMpurduecer
says:
I'd love to, but I have to log in to access this article :-(
Okay, here's a PDF of the article.
PT-solar_variability.pdf(576x756) 281 KBCrap. Yeah, "mikey77" said the same thing, just much less politely. My apologies to you both, and Nacho, for the stupid misdirection. I didn't know about this; I'm guessing that SLAC has an institutional subscription (so when I posted the above from work, it didn't give me the login screen). When I'm at work tomorrow, I will use the page's "share this" link to get a freely accessible URL (and will test it off-site before posting).
. heehee Yep. I bet we have a grand total of, errr, one person on here who subscribes to Physics Today.
. That is one possibility. Another is that the Martian atmosphere is different. Or the albedo are different. Or ...
It almost has to be different, since we have so much more water then Mars does :-) Ground / sand warms much faster then water, but doesn't hold it as long.
The pop-media term was always "global warming," the proper technical term was always "climate change." The problem is that the non-expert*cough* ignorant *cough*public interprets "global warming" to mean "everything will get hotter."
The correct description is that an increase in the globally averaged surface temperature will drive larger extremes of local/regional seasonal temperatures -- generally, hotter summers and colder winters.
Its actually nice that the pop media have actually chosen to use the technically accurate term for a change.
The correct description is that an increase in the globally averaged surface temperature will drive larger extremes of local/regional seasonal temperatures -- generally, hotter summers and colder winters.
Its actually nice that the pop media have actually chosen to use the technically accurate term for a change.
May 18, 2008. 10:58 AMbrettbarth
says:
I, myself, believe that this entire global warming concept is such a sudden, overdramatic turn from global cooling that it should be researched another 50 or so years before we say, "We're all going to die!!!" Now, that doesn't mean that I don't help the environment, or at least try to. I think some people blow it way out of proportion, though. Next thing we know, we'll be killing all the cows in the world because they emitt gasses into the atmosphere.
Jan 16, 2009. 9:26 PMpurduecer
says:
no need to kill cows when we can simply tax them for their heinous crimes ;-)
hook um up to gas collectors instead of taxing them, we could have methane drivin' vehicles :-)
May 18, 2008. 11:34 AMlittlechef37
says:
May 19, 2008. 3:02 PMbrettbarth
says:
Another ice cap in Siberia gained a foot in width in the past year or so. In Siberia ice caps grow an average of 20-30 cm per year. So, to say that all ice caps are growing is an overstatemant.
It is not surprising that global warming is meeting a relatively fair amount of criticism from a few vocal skeptics. Historically, most major scientific breakthroughs are met with suspicion and hostility. For instance, it took years for evolution to catch on in mainstream science despite of overwhelming evidence to support it (and some religious stalwarts deny it to this day). From a practical standpoint, if there is even reason to suspect that global warming is being caused by pollution and overuse of natural resources, I do not see what the harm is in reducing pollution and using less resources. I think most sane people can agree that polluting and/or destroying nature is a bad idea. Not only will reducing pollution and cutting back on our destruction of natural resources be generally beneficial for all of Earth's inhabitants, it will give us a pretty reasonable metric as to whether or not humans are responsible for global warming (for those too stubborn to believe it otherwise). Basically, it would follow, by making the Earth less polluted, global warming would decrease (or at least not rise so sharply). If we drastically cut back on pollution and destruction of the forests and global warming starts to skyrocket, then the anti-global warming folks can gloat and thumb their nose at us and tell us how things would have been better with more pollution and less nature. Although, somehow I doubt we will arrive at this conclusion. It baffles me how people think global warming is natural or will simply go away if we just continue behaving in the same manner we have done in the past. They say a sign of mental illness is consistently doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Of course, global warming critics will say that there is no correlation between our personal behavior and the trend in global temperature rise and therefore we should not be drawing correlations between general human behavior and the environment. It's all some liberal elitist conspiracy... blah blah blah... Well, I have some good-ol-fashion-down-home-folksy-logic to throw at that argument... As Chief Seattle said: "This we know: the earth does not belong to man, man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself." The take home from that is that anything you do to the planet, you are doing to yourself. Your actions on this Earth directly effect the environment of which you are a part. To deny that one's actions have any consequences on their environment is just plain silly and demonstrates an impotence of will. I feel sorry for anyone mentally stunted enough to go through life thinking that their actions on the planet are without any direct tangible manifestation. It is as though in their world, all natural forces are exclusionary from their own actions. Denying yourself as an active participant on the planet is a convenient ploy to deny any responsibility for any and all actions you may undertake upon that planet. I'd hate to know what would lead someone to such a pathetic worldview.
