|
Home > Archive > Architecture > January 2008 > For the global warming agnostics
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
For the global warming agnostics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| "3D Peruna"> wrote
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
> Spend a little time at http://www.climateaudit.org and you'll quickly
> realize that there is much of the stuff listed under "Climate Debate
> Daily" "Calls to action" is severely flawed. Also much of it isn't
> climate related, but based on zero growth theories.
>
>
> http://www.nationalpost.com/most_po....html?id=164002
I knew that one would drag Paul out in the open. LOL
This one gets me:
We are in for a minimum of 90 more years of warming no matter how many
Hummers are junked in favor of Priuses.
HA!
Read something awhile back where someone put the numbers to it.
Yes, on a day to day basis the Prius whips the Hummers XXX.
But over the long haul, from start to finish, the Prius costs something like
3 times as much as the Hummer.
Sometimes things aren't what they appear.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2008-01-07, 5:25 pm |
|
"3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:2vvgj.1393$dP7.1049@newsfe07.lga...
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>
> Spend a little time at http://www.climateaudit.org and you'll quickly
> realize that there is much of the stuff listed under "Climate Debate
> Daily" "Calls to action" is severely flawed.
Have been there.
> Also much of it isn't climate related, but based on zero growth theories.
>
>
> http://www.nationalpost.com/most_po....html?id=164002
This is more or less my short term position on the issue. I have quite a bit
of confidence in homo sapiens sapiens' ability to adapt, but I still grieve
for the irretrievable losses. My gut tells me we are at least partially
responsible....
| |
| RicodJour 2008-01-07, 8:25 pm |
| On Jan 7, 5:25 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "3D Peruna"> wrote
>
>
>
>
> I knew that one would drag Paul out in the open. LOL
> This one gets me:
> We are in for a minimum of 90 more years of warming no matter how many
> Hummers are junked in favor of Priuses.
>
> HA!
> Read something awhile back where someone put the numbers to it.
> Yes, on a day to day basis the Prius whips the Hummers XXX.
> But over the long haul, from start to finish, the Prius costs something like
> 3 times as much as the Hummer.
> Sometimes things aren't what they appear.
Especially when you start mangling the stuff you read and reiterate it
as an offsetting fact.
The study you read calculated the total environmental vehicle impact -
including manufacturing, operating expenses, emissions, waste handling
of the dead vehicle, etc. - not just the mileage. The big surprise,
for some, is that the 'green' vehicles aren't necessarily all that
green when you look at the larger picture. The best vehicles overall
were small, cheap-to-produce, easy-to-recycle vehicles. The Scion
brand did particularly well. The Hummer did not.
R
| |
|
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:d3457a31-0005-4f90-9bc7-e7881736247a@41g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 5:25 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
> Especially when you start mangling the stuff you read and reiterate it
> as an offsetting fact.
>
> The study you read calculated the total environmental vehicle impact -
> including manufacturing, operating expenses, emissions, waste handling
> of the dead vehicle, etc. - not just the mileage. The big surprise,
> for some, is that the 'green' vehicles aren't necessarily all that
> green when you look at the larger picture. The best vehicles overall
> were small, cheap-to-produce, easy-to-recycle vehicles. The Scion
> brand did particularly well. The Hummer did not.
Dangit, wish I would have kept the article.
Scion and others aside, the Hummer was less expensive than the Prius, thats
all the thing was about, no other cars were in the article.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2008-01-08, 9:25 am |
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:d3457a31-0005-4f90-9bc7-e7881736247a@41g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 5:25 pm, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
>
> Especially when you start mangling the stuff you read and reiterate it
> as an offsetting fact.
LOL
> The study you read calculated the total environmental vehicle impact -
> including manufacturing, operating expenses, emissions, waste handling
> of the dead vehicle, etc. - not just the mileage. The big surprise,
> for some, is that the 'green' vehicles aren't necessarily all that
> green when you look at the larger picture. The best vehicles overall
> were small, cheap-to-produce, easy-to-recycle vehicles. The Scion
> brand did particularly well. The Hummer did not.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazin...17/b4031064.htm
Tatas for the masses!
| |
| Kris Krieger 2008-01-10, 1:29 pm |
| "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
news:fluk5e0237o@news5.newsguy.com:
>
> "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
> news:d3457a31-0005-4f90-9bc7-e7881736247a@41g2000hsy.googlegroups.com..
> .
>
> Dangit, wish I would have kept the article.
> Scion and others aside, the Hummer was less expensive than the Prius,
> thats all the thing was about, no other cars were in the article.
>
Expensive to the owner, or expensive in terms of waste/environmental
impact?
| |
| Kris Krieger 2008-01-10, 1:29 pm |
| "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in
news:fluaep029v4@news4.newsguy.com:
>
> "3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
> news:2vvgj.1393$dP7.1049@newsfe07.lga...
>
> Have been there.
>
>
> This is more or less my short term position on the issue. I have quite
> a bit of confidence in homo sapiens sapiens' ability to adapt, but I
> still grieve for the irretrievable losses. My gut tells me we are at
> least partially responsible....
