strappinglad Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 No, China pollutes at a level the United States does not. Carbon emissions controls would be a blow to the US. It would do much more damage to China. Good luck getting China to accept and implement carbon controls. That's the problem. Same with India. China has never been slow to sacrifice its people to its political/economic agendas. If New York has Beijing's air pollution problem , there would be h311 to pay politically and monetarily.
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 TSS said: I say:The critics of the critics of Global Warming have never and will never stop being critics. Most, if not all, have an economic incentive for it. Recently, there was an car pile up where about 10 people were killed and about thirty were injured. I guess you'll have to ask these people and their family about how safe automobiles are. Horses weren't all that bad, but it took about an eternity to get somewhere, especially if there was an emergency. Talk about trading one bad idea for another bad idea.I haven't been following this thread very much. Many global warming advocates tend to be pretend that the sun has very little to do with global warming, it's mostly the result of man. These same ones also, in my experience, tend to poo-poo the record of extreme climate change which has occurred in the past. They want us to spend trillion of dollars on project which will reverse global warming and they whip out their scientific models which predict the imminent threat of global ecological collapse if we don't immediate take drastic changes. Funny thing is, these models sure don't take into account a lot of things that affect climate and don't predict things really well and they want us to spend lots money to make changes that might not do anything to change anything except spend lots of money. We spend 10's of trillions of dollars building and maintaining our infrastructure annually. And your grousing about a few scientists that say lets not crap into our own lungs. Sheesh. For a point of comparison SEE Are you some how doubting that over the last 50 years or so cars have been getting a whole lot safer? Unfortunately there still are auto related injuries and fatalities. That will still be the case even if we power our cars by hydrogen or electricity. Nuclear power while it doesn't produce green house gases directly the mining of the ore to power does. Along with the transportation systems, and processing systems used to refine them. Plus the residue(radioactive isotopes) remain hazardous to human health for 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of years. Long after we whom used the electricity those power plants produced are known only to God. The sun does has everything to do with global warming. No sun and we wouldn't be here very long. A little over nine minutes and it's hello frozen air ice cube. I do try to present the science in an easily understood format. So as to not "Burnout" the non-scientist. Not to be unkind, but if you can't keep up with the science there is little point that I can accurately address. The science that CO2 traps heat was establish fact in 1896. The only question is how much CO2 can we pump into our air before it becomes a problem? Long timescale studies show that the maximum is right around 260 parts per million in the air. We've blown right past 380 ppm with no slow down in sight. Science is of no value to anyone if it can't make accurate predictions. We are conducting a grand experiment. The consequences of which we just might not like.
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 Good luck getting China to accept and implement carbon controls. That's the problem. Same with India. China has never been slow to sacrifice its people to its political/economic agendas.If New York has Beijing's air pollution problem , there would be h311 to pay politically and monetarily. http://www.caep.org.cn/english/paper/The-Design-on-China-Carbon-Tax-to-Mitigate-Climate-Change.pdf China is also a third world country trying to act like a first world one. When it comes to treating others, including its own citizens, with political/economic agendas, the US is hardly a saint. So someone else behaving badly, justifies your behaving badly?
strappinglad Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 I will give an example of the pollution problem . I have a friend in the drywalling business.For every home he does that requires a sprayed on ceiling texture( that's all of them ) , he uses yards of thin film plastic to cover the walls and floor. That plastic is rolled up and tossed into the garbage. It is the equivalent of tossing thousands of plastic garbage bags away. We urbanites make it a practice to recycle our plastic bags as we should and yet one guy can contribute enormously to the plastic pollution problem . North America could make massive strides to control it's CO2 emissions and bankrupt itself in the process , while one nation/dude would continue to negate our efforts. The solution might be to make the big polluters change while we continue our laudable efforts to clean up the planet. We are not yet able to enforce that outcome.