Evolution is still losing out to creationism in America.
Jan 18, 2009. 3:29 PMTanners
says:
i dont think global warming is real because data shows that the earth goes threw natural cycles of warming and cooling but if it is i don't think that it is caused by humans
You didn't think to read through any of the other postings either. Below you'll find references to the IPCC interim reports, all of which contain references to the primary research articles. You'll also find a link to the (cough) Wikipedia article on Climate Change (or you can look it up for yourself, if you know how), which actually contains decent figures and summary information, along with citations to selected primary research articles.
The bottom line is that the current warming cycle, has reached a magnitude several times any previous warming/cooling cycle.
The bottom line is that the current warming cycle, has reached a magnitude several times any previous warming/cooling cycle.
Jan 16, 2009. 12:14 AMblugyblug
says:
Global Warming=Real
Cause?=No idea except scientists and stuff.
Dont always trust the media. Its PROBABLY true, not CERTAINLY, PROBABLY.
The only proof we have is from the news/media, the real proof is held by meterologists and stuff.
Cause?=No idea except scientists and stuff.
Dont always trust the media. Its PROBABLY true, not CERTAINLY, PROBABLY.
The only proof we have is from the news/media, the real proof is held by meterologists and stuff.
Jan 11, 2009. 7:32 PMsane
says:
Well here's what I think. First off global warming is real, I'll admit and I'm a catholic Bible holding Republican at that so stop stereotyping us. The only thing is that at times it is quite exaggerated. A few years ago the media said global warming was going to kill us in 10 years. Secondly I think some us have to agree that some think that believing in global warming makes you "TEH SMARTEREST PEOPLE ON DE EARTH" and in no way does. There is valid points against it but for now the evidence that it is true seems to be real, just not that it'll kill us in our lifetime, maybe close after though.
Global warming- Real Man made- Doubt it (even though I'm sure we're not helping much) I'm pretty sure this is all part of a natural cycle. Does anyone remember "global cooling" back in the late70s early 80s?
The whole global cooling argument revolved around just one or two papers that the media grabbed and ran with. There was never any kind of scientific consensus about its "reality."
The consensus for anthropogenic climate change, and specifically warming, was already formed in the '60s, and the evidence has only gotten stronger and more detailed since then. See my comment to Skate below for some of the specifics.
I recommend looking up review articles on Google Scholar rather than trying to wade through hundreds of individual papers.
The consensus for anthropogenic climate change, and specifically warming, was already formed in the '60s, and the evidence has only gotten stronger and more detailed since then. See my comment to Skate below for some of the specifics.
I recommend looking up review articles on Google Scholar rather than trying to wade through hundreds of individual papers.
Jan 8, 2009. 11:11 AMxACIDITYx
says:
I completely agree with you. Nobody who is remotely intelligent denies Global Warming. The debate is over the cause.
Jan 8, 2009. 2:05 PMFaqMan
says:
Ya but remember from the Campaign of 2008 Palin thought that global warming did not exist so some people believe that. But Global warming is being helped by human means and such just saying we all really need to cut down on fossil fuels and such.
Ya but remember from the Campaign of 2008 Palin thought that global warming did not exist
Now THERE'S an authority to listen to. She had troubles with answering simple questions in a friendly interview.....I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her ;-)
Now THERE'S an authority to listen to. She had troubles with answering simple questions in a friendly interview.....I wouldn't trust her as far as I could throw her ;-)
. ROFLMAO To say something like that you must be a Male Chauvinist Pig. ;)
. Ms. Palin sure did a lot to re-inforce the Ditzy Broad sterotype. To get to where she is, she has to be reasonably smart, but she definitely comes across as clueless.