>
THe problem is that Global Warming and Pollution have become
interchangeable. They aren't - related, yes; interchangeable, no.
There is no doubt whatsoever that pollution causes damage, not only to
other species, but to humans as well. Dealing with pollution, trying to
reduce it, is important to human health, as well as to trying to preserve
some semblance of environmental balance, and natural beauty.
If we decreased pollution, one can argue that it would also help slow or
decrease global warming, at least, whatever part of it that is
anthropogenic.
What pisses me off is idiots who whine and kvetch that "global warming is
a myth!" and then use that as an excuse to crap up as much of the
environment as they possibly can. Regardless of whether one "beleives
in" global warming, the fact is that pollution is *known* to be
detrimental to the health and well-being of biological entities
(including humans). And there are prob. peoblems from it that haven't
yet been discovered.
The whole global warming thing aside, what the heck is wrong with
reducing pollution, when inmproving the environemnt would improve our
(and our descendents') own health and well-being? That's what I don't
comprehend - why people blither and yowl as though pollution is great.
| |
|
|
"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:13ocpvmhqdlkuae@corp.supernews.com...
> "Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in
> news:fluk5e0237o@news5.newsguy.com:
>
>
> Expensive to the owner, or expensive in terms of waste/environmental
> impact?
The whole picture, from concept to compaction, or whatever.
| |
| Troppo 2008-01-10, 5:25 pm |
| Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in
news:13ocqnhdq24gh5d@corp.supernews.com:
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in
> news:fluaep029v4@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>
> THe problem is that Global Warming and Pollution have become
> interchangeable. They aren't - related, yes; interchangeable, no.
>
> There is no doubt whatsoever that pollution causes damage, not only to
> other species, but to humans as well. Dealing with pollution, trying
> to reduce it, is important to human health, as well as to trying to
> preserve some semblance of environmental balance, and natural beauty.
>
> If we decreased pollution, one can argue that it would also help slow
> or decrease global warming, at least, whatever part of it that is
> anthropogenic.
>
> What pisses me off is idiots who whine and kvetch that "global warming
> is a myth!" and then use that as an excuse to crap up as much of the
> environment as they possibly can. Regardless of whether one "beleives
> in" global warming, the fact is that pollution is *known* to be
> detrimental to the health and well-being of biological entities
> (including humans). And there are prob. peoblems from it that haven't
> yet been discovered.
>
> The whole global warming thing aside, what the heck is wrong with
> reducing pollution, when inmproving the environemnt would improve our
> (and our descendents') own health and well-being? That's what I don't
> comprehend - why people blither and yowl as though pollution is great.
>
>
I concur. I live in a place where the predominant airflow comes off the
Coral Sea and hence the South Pacific. Should be the freshest air
anywhere. No one out there dumping shit in the atmosphere eh? On the
other hand, The place is in danger of becoming a polluters paradise. They
come to town, get out the idiot meter, and it goes off the dial. There is
a strong possibility that nickel and other ores are regularly being
spilled on arrival at the port, along with airborn pollution from
transport and processing. There is a problem of black "dust" which is a
complex cocktail of lead, zinc, silicas and moulds. The mould is probably
tricodesmium, naturally occurring as 'red tides' but maybe being modified
by the brew ?. With the coastal drift, everyone gets a bit, and the main
city water containment is downwind of one of the processing plants -
which is known to release cadmium ...
| |
|
| "Troppo" <troppo19@notsohotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A224577F874troppo19notsohotmail@210.8.230.25...
> Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in
> news:13ocqnhdq24gh5d@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
> I concur. I live in a place where the predominant airflow comes off the
> Coral Sea and hence the South Pacific. Should be the freshest air
> anywhere. No one out there dumping shit in the atmosphere eh? On the
> other hand, The place is in danger of becoming a polluters paradise. They
> come to town, get out the idiot meter, and it goes off the dial. There is
> a strong possibility that nickel and other ores are regularly being
> spilled on arrival at the port, along with airborn pollution from
> transport and processing. There is a problem of black "dust" which is a
> complex cocktail of lead, zinc, silicas and moulds. The mould is probably
> tricodesmium, naturally occurring as 'red tides' but maybe being modified
> by the brew ?. With the coastal drift, everyone gets a bit, and the main
> city water containment is downwind of one of the processing plants -
> which is known to release cadmium ...
Someone in another forum I visit is always going on about the "soot". He
makes some pretty valid arguments about soot vs carbon, but in the end it is
a combination of all those things.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| Kris Krieger 2008-01-10, 5:25 pm |
| Troppo <troppo19@notsohotmail.com> wrote in
news:Xns9A224577F874troppo19notsohotmail@210.8.230.25:
> Kris Krieger <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in
> news:13ocqnhdq24gh5d@corp.supernews.com:
>
>
> I concur. I live in a place where the predominant airflow comes off
> the Coral Sea and hence the South Pacific.