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 I will give an example of the pollution problem . I have a friend in the drywalling business.For every home he does that requires a sprayed on ceiling texture( that's all of them ) , he uses yards of thin film plastic to cover the walls and floor. That plastic is rolled up and tossed into the garbage. It is the equivalent of tossing thousands of plastic garbage bags away. We urbanites make it a practice to recycle our plastic bags as we should and yet one guy can contribute enormously to the plastic pollution problem .North America could make massive strides to control it's CO2 emissions and bankrupt itself in the process , while one nation/dude would continue to negate our efforts.The solution might be to make the big polluters change while we continue our laudable efforts to clean up the planet. We are not yet able to enforce that outcome. We don't eliminate laws against murder just because a few violate those laws. Why should it be any different with environmental laws? It used to be a Capital Offense to pollute someone's water well or pollute their ground. Now we have politicians apologizing to the polluters. Controlling our CO2 won't bankrupt us. It won't be as cheap as continuing to dump more and more crap into our air and lungs, at least in the short run. In the long run the cost gets real high. It is reasonably estimated that the cost will be about 1% of the US economy. About the same amount as it cost to put modern plumbing into our homes and other buildings. Dumping Chamber Pots into the streets was a cheap common practice. Do you really to go back to that time? Is the bad behavior of someone else a justification for your bad behavior?
urroner Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 We spend 10's of trillions of dollars building and maintaining our infrastructure annually. And your grousing about a few scientists that say lets not crap into our own lungs. Sheesh. For a point of comparison SEE Are you some how doubting that over the last 50 years or so cars have been getting a whole lot safer? Unfortunately there still are auto related injuries and fatalities. That will still be the case even if we power our cars by hydrogen or electricity. Nuclear power while it doesn't produce green house gases directly the mining of the ore to power does. Along with the transportation systems, and processing systems used to refine them. Plus the residue(radioactive isotopes) remain hazardous to human health for 10's of thousands if not 100's of thousands of years. Long after we whom used the electricity those power plants produced are known only to God. The sun does has everything to do with global warming. No sun and we wouldn't be here very long. A little over nine minutes and it's hello frozen air ice cube. I do try to present the science in an easily understood format. So as to not "Burnout" the non-scientist. Not to be unkind, but if you can't keep up with the science there is little point that I can accurately address. The science that CO2 traps heat was establish fact in 1896. The only question is how much CO2 can we pump into our air before it becomes a problem? Long timescale studies show that the maximum is right around 260 parts per million in the air. We've blown right past 380 ppm with no slow down in sight. Science is of no value to anyone if it can't make accurate predictions. We are conducting a grand experiment. The consequences of which we just might not like.Models are only as good as our comprehension of the processes they are based upon and if they stay true to the process. Many of the current models used would have us in the midst of massive global flooding right now. Both polar caps would be much smaller than they are and polar bears and penguins dying en masse.According to many of the best models, the global temperature should be higher than it is right now and I thought, I might have misheard, these models were supposed to have been very accurate. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but just how efficient of a GhG it is seems to be unknown.Talk about leaving footprints behind, the manufacturing of solar panels leaves a huge pollution footprint behind, especially in China, yet I don't hear too many environmentalist yelling about that. But that's okay, it's just the Chinese that we're polluting apparently.I like a clean environment just as much as the next guy, but I just really hate throwing good money after crap science and the only things to show for that good money are a bunch of fat cats who ripped the system off and deeper holes in my pockets.All I ask is, before spending trillions of dollars on snake oil and voodoo dolls, understand the science behind the warming and, TSS, it isn't understood very well. The different phases the sun goes through and they affect Earth's climate aren't understood, so how accurate can those climate models be?