. Her accent didn't help, either.*
*This coming from a guy with a thick Southern Drawl. Howdy, y'all! heehee
. Ms. Palin sure did a lot to re-inforce the Ditzy Broad sterotype. To get to where she is, she has to be reasonably smart, but she definitely comes across as clueless.
. Her accent didn't help, either.*
*This coming from a guy with a thick Southern Drawl. Howdy, y'all! heehee
Oct 21, 2010. 10:49 AMblauschmetterling
says:
There are other ways *winkwink* for women to make it ahead in politics (and yes I am a women so don't try and peg chauvinism on me). And that aside, the unfortunate truth in our society is that a pretty face is going to get a women just as far as a good brain, especially in politics, which is just a form of acting anyway.
Hmmm, that DOES explain Palin for sure. Has anyone heard anything Lately from the Alaska State "Soccer Moms Against Palin" group?
She does some of the most interesting expose`s too: one news program she was "SAVING" one Thanksgiving turkey while one was being ruthlessly butchered in the background behind her IN FULL VIEW OF THE CAMERA.
She does some of the most interesting expose`s too: one news program she was "SAVING" one Thanksgiving turkey while one was being ruthlessly butchered in the background behind her IN FULL VIEW OF THE CAMERA.
ROFLMAO To say something like that you must be a Male Chauvinist Pig. ;)
Not at all, I know of some very intelligent and together females, she wasn't one of them. From what I saw, she was very consistent in saying one thing and saying the opposite later. She lied a lot. Numerous politicians get where there are by this manner.
She came across as clueless because, in the area she was thrust into, she was. She was coached and when a question came up that was outside her area of proficiency, she choked, badly.
Not at all, I know of some very intelligent and together females, she wasn't one of them. From what I saw, she was very consistent in saying one thing and saying the opposite later. She lied a lot. Numerous politicians get where there are by this manner.
She came across as clueless because, in the area she was thrust into, she was. She was coached and when a question came up that was outside her area of proficiency, she choked, badly.
THIS
could have ended up being our president, had something happened to McCain if he had been elected:Palin's greatest hits !
Jan 8, 2009. 2:47 PMxACIDITYx
says:
That last part is your opinion or belief. Since there is no means to show that it solely us and not a natural cycle. I'm sure we're not helping the situation; I mean put billions of anything somewhere and the environment will change, but I don't personally believe that there is sufficient evidence to support it being solely a human negativity and not a naturally occurring cycle.
There is no negative in us helping the environment by any means and I actively encourage it. However, scare tactics to get people to do it isn't helping anyone. if you don't recycle, the entire earth will flame up and the devil himself will come up from hell and stab you with his pitchfork!!! isn't helpful.
There is no negative in us helping the environment by any means and I actively encourage it. However, scare tactics to get people to do it isn't helping anyone. if you don't recycle, the entire earth will flame up and the devil himself will come up from hell and stab you with his pitchfork!!! isn't helpful.
There are substantial and multiple ways to show that the magnitude of the current effect is far beyond anything observed in previous natural cycles, in the last several million years. Yes, this could be "just a large fluctation," (the last paper I read said it was about 4.5 sigma out) but the probability of such a fluctation being random is less than 10-5.
I've chosen that limit not to bias the comparison, but because it represents a range of time where the continental masses have been in basically their current configuration. If you look far enough in the past, you can find far more extreme climate variations during periods of single or dual supercontinents, or equatorial-only continental mass, which aren't comparable.
Worldwide dendrochronological (tree ring) studies can provide year-on-year climatic information going back up to 7,500 or 10,000 years (depending on location).
Greenland and antarctic ice cores can provide year-on-year precipitation and temperature (16O/18O ratio) measurements along with CO2 and trace gas compositions, going back as far as 500,000 years.
Marine stratigraphic information can provide temperature and ocean acidity data on a much coarser time scale, but going back millions of years.
I would recommend strongly that you use something like Google Scholar to look up some good review papers, and understand the evidence which has actually been published, before claiming it doesn't exist.