Oh my but that sounds deliciously exotic <G!>
ANyhoo, you point out:
> Should be the freshest air
> anywhere. No one out there dumping shit in the atmosphere eh? On the
> other hand, The place is in danger of becoming a polluters paradise.
> They come to town, get out the idiot meter, and it goes off the dial.
> There is a strong possibility that nickel and other ores are regularly
> being spilled on arrival at the port, along with airborn pollution
> from transport and processing. There is a problem of black "dust"
> which is a complex cocktail of lead, zinc, silicas and moulds. The
> mould is probably tricodesmium, naturally occurring as 'red tides' but
> maybe being modified by the brew ?. With the coastal drift, everyone
> gets a bit, and the main city water containment is downwind of one of
> the processing plants - which is known to release cadmium ...
That's disgusting. IMO ther eis no excuse - it's just laziness.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2008-01-10, 5:25 pm |
|
"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:13ocqnhdq24gh5d@corp.supernews.com...
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in
> news:fluaep029v4@news4.newsguy.com:
>
>
> THe problem is that Global Warming and Pollution have become
> interchangeable. They aren't - related, yes; interchangeable, no.
The current Canadian government tried to use the substitution of pollution
reduction (smog) for carbon emissions in a relation to Kyoto targets. That
drove me nuts. Smog is one thing, runaway greenhouse effect is another. Now
that it is so oligopolistic, mainstream media is failing us as the fourth
estate.
I appreciate now more than ever our relatively robust public broadcaster,
www.cbc.ca. They might be shallow botoxed fools, but they're *our* shallow
botoxed fools, and at least Murdoch doesn't sign their checks.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2008-01-21, 5:25 pm |
| "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in
news:fm685h0255m@news1.newsguy.com:
>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13ocqnhdq24gh5d@corp.supernews.com...
>
> The current Canadian government tried to use the substitution of
> pollution reduction (smog) for carbon emissions in a relation to Kyoto
> targets. That drove me nuts. Smog is one thing, runaway greenhouse
> effect is another. Now that it is so oligopolistic, mainstream media
> is failing us as the fourth estate.
I don;t even think it's that - I think it's the general reduction of
quality (and intelligence) in journalism. THere are a lot fo news
stories that sound to me like some crappy little report that any 78th-
grader could write after spending maybe a half-hour on the internet. The
level of both writing and research has been steadily decreasing. IWO,
what I suspect is that very *very* few people in the mainstream media
have any idea whatsoever of what the difference is between smog, and
greenhouse gasses. They just repeat what someone else said or wrote, and
if that someone was a dooflolly, well.....
>
> I appreciate now more than ever our relatively robust public
> broadcaster, www.cbc.ca. They might be shallow botoxed fools, but
> they're *our* shallow botoxed fools, and at least Murdoch doesn't sign
> their checks.
>
>
>
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2008-01-21, 8:25 pm |
|
"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:13pa7ns252hkva4@corp.supernews.com...
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in
> news:fm685h0255m@news1.newsguy.com:
>
>
> I don;t even think it's that - I think it's the general reduction of
> quality (and intelligence) in journalism. THere are a lot fo news
> stories that sound to me like some crappy little report that any 78th-
> grader could write after spending maybe a half-hour on the internet. The
> level of both writing and research has been steadily decreasing. IWO,
> what I suspect is that very *very* few people in the mainstream media
> have any idea whatsoever of what the difference is between smog, and
> greenhouse gasses. They just repeat what someone else said or wrote, and
> if that someone was a dooflolly, well.....
We only differ as to the root cause of it, with you thinking it a bit more
innocent than me.
| |
| Warm Worm 2008-01-22, 3:25 am |
| Kris Krieger wrote:
> They just repeat what someone else said or wrote, and
> if that someone was a dooflolly, well.....
A what?
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2008-01-22, 9:25 am |
| On Jan 21, 11:51 pm, Warm Worm <u...@domain.invalid> wrote:
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
> A what?
More proof of global warming, the stock markets are
"melting" down.
The fed lowered rates by 3/4%, when the rate goes
negative, they'll start giving back the money the took!
Ken $. Tucker
| |
|
| "Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
> The fed lowered rates by 3/4%, when the rate goes
> negative, they'll start giving back the money the took!
I'd rather each and every one of them place a 44 automag against their
temple and faux finish the adjacent wall and up it to youtube.
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2008-01-23, 5:25 pm |
| On Jan 22, 7:40 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker"> wrote
>
>
> I'd rather each and every one of them place a 44 automag against their
> temple and faux finish the adjacent wall and up it to youtube.
But I like Greenspan.
Ken
| |
| Kris Krieger 2008-01-28, 3:25 am |
| "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in
news:fn3dca0312n@news5.newsguy.com:
>
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:13pa7ns252hkva4@corp.supernews.com...
>
> We only differ as to the root cause of it, with you thinking it a bit
> more innocent than me.
>
Oh, not innocent - rude is prob. a better word ;) . It's just that, as
I've gotten older, I increasingly realize that most peole just are not
smart enough to perpetrate some ofthe plots/conspircies attributed to
them by others.
|
|
|
|
|