thesometimesaint Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 Models are only as good as our comprehension of the processes they are based upon and if they stay true to the process. Many of the current models used would have us in the midst of massive global flooding right now. Both polar caps would be much smaller than they are and polar bears and penguins dying en masse.According to many of the best models, the global temperature should be higher than it is right now and I thought, I might have misheard, these models were supposed to have been very accurate. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but just how efficient of a GhG it is seems to be unknown.Talk about leaving footprints behind, the manufacturing of solar panels leaves a huge pollution footprint behind, especially in China, yet I don't hear too many environmentalist yelling about that. But that's okay, it's just the Chinese that we're polluting apparently.I like a clean environment just as much as the next guy, but I just really hate throwing good money after crap science and the only things to show for that good money are a bunch of fat cats who ripped the system off and deeper holes in my pockets.All I ask is, before spending trillions of dollars on snake oil and voodoo dolls, understand the science behind the warming and, TSS, it isn't understood very well. The different phases the sun goes through and they affect Earth's climate aren't understood, so how accurate can those climate models be? The current models don't suggest any such thing. In fact the current models consistently understate the amount of Global Warming and the resultant damage.Polar Bears are dying because of Arctic Melt, and Penguins are dying because of Antarctic warming. According to the best models temperature is a trailing indicator of CO2 concentration. Think of it as turbo-lag on your car. Pushing on the gas peddle then the engine lags a little bit before speeding up. Like the bad science that gave you modern plumbing? If it truly is snake oil and voodoo dolls I agree. We should return immediately to those good old days of 1700's Jolly Old Edinburgh; Scotland. Think of all the money we'd save If we did not have to worry about all the filth, stench, disease, and death of that halcyon era. The sun doesn't goes through phases. It has periods of greater and lesser sun spot activity in roughly 11 year cycles. Sun spot activity is unrelated to Global Warming.
Danzo Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I guess you'll just have to ask the Japanese about Fukishima and the Ukrainians about Chernobyl on how safe nuclear power is. Lets not trade one bad idea for another bad idea. remind me again how many deaths are attributable to the Fukishima disaster, and compare that to the deaths attributable to other forms of power generation.
strappinglad Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 For all those who would like to read a balanced article on Polar bears I strongly recommend the following. http://www.canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/dec12/polar_bears3.asp Don't be afraid of the 3 pages. It shows a complex picture that few understand. And for what it is worth, indoor plumbing was mostly the result of some smart engineers who utilized the concept that water runs downhill and payday is on Friday, as well as the fact that their wives got tired of the stink. By the way, I'm old enough to remember the outdoor privy and the cold trot to it in the night.
Darren10 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 The scriptures say before the Second Coming the whole world will be in commotion. These commotions wii be in response to the cold reception (pun intended) of the world's people to the message of the Restored Gospel, and for this reason the Lord is going to send forth great convulsions of nature. The Prophet Joseph Smith called these chastening meteorological and seismic forces "the sermon of nature." One imagines that when this time of great tribulation comes the spiritually blind will be placing the blame for these cataclysms of nature on all sorts of things except for the right thing -- their own wickedness and refusal to repent. That's fine. in fact, that's precisely along the line of what I proposed to Robert F. Smith. Note he bold from your citation and mine: Oh, please. You cannot show any connection to global warming. If anything it's the sins of man wroughting the wrath of God. And I'm not talikng about being bad stewarts over our resources. Good grief.
Darren10 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 97% of peer-reviewed climate papers disagree with you. Huh????
Darren10 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I posted credible sources that reflect the mainstream, majority scientific consensus. So your argument is really with them - not with me. NASA is not mainstream. In fact did they not deliberately faricate their reporting in order to support man-made global warming? And is it not true that the more people believe in man-made global warming the more power the EPA gets?
Darren10 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 And FWIW, I live in Colorado, where we had severe flooding this past September in various places throughout Northern Colorado, with the City of Boulder being one of the hardest hit. I was fortunate enough to not be affected by any of it, but I don't believe it's because I'm inherently more righteous than the people living in the places where the floods happened. There are good, solid members of the Church who had parts of, or all of, their property and possessions destroyed. It could have easily just as well happened to me. The focus should be on helping these people to rebuild their lives and livelihoods, and not placing any blame because they were supposedly not righteous enough. The same goes for all natural disasters. Teancum was a good solid member of the church but was killed from a war which was caused ultimately by the wickedness of the people of the church. The point is that weather change and disasters cannot be linked to man's treatment of the envirnment. What, was that the only time Colorado flooded? Do more people die post industrialization or pre-industrialization from natural disasters?