I've chosen that limit not to bias the comparison, but because it represents a range of time where the continental masses have been in basically their current configuration. If you look far enough in the past, you can find far more extreme climate variations during periods of single or dual supercontinents, or equatorial-only continental mass, which aren't comparable.
Worldwide dendrochronological (tree ring) studies can provide year-on-year climatic information going back up to 7,500 or 10,000 years (depending on location).
Greenland and antarctic ice cores can provide year-on-year precipitation and temperature (16O/18O ratio) measurements along with CO2 and trace gas compositions, going back as far as 500,000 years.
Marine stratigraphic information can provide temperature and ocean acidity data on a much coarser time scale, but going back millions of years.
I would recommend strongly that you use something like Google Scholar to look up some good review papers, and understand the evidence which has actually been published, before claiming it doesn't exist.
Jan 11, 2009. 7:34 PMsane
says:
We're actually in a cooling stage, and warming up. If that's what you're trying to say then I agree.
Jan 9, 2009. 6:58 AMxACIDITYx
says:
Where did I ever claim it didn't exist? I said there's no way to substantially prove it's solely human's at fault and not a natural cycle. You even said so in your comment that it could be just a large fluctuation, which means that you don't (or can't) know for certain that we are 100% to blame.
You're right. You claimed there was not "sufficient evidence to support". I have given you an outline of the manifold and complementary lines of sufficient evidence, and have encouraged you to gather some understanding for yourself of the primary research sources.
And you're also right that we can't know for 100% certain that we are to blame. We also can't know for 100% certain that you won't spontaneously explode before reaching the end of this sentence. However, we can say that the probabilty that the current warming cycle is not a natural, random fluctuation is at least 99.99% (conservatively).
And you're also right that we can't know for 100% certain that we are to blame. We also can't know for 100% certain that you won't spontaneously explode before reaching the end of this sentence. However, we can say that the probabilty that the current warming cycle is not a natural, random fluctuation is at least 99.99% (conservatively).
Sep 25, 2008. 3:05 PMAnarchistAsian
says:
global cooling striked again... during the summer, there was a particularly cooler period, look it up... I AGREE WITH YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One figure does not break a trend.
Watch this space though, literally. The solar wind (blamed by the "it's a natural cycle" crowd) is at an unusual low, the lowest since records began in the early sixties. If GW is not anthropomorphic, then we should see a cooling trend that matches and follows the solar wind pattern (a cooling period that starts before the drop in solar wind would be merely coincidental).
Watch this space though, literally. The solar wind (blamed by the "it's a natural cycle" crowd) is at an unusual low, the lowest since records began in the early sixties. If GW is not anthropomorphic, then we should see a cooling trend that matches and follows the solar wind pattern (a cooling period that starts before the drop in solar wind would be merely coincidental).
Sep 25, 2008. 3:35 PMAnarchistAsian
says:
whatever, the effects aren't so bad... *yet* oh, and a... *i hope*
What a terrible breach of etiquette! You must post another video! I started a Youtube War. We must now do battle with alternating youtube videos until we go back to Rick Astley, at which point the war is over and a winner declared. :-D
Bah, humbug! I use YouTube sparingly, and generally only here on I'bles (recall my utter ignorance of Rick Astley :-). You could, however, do me a great favor: scroll down a few comments, and gently and quietly explain to AnarchistAsian who Gloria Gaynor is, and why our replies to his "WE WILL SURVIVE" comment are so funny....
Pffft. You're no fun. =D
SHOULD...I...TALK...SLOWLY...OR...LOUDLY?
SHOULD...I...TALK...SLOWLY...OR...LOUDLY?
:-) :-) BTW, have you seen the Adam Sandler remake of The Longest Yard? There is a truly hilarous "I Will Survive" dance number in the prison...
Nope! I'll have to search for it on youtube, I'll bet it's there.
Gloria Gaynor is a singer best known for the classic disco song "I will survive", a song about a woman who is telling her former boyfriend/husband that she no longer needs him or wants him around. Your comment "I will survive" reminded us of that.
