Jump to content

I don't beleive in global warming


Serious Black
 Share

Recommended Posts

I thought this thread had died a long time ago. I don't have anything intelligent or well thought out to say, so I'll just add my 2 pesos for giggles.

I don't know how much we are affecting the world with our emissions but I don't see how putting out fewer emissions or getting better gas mileage can be worse for our descendants. The CO2 in the air is rising but the CO2 in the ocean may bite us sooner or even long after the CO2 level stops climbing.

The thing that bothers me worse about global warming hysteria is that things get implemented without proper scrutiny. We start using ethanol without worrying if it is really better for the environment or starving people. We drive hybrid cars without worrying what the batteries do to the environment. Every so called expert will tell us we must do this or that right now but they never seem to put nearly as much effort into the consequences of their own solutions. Granted some cannot be seen ahead of time. But nowadays you are considered an idiot if you question any expert's solution. Both sides need to consider the information from the other side. Neither side has a monopoly on all of the facts. If tests were more fact finding rather than thesis proving, we might advance.

As Kermi says, "That's more than I know about it"

Nick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 274
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nick, I can't argue your point, but in pointing out a problem, I think you also identified part of the solution. Without trying to sound too conspiratorial, I believe the business interests in the US (as well as the rest of the world), have more than their fair share of influence over decisions that are made. This has nothing, in my opinion, to do with secret Masonic orders, it strictly has to do with, as our US supreme court has ruled, money equals speech. Business "buys" access, access equals influence. Anyway, in order for "big business" to support a position, they have to see the possibility of a profit. Hybrids, batteries, filters, computer controlled mechanical systems, when green = green, business will shift it's support in the direction of "environmentalism", and conservatives will suddenly see the light. As Rush calls the faithful to the new convenient of conservatism, I am certain there will be those on the board who will shift their positions to those of conservationists (somehow different than an Al Gore conservationist, but non the less a supporter in the fight against a carbon footprint). I also have no doubt that at that point, liberals will decide too much money is being allocated toward environmentalism, too little for world hunger, and the fight will resume....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would appear that we took more notice of what science implied and began to act instead of going on about rights and freedom.

 

Wow, and maybe not. 8 years ago we had a German Steel Firm visit us. I was chosen to lead them around because I speak german, (yeah ok, badly, but their english was excellent. When we went to dinner one of our hillbilly morons brought up their past; "So, how about them NAZI's, huh?". I was mortified. I tried to apologize but they stopped me; "we have idiots too". Man how embarrasing. We ended up good friends.) One of the discussions was about NOx emissions. They could not believe our emissions were regulated. They didn't even measure their NOx emissions. We not only measured ours, we ran our mill (that costs money, a lot of money) to minimize them. The Germans were astounded. We also measure and try to reduce lead, CO2, bag house dust, etc etc etc. They didn't.

 

We compete against Mexican Steel Mills. They get subsidized electricity, like how about free electricity, that is one of our biggest costs. They don't measure or regulate their pollutants. We have to make and sell steel against these guys. Welcome to the real world of Geopolitics.

 

I am in the trenches every day. I listen to the blowhards about the USA and how polluting it is. Bull######. I live it. You dream it.

 

I know you think you know what you are talking about, but I am right here, every day.

 

It's really bad out here, streel is down 60+%. I am working 32 hours a week. I used to work 48. I am not complaining, steel is a strategic industry, I'll be ok. I am a Master Maintenance Tech and will have a job when you all are in a bread line. Don't worry, I'll help you all out. I am after all a compassionate conservative. And a Denier.

 

Kend dig selv;

Mark Andreasen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

 

Richard A. Muller's Berkeley buddies from the '60s might have been surprised to hear him tell the audience at UC Santa Cruz's Music Recital Hall Wednesday evening that nuclear energy was a viable solution to America's energy needs.

 

If they'd found an empty seat at the first ever Stanley Flatté Memorial Lecture, they might also have raised an eyebrow at some of Muller's other facts — including that the U.S. is not running out of fossil fuels and that tropical storms have not increased over the last century.

 

The popular UC Berkeley physics professor lectured from notes developed for his "Physics for Future Presidents" class at Cal, a class designed for non-science majors.

 

"This is a non-partisan lecture," Muller said, introducing himself to the crowd of students and lifelong learners. "I skip over the math to get to the advanced material."

 

http://planetgore.nationalreview.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stammon, I really want to thank you for letting us less fortunate know that you will be there to support us when we are in "bread lines". I have often volunteered my time to work in the soup kitchen here in Santa Cruz, it is great to know that as a "compassionate conservative" you will be doing your part to support the hungry in your area. I have attached an interesting article concerning the relocation of steel production to China, this article suggests it has much more to do with labor costs then environmental concerns (as a conservative free trader, I am sure you sympathize with that position). It is an interesting article, talks about the effect the "unregulated" factories are having in China.

 

http://globalisation-and-the-environment.b...n-haven-or.html

 

As for Dr. Muller, I have a friend who knows him well. He is certainly one of the individuals who does not support the theory of global warming, who is qualified to give his point of view. You do know he also very much supports strict environmental regulations, he does not believe climate change is caused by pollutants, but he recognizes other problems caused by pollution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Food for thought........

according to those scientists mapping the human genome, our genetic DNA makeup, a bottleneck occurred about 70,000 years ago. This coincidentally matches the date of a super volcanic eruption of Toba on Sumatra. At the time of this event, the breeding population of humans fell to under 4000 individuals (some genetic experts claim under 2000!)....making the human race an endangered species by our current guidelines. All of us can trace our ancestors to this small group, who eventually spread out and populated the world.

 

In 70000 years we have grown from between 2000-4000 to 6.6 billion.

Some stats on population growth, if you put any value in such things.....

1804-1 billion

1927- 2 billion

1959- 3 billion

1974- 4 billion

1986- 5 billion

1999- 6 billion

2005-6.5 billion

 

All oxygen on our planet was produced by plants that metabolized carbon dioxide and gave off oxygen. All higher animal lifeforms consume oxygen and give off carbon dioxide. There are dynamic limits between the animal to plant biomass ratio that maintains optimal limits on atmospheric gases conducive to life as we know it....in the past the oxygen content of the earth has been substantially higher than it is today.

 

Darwin said life adapts to environmental changes or dies.....that's evolution.

We stopped evolving sometime ago