Darren10 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I'm glad to see you've got your ears on, Darren, but I don't think that's gonna help you practice good stewardship in the way that Brother Brigham intended for us to do. You can read about that in Hugh Nibley's Brother Brigham Challenges the Saints (FARMS/Deseret Book, 1994). Some great stuff in there about environmental stewardship. You may not care particularly whether millions will die in India, China, Bangladesh, etc., cause, after all, we will remain relatively safe here in fortress America, and Utah may even get around to doing something real about the horrible inversion layer of deadly gases we have to contend with each winter. God is not punishing us. He is letting us stew in our own juices Simple question: Are you willing to take the blame? Or are your children going to look back and wonder why Daddy just didn't get it? Is that the legacy you want to leave? Please discuss without accusing people of not caring about human life. How has Utah suffered from inverted gases via releasing CO2 in the atmosphere? I'm not talking toxins things that cause acid rain or sources which release metals and "combustion particles". These are elements harmful to health. CO2, on the other hand, is necessaryto live. No CO2 = No human life. Now, if Utah has an environmental issue, perhaps to its unique geography of being surrounded by mountains, then Utah is more than wecome to hel seek a solution. But Utah is hardly *global* warming, is it?
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 I will give an example of the pollution problem . I have a friend in the drywalling business.For every home he does that requires a sprayed on ceiling texture( that's all of them ) , he uses yards of thin film plastic to cover the walls and floor. That plastic is rolled up and tossed into the garbage. It is the equivalent of tossing thousands of plastic garbage bags away. We urbanites make it a practice to recycle our plastic bags as we should and yet one guy can contribute enormously to the plastic pollution problem .North America could make massive strides to control it's CO2 emissions and bankrupt itself in the process , while one nation/dude would continue to negate our efforts.The solution might be to make the big polluters change while we continue our laudable efforts to clean up the planet. We are not yet able to enforce that outcome.I am less optimistic. I think I am going to stick with this approach:
strappinglad Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Actually ,I've heard , from a reliable source, ( wink,wink ) that it is all part of the NWO to reduce the global population to a sustainable 2.5 billion.
Darren10 Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 Simple question: Are you willing to take the blame? Or are your children going to look back and wonder why Daddy just didn't get it? Is that the legacy you want to leave? Please discuss without accusing people of not caring about human life. The moderator addressed your accusation that I don't care about human life so I'll leave that issue alone. But now that I'm back to post here (for now) I'd like to address this on its own post. Don't you realize how pathetic and dull your question is? It is of no substance and designed to only illicit fear and guilt upon the recipient in order to get them on baord of the man-made global warming alarmists. I'm leaving my children a great scientific legacy regarding global warming. I teach them it's natural, not by CO2 omissions, that water vapor has a far greater (vastly greater, there is no comparison) influence on temperature regulation than does CO2, that implamenting government's calls to curve global warming would devastate the economy and only worsen global warming (but even that will be minimal, environmental devestation will be far worse).
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 The moderator addressed your accusation that I don't care about human life so I'll leave that issue alone. But now that I'm back to post here (for now) I'd like to address this on its own post. Don't you realize how pathetic and dull your question is? It is of no substance and designed to only illicit fear and guilt upon the recipient in order to get them on baord of the man-made global warming alarmists. I'm leaving my children a great scientific legacy regarding global warming. I teach them it's natural, not by CO2 omissions, that water vapor has a far greater (vastly greater, there is no comparison) influence on temperature regulation than does CO2, that implamenting government's calls to curve global warming would devastate the economy and only worsen global warming (but even that will be minimal, environmental devestation will be far worse).So your legacy is parroting what others told you? Have you considered foster care for your children?
thesometimesaint Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 How has Utah suffered from inverted gases via releasing CO2 in the atmosphere? I'm not talking toxins things that cause acid rain or sources which release metals and "combustion particles". These are elements harmful to health. CO2, on the other hand, is necessaryto live. No CO2 = No human life. Now, if Utah has an environmental issue, perhaps to its unique geography of being surrounded by mountains, then Utah is more than wecome to hel seek a solution. But Utah is hardly *global* warming, is it? Yes Utah contributes to Global Warming.