I'll wait for Skunkbait, Goodhart, Nacho et al. to explain this one :-)
Aug 24, 2008. 8:00 AMzjharva
says:
i wasn't alive in the 70s or 80s but i agree that it is just the earths warming and cooling cycles. but i still believe humans shouldn't pollute and use up every resource on the whole planet.
Pollution is never a good thing. I am a big fan of the rain forests. (I was actually involved in protecting the rain forest in New Guinea, by explaining the cost of "progress" to the elders/chiefs of several villages up in the mountains. A little money sounds great, till you realize your children will have nowhere to hunt and the springs will no longer contain safe drinking water!) I don't burn used tires for fun. I don't dump oil in the rivers. I use mostly steel shot when hunting. It's funny though that most of the people that shout the loudest about "global warming" aren't doing much on an individual level to "prevent it". It's easier to legislate other peoples' behavior, than it is to change your own!
Sep 27, 2008. 8:47 PMAnarchistAsian
says:
lol, like people who buy hybrids and think that their share is done...
Sep 28, 2008. 7:01 AMzjharva
says:
hybrids and carbon credits......BLAH. hybrids could actually be worse because my thinking is that they get good gas milage, but those batteries require bad chemicals to produce and probably pollute more than normal cars (although doesn't everything including food have bad chemicals these days?) carbon credits are for those rich people driving their escalades just paying a bunch of money so they don't have to change at all, but then they can say they are "green"
Sep 28, 2008. 10:36 AMAnarchistAsian
says:
they make fun of hybrid users. lol you should watch it, it's emmy-award-winning!!!!!!!!
Jan 8, 2009. 10:38 AMmanduh23
says:
I really don't believe that there is "global warming." You could call me one of those hardcore republicans that has no heart or whatever. But I think the planet is just doing what it has to do, no global warming is making it colder or hotter than usually. We humans are in no control over that matter. Yes maybe all the power plants and whatnot as causing are air to be gross and polluted but I don't think that is affecting the weather.
Jul 15, 2008. 2:26 PMyerjoking
says:
not to sound immature, or totally thick, but will anything actually happen? as in strange things?
May 19, 2008. 11:27 PMjonny_s
says:
Firstly, I think it is hilarious how virtually everyone on this comment board has their viewpoint stated, along with saying there are facts to back them up, and many of them contradict each other. Secondly, way to objectify all Catholics. I suppose that you are a typical American with typical views on typical issues such as gun control and, obviously, the environment? I'm actually sure that you are not typical at all, and my point is that no one is. Everyone (Catholic, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu...) has their own view point, sometimes quite apart from their religion or lack thereof. And thirdly, I think we all agree that Global Warming is happening, but the question is whether or not we are causing it. Humanity has only been seriously studying the environment as a whole and our effects on it for the past, at the very most, seventy five years. We cannot claim to have accumulated enough evidence to form a solid opinion one way or another yet. When they (who are "they" you ask? You know, the people who study those things...) started studying the supposed "holes" in our ozone layer, they saw a big thin spot right around (don't quote me on this, just going off memory) Greenland. So they figured "Well, that's the only spot like that, and over the past couple years it's kinda gotten bigger, so Humans must be causing it!" And thus, CFC's were banned, which are quite harmful anyways, so it's for the best. But the thing is, the scientists figured it would take another twenty years or so to see any difference at all in the closing of the holes. Well, weren't they surprised when three or four years later the hole started closing back up. And then opening a little. And then closing some more. My point is that there could be giant cycles going on here that we really do not understand. As arrogant as we humans tend to be, we just might not have the power to doom the entire planet. Be that as it may, I for one am not going to sit back and pour gasoline into an H3 to look cool on some city street. Being "green" as so many people call it, helps my utility bills, helps with clutter that is filling up landfills, helps with the obvious localized smog problems (anyone looked at a picture of Mexico City recently?) and maybe, just maybe, it could help the earth.
