The best way to clean up may be the natural way.

General Forums Off-topic Chat
21

I’ve read numerous articles quoting studies that found those who claim to care about global warming have actually done very little to curb their own energy usage and curb their own emissions. Instead they prefer to point the finger at others for not making it federally regulated. Meanwhile they could have been doing those very things they were trying to force others to do, but they were not. They say if you want something done right then do it yourself.

They want to curb emissions, so long as only everyone else has to. Put your money where your mouth is. Climate change is a phad, much like prohibition people only support regulation because it’s popular, secretly they don’t really want to do anything about it. Problems facing the world are always someone else’s fault and climate change just gives people another reason to wag their finger at someone else.

Take the Chevy Volt for instance. Oh I saw that who killed the electric car movie claiming GM killed it because it was too reliable, but really they killed it becuause demand wasn’t there. Oh the people were all up in arms over the evil corporation keeping their eco-friendly car under wraps. Then GM releases the Volt to absolutely horrible sales prompting a federal probe as to why the government didn’t seen a return on their investment when it was that damn car the government made them build that didn’t sell well because all the hypocrites that wanted it bought an SUV instead.

Who killed the electric car? It wasn’t GM or the oil industry, it was the consumer that only pretended to want it because it was the ‘in’ thing to do.

22

I drive one of the smallest gas cars that can still fit my peoples.

Hyundai accent.

I replaced all my sliding glass doors with solid core doors and replaced most of the windows with energy star, I heat my home with 1 1000 watt heater (not that it gets shper cold here)

If I could do anything to help the world however, I think its change the way we use , transport and waste water.

I think that a system could be desigined to grow algae and purify waste water, the algae is stored up and on sunny days, a micro supercritical gasifier produces h2 and C0 that is then catylized into diesel.

or the algae could be pressed and used as fuel pellets for a pellet stove.

nothing grows as much biomass as algae.

if we could close the loops, so we are recycling the same water…
like we were living in space… each home grows fruit and vegitibles in a automated vertical garden etc.

23

I wasn’t saying you specifically have done nothing to curb your emissions BPR, obviously there are those who have. I don’t even believe in it and I don’t have a car at all, though I can’t say it’s because I wanted to curb that particular type of emission. The president of the sierra club flies in a private jet that uses many times more fuel than an SUV, Al Gore’s house apparently uses a great deal more electricity than that of the average american and all sorts of celebrities are global warming this and reduce that all while driving tricked out Hummers and flying private jets.

Now I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with driving a Hummer, but if someone really believes it’s harmful then why are they still doing it? Much less trying to make everyone else stop doing it.

P.S. I wonder if Michael Moore is driving a Chevy Volt…

24

It’s not that simple.

People behave heuristically. They follow of path of behavior patterns that are almost autonomic. The vast majority of our behaviors are related to a learned paradigm that we don’t have to spend our cognitive resources on. This is an efficiency. If we had to cognitively consider all of our actions, we would be bogged down in contemplation and getting very little done. It’s not hypocrisy. Almost no one understands how difficult it is to change behavior patterns. Even the neuronal pathways in your brain change. The behavior of individuals is moot. It’s the paradigm that we should be concerned with.

25

Hahaha… nah, i was just implying… that we tend to behave stupid just because we are smart enough to lie.
A man once sad: Dogs fight because of fear & stupidity of their masters.
There’s no enlightenment in life. Being true to best self, keeping own word as truth is all one can reach, without destroying others along the path. Gardening helps understanding the natural way procedural ecosystem has. Feces are not crap but source of energy in diversity of life. A node. One plant helps another if those who garden know facts. Otherwise one can poison self and the whole land in hope for surviving in ‘retarded’ kill-pattern by profit & monetizing abilities.

Trying to state that majority tends to behave merely as they’re thought (as stated above). They don’t care much about anything while actions done (silly might it feel) affects others elsewhere also. To behave arrogant is worse than any animal does. We have evolved from, respectfully. It’s what we’ve been given with option/freedom to choose and do, that should be helping, yet instead we do the opposite. As we are seeing with own eyes we are stronger than genetics, evolution… but not against the simple minded stupidity in us to rule, govern & own… steal in the name of help.

Einstein wasn’t sure about infinity of Kozmos, but sure about eternity of Stupid.
True or not, enjoy with loved ones.

26

I think what I was getting at there, and this isn’t true across the board, is that I see a lot of climate change supporters blaming the evil greedy corporations for their dirtying of the environment when over the years many of those corporations, perhaps begrudgingly, have taken steps to curb their emissions while the individuals blaming them have not.

The major automotive manufacturers have invested quite a bit of time and effort towards producing more fuel efficient engines, better hybrid electric cars and flex fuel systems able to support cleaner burning fuel. Electric companies have been increasing their use of wind, solar and hydro generators too.

Meanwhile the energy consumption of the average household has only gone down in response to the effort put forth by those companies, individuals have done little to drive less and walk or ride a bike more often.

I’m not at all saying that corporations aren’t greedy, but the corporation is just a group of individuals, if corporations are evil and greedy so too are the individuals that are the source of the corporarions power and ability.

I understand, believe me I do, that changing behavior can be tough, but it’s certainly not the hardest thing people have ever done. Really people do it all the time from quitting smoking to kicking a drug or alcohol problem. People change, lots of times they do and if a corporation can work on curbing their emissions I don’t see why the individual can’t.

P.S. Yes growing a garden can teach one a thing or two about symbiotic relationships. There are companion plants that grow well together because they each produce something the other requires. Speaking of which, plants convert carbon-dioxide to oxygen and people convert oxygen to carbon-dioxide. Being as how I believe we are of nature then even if climate change is man-made it’s still natural. And if man decides to lessen his foot-print in that respect that is natural too.

27

The 20th century was California’s wettest period in more than 1000 years (perhaps up to the last 2000 years), the climatology records show that the dryness in your state is more or less a return to climactic norms. You need to look at what the climate has been doing over very long periods of time and not just base it on what you’ve seen during your lifetime or during the existence of the National Weather Service.

The difference is that back in the 19th century and before, your state was not home to more than 30 million people with a strong environmentalist ideology that has failed to secure new water resources to match increasing demand. Any famine that develops in the state will be partly due to radical environmental groups like the Sierra Club.

28

yeah, the pineapple express may be coming to a end?


I dont know enough about the forces at work that steered it here in the first place.

29

I don’t think anyone does, hence the debate…:wink:

30

The “debate” is definitely based in ignorance. The scientific findings however are not.

There is a community that has collected large numbers of samples from a wide variety of relevant systems, and through computer mediation and the scientific method have found a an increase in the rate of warming and fluctuations of severe weather patterns that correlate with the end of the Industrial Revolution. Previous instances of similar phenomena were correlated with other natural forces such as; megavolcanos, asteroid strikes etc. Looking for proof of anthropogenic climate change is unscientific. That would be accommodating confirmation bias. Touting the most reasonable conclusion based upon the evidence is scientific. This is what the collection of climatologists is doing. Maybe they are wrong but, I have yet to see evidence against them that has any acceptable degree of rigor what so ever. All I’ve seen is the confirmation bias and paid for opinions of those who want “proof”.

The system is in the state it’s in because we think we can replace scientists with lawyers. The problem isn’t just ignorance. It’s willful ignorance.

31

Like I said before, I do not claim to know one way or the other on climate change, however, when it comes to whether anyone actually knows about the forces at play here I would say I doubt it. There is one consensus that I am aware of and that is the consensus that the climate models were wrong in terms of how much warmer the planet is now, the planet is not as warm as the models predicted, not even on the low end. In fact, for more than a decade the planet has actually been cooling and while many scientists call this a ‘pause’ in the warming trend, and that may very well be the case, the climate models failed to predict this pause and scientists today still have no explanation as to why.

The point I was making there was not as to whether climate change exists or not, but as to whether anyone has an accurate understanding of what forces are driving the world’s temperature fluctuations. In effect the statement is correct, the best I can tell. As for debate, there is considerable debate among experts, not just lawyers and media outlets. Unfortunately for the public most of what we are presented with is argument among celebrities and news anchors.