thesometimesaint Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 The moderator addressed your accusation that I don't care about human life so I'll leave that issue alone. But now that I'm back to post here (for now) I'd like to address this on its own post. Don't you realize how pathetic and dull your question is? It is of no substance and designed to only illicit fear and guilt upon the recipient in order to get them on baord of the man-made global warming alarmists. I'm leaving my children a great scientific legacy regarding global warming. I teach them it's natural, not by CO2 omissions, that water vapor has a far greater (vastly greater, there is no comparison) influence on temperature regulation than does CO2, that implamenting government's calls to curve global warming would devastate the economy and only worsen global warming (but even that will be minimal, environmental devestation will be far worse). The moderator addressed your accusation that I don't care about human life so I'll leave that issue alone. But now that I'm back to post here (for now) I'd like to address this on its own post. Don't you realize how pathetic and dull your question is? It is of no substance and designed to only illicit fear and guilt upon the recipient in order to get them on baord of the man-made global warming alarmists. I'm leaving my children a great scientific legacy regarding global warming. I teach them it's natural, not by CO2 omissions, that water vapor has a far greater (vastly greater, there is no comparison) influence on temperature regulation than does CO2, that implamenting government's calls to curve global warming would devastate the economy and only worsen global warming (but even that will be minimal, environmental devestation will be far worse). That CO2 holds heat is was proven in 1896. Water Vapor is a trailing indicator. No it would not devastate our economy anymore than stopping burning whale oil did a century and half ago. It is just your lack of imagination that prevents you seeing that relatively easy steps can greatly reduce our dependence on burning fossil fuels. Dollars to donuts the Computer you are using right now uses far less materials and electrical energy than the computers of the 1950's.
thesometimesaint Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 remind me again how many deaths are attributable to the Fukishima disaster, and compare that to the deaths attributable to other forms of power generation. Non Sequitur.
thesometimesaint Posted February 3, 2014 Posted February 3, 2014 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/extremes/201311.gif
drums12 Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 Actually ,I've heard , from a reliable source, ( wink,wink ) that it is all part of the NWO to reduce the global population to a sustainable 2.5 billion. https://www.lewrockwell.com/2012/05/jorge-gato/10-theses-of-contention-on-the-power-and-efficacy-of-anthropogenic-globalwarming-theory/ see especially the hyperlink to "world government"
The Nehor Posted February 4, 2014 Posted February 4, 2014 Here is why nothing is done about climate change:
Robert F. Smith Posted February 4, 2014 Author Posted February 4, 2014 TSS said:Quote The critics of Global Warming have never and will never stop being critics. Most if not all have an economic incentive for it.TSS said: I say:The critics of the critics of Global Warming have never and will never stop being critics. Most, if not all, have an economic incentive for it. Recently, there was an car pile up where about 10 people were killed and about thirty were injured. I guess you'll have to ask these people and their family about how safe automobiles are. Horses weren't all that bad, but it took about an eternity to get somewhere, especially if there was an emergency. Talk about trading one bad idea for another bad idea.I haven't been following this thread very much. Many global warming advocates tend to be pretend that the sun has very little to do with global warming, it's mostly the result of man. These same ones also, in my experience, tend to poo-poo the record of extreme climate change which has occurred in the past. They want us to spend trillion of dollars on project which will reverse global warming and they whip out their scientific models which predict the imminent threat of global ecological collapse if we don't immediate take drastic changes. Funny thing is, these models sure don't take into account a lot of things that affect climate and don't predict things really well and they want us to spend lots money to make changes that might not do anything to change anything except spend lots of money.What concerns me is that we have here a puerile "tis so, tis not" tirade from both sides, and almost no concern with the science. Everyone is pointing fingers and claiming that the other side is making money by carrying on the debate. It is all about motive, and not about actual guilt or innocence. Have any of you ever heard the word "evidence"?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.