May 20, 2008. 4:32 PMDragonwolf
says:
I totally agree although I do believe that global warming is probably caused by humans, at least partly. I once watched a video where some supposed scientists were saying that global warming was made up for the benefit of big corporations so they could sell 'green' stuff, but if that is the case, why are they still selling lots of not green stuff and very minimal green stuff?
May 20, 2008. 11:48 PMjonny_s
says:
Well, as with many good lies, there is a partial truth in that video. Take Ethanol for example, right now it is being touted as one of the great solutions to rising costs at the pump and dependency on fossil fuels. There are many car commercials advertising it, and people seem to like the thought of growing fuel, so in that sense it is for the benefit of the large corporations that are selling it. What the general public does not think about, however, is these two points; 1: using corn/sugar cane/ whatever you are using to make ethanol uses a commodity that would otherwise be used to feed people, rather than our cars. And 2: At the moment, from harvesting it with tractors to shipping it out and processing it to getting it to the pump, it takes 120 gallons of fossil fuels to create 100 gallons of ethanol. In my books, that would qualify it for being something sold as "green" but not for the profit of the general public. I'm not saying that global warming is by any means made up, but there are people who are taking advantage of the call for 'green' stuff and making a profit for themselves.
Jun 20, 2008. 6:35 AMgmoon
says:
Citing these short-term "facts" is highly misleading, since they aren't facts at all...
1: using corn/sugar cane/ whatever you are using to make ethanol uses a commodity that would otherwise be used to feed people, rather than our cars.
Farmers and agriculture were once 90% of the population. It's less than 3% today. Maybe we need to pay more attention to a population that Louis Bromfield once called "the fundamental citizens of any nation."
We perpetuate an agricultural system that keeps cost so low that farmers can't make a living. And then complain when there's a short-term shortage.
If we grew crops like switchgrass from ethanol and didn't subsidize corn-to-ethanol, we'd be fine. For that matter, corn as a consumable isn't even particularly healthy. Yet growers have been receiving subsidies even when there was a surplus of corn.
And 2: At the moment, from harvesting it with tractors to shipping it out and processing it to getting it to the pump, it takes 120 gallons of fossil fuels to create 100 gallons of ethanol.
So wrong. These figures are only for the USA, which grows the wrong crops for ethanol production. Plus, as noted, we subsidize corn-to-ethanol production.
What? We subsidize an net-loss source of biofuel? Yes, we do, thanks to corporate agriculture interests.
You're citing the economics of our failure to promote an intelligent energy policy. In fact, we have no energy policy at all in the US. It's purely a free-market system (sort of--big farming lobbyist help to perpetuate subsidies that subvert that market.)
I'm not anti-free market, but you need leadership as well as market forces. Market forces alone don't have the interest of country or consumer at their core. For 30 years, while other nations such as Brazil have concentrated on self-sufficiency, our leaders have simply "punted," and let the corporate lawyers write the laws...
1: using corn/sugar cane/ whatever you are using to make ethanol uses a commodity that would otherwise be used to feed people, rather than our cars.
Farmers and agriculture were once 90% of the population. It's less than 3% today. Maybe we need to pay more attention to a population that Louis Bromfield once called "the fundamental citizens of any nation."
We perpetuate an agricultural system that keeps cost so low that farmers can't make a living. And then complain when there's a short-term shortage.
If we grew crops like switchgrass from ethanol and didn't subsidize corn-to-ethanol, we'd be fine. For that matter, corn as a consumable isn't even particularly healthy. Yet growers have been receiving subsidies even when there was a surplus of corn.
And 2: At the moment, from harvesting it with tractors to shipping it out and processing it to getting it to the pump, it takes 120 gallons of fossil fuels to create 100 gallons of ethanol.
So wrong. These figures are only for the USA, which grows the wrong crops for ethanol production. Plus, as noted, we subsidize corn-to-ethanol production.
What? We subsidize an net-loss source of biofuel? Yes, we do, thanks to corporate agriculture interests.
You're citing the economics of our failure to promote an intelligent energy policy. In fact, we have no energy policy at all in the US. It's purely a free-market system (sort of--big farming lobbyist help to perpetuate subsidies that subvert that market.)