The last time we discussed this I pointed you to Dr. Roy Spencer:
"Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil." -Roy Spencer

As a self described skeptic I suppose he’s ignorant too? Like I said, I don’t claim to know one way or the other, but I’m certainly not going to sit here and pretend that any one of us has any particularly accurate understanding of how these things work. By all means collect and analyze data, I’m happy to see people out there researching, but I wouldn’t go around trying to make people believe that you know what you do not know.

P.S. I’m not saying mankind doesn’t play a role in climate fluctuations, the fact that we exist suggests that we have an impact on all of our surroundings. Personally I don’t believe that our impact is the primary driver of global temperature fluctuations. Absolutely my opinion on the subject may very well turn out to be incorrect, but at this time I don’t find it accurate to suggest the theory that we are the primary driver of climate change is a definite conclusion.

Even if a majority of experts support a belief that doesn’t mean it’s true. Believe it or not the majority of medical doctors found it preposterous and even offensive to suggest that they should wash their hands before a procedure. Nonetheless as it turns out washing their hands was actually rather helpful and has become standard practice today.

Moreover I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t invest in alternative energies and make efforts to clean up our waste. I may not believe that we are the primary driver of climate change, but I need not believe in that hypothesis to believe cleanliness has its benefits.

32

Skeptic?!?
Wonder what can ‘cycle’ longer?
Put a car in a garage. Add few plants. Run it’s engine. Stay in with your partner & offspring.
Now multiply by few billions and add 50% for the rest of industry, infrastructure & homes (am very optimistic). Atmosphere is a garage. You & me are two ignorant observers, ayayay, stupid.
Maybe aliens will save us or some are building giant space ships which will move humanity to Betelgeuse?
Metaphoric question.

Know for sure - Best way is as title suggests, natural way. Without human interference, challenging forces one knows very little of, yet damage done & stupidity combined can not stop until extinct… in this small bubble named ‘Earth’.
If you still doubt… contemplate on who have made most damage in the name of help… :yes:
You are not skeptic. To be skeptic one must be gnostic first.
With Love.
Over&out.

33

As I’ve said before: the amount of data required to analyse our climate is beyond human comprehension. This is why it’s computer mediated. Of course no one understands it.

The vast majority of climatologists are confident that it’s solid research, or at least as solid as currently practical. That’s what I care about.

The method works as well as can be expected.

34

The results output by a computer is only as accurate as the information and the variables that are put into it. If you upgrade the hardware and you put the wrong assumptions into it, all that would’ve done is reduce the time it took to get to the wrong answer.

There’s been many cases where computer modeling has shown to give the wrong answer, which can be seen by all the predictions for the current decade that did not pan out.

35

Predictions aren’t as relevant as you might think. Considering the systems involved (especially the technologies that are advancing at an accelerated rate) there’s not really a reason to bring them up. You can’t expect computer models to contain a crystal ball. Much of it could easily be attributed to unforeseen solutions. There have been many of them in the past couple of decades. This is why I don’t buy into the hysteria either.

36

To end the debate, we need only wait a short time.

With emerging battery tech, solar is now practical, as are electric cars
do to new batteries with very fast charge rates.

if it’s financially motivating, and it fixes unbalance with the world… do it?

now they just need to be able to make solar panels and batteries without pollution.

Then we can more on to education systems that don’t bored kids to death…
and I think all will be ok.

37

What makes you think human interference isn’t natural? When bees construct a hive it is considered natural, when humans construct a building it is considered unnatural. Why?

Blue whales eat plankton, a single whale consumes quite a bit of plankton. Do the whales ever worry if they’re eating too much or too little? Do they ever worry that they’ll upset the balance by eating too much or too little? Do the beavers ever worry if they’ve built too many or too few dams?

Why is it natural when a beaver builds a dam and unnatural when a human builds a dam?

These animals don’t have the capability to measure if they are doing too much or too little, nor do they have the capability to know what is and what is not too much or too little. Nonetheless it has always ever been just right, for billions of years. And through what? Sheer luck? Billions and billions of years worth of sheer luck, then we come along and I’m supposed to believe that all of a sudden that luck has run out?

38

That’s actually a pretty good criticism. It’s important to have clear definitions. Even though I was intending to make a distinction between naturally emergent systems and human artifices, it’s not clear that our technology is un-natural. Touche’.