I'm not anti-free market, but you need leadership as well as market forces. Market forces alone don't have the interest of country or consumer at their core. For 30 years, while other nations such as Brazil have concentrated on self-sufficiency, our leaders have simply "punted," and let the corporate lawyers write the laws...
Jun 20, 2008. 12:12 PMjonny_s
says:
I'm not entirely certain I see your point... You did not disprove my two points at all, but simply elaborated on them. Yes, agricultural related jobs only account for 3% of the job market. Yes, farmers need to be payed more. And no, I do not mind the price of bread rising seventy five cents, I do not label that a food shortage. That being said, growing any plant the way we do right now for the specific purpose of making ethanol is taking up time and space that could be used to grow things with which to feed desperately starving people who live in places that actually know what a food shortage is. We, living in Canada and the U.S., have the privilege of living in two of the few cultures in the world in which it is actually difficult to die of starvation. Bread rising seventy five cents does not begin to touch "shortage", even short term. The reason I wrote "at the moment" in front of my second point, is because I know that it could be done much more efficiently. At the moment, however, we are spewing out more emissions to try and create a viable alternative to fossil fuels than if we did nothing at all. These figures may only be for the U.S., but the U.S. accounts for an insanely large portion of world fossil fuel consumption. Right now, people are making large sums of money over a very impractical idea. The point I was trying to make was merely that ethanol is not going to save the planet, but people are being told it will so that they will spend money on it. I wont get started on what we should be doing instead, but suffice to say that ethanol is pitifully inefficient.
Jun 20, 2008. 12:51 PMgmoon
says:
I'm not entirely certain I see your point... You did not disprove my two points at all, but simply elaborated on them.
To quote you " there is a partial truth in that," i.e., to tell a partial truth is to tell a lie. And yes, you had two points to make:
1) ethanol production causes food shortages
2) ethanol is a negative-sum energy source.
Both points are wrong.
The "global food shortage" has nothing to do with ethanol production. People have been starving while our corporate agricultural system grew in size, and we've had the ability to feed them--they just didn't have enough money to pay for the food. They continue to starve. Simple economics.
There's no shortage of arable land in the world (unless global warming changes that.) US farmers do limit the production of corn in order to drive up the price.
And other countries have proved that ethanol production can rival the supply chain efficiency of oil. Without that carbon footprint.
Whether ethanol is the ultimate solution, or just a partial or interim solution is another question.
To quote you " there is a partial truth in that," i.e., to tell a partial truth is to tell a lie. And yes, you had two points to make:
1) ethanol production causes food shortages
2) ethanol is a negative-sum energy source.
Both points are wrong.
The "global food shortage" has nothing to do with ethanol production. People have been starving while our corporate agricultural system grew in size, and we've had the ability to feed them--they just didn't have enough money to pay for the food. They continue to starve. Simple economics.
There's no shortage of arable land in the world (unless global warming changes that.) US farmers do limit the production of corn in order to drive up the price.
And other countries have proved that ethanol production can rival the supply chain efficiency of oil. Without that carbon footprint.
Whether ethanol is the ultimate solution, or just a partial or interim solution is another question.
May 27, 2008. 12:06 PMNapoleanDynamite
says:
I don't believe in global warming at all, but I still blame everything on it.
Jun 19, 2008. 12:10 PMtheburn7
says:
the only common knowledge among the people is global warming, and i like being green, as i connect with every type of weather, wind, rain, snow, hail, hurricanes, tsunamis, typhoons, tornadoes, and sometimes sun. The disastrous ones are basically my "strong side". the rest are my normal side. I connect with nature. in fact, my eyes see green more than any other color. Am I super natural?
| 1-100 of 169 | next » |
 |
Vancouver Mini Maker Faire 2012
Rebuilding NordicTrack ski machine drive rollers
Looking for New Zealand-based Instructables authors for conference on August 27 in Wellington
Call to makers - Brighton Mini Maker Faire
Milk Crates - not as green as you think
TEDxBaghdad - Iraq - violence, dust storms and open sourced manufacturing
UK Mini Maker Faire - The Derby Silk Mill - New Poster to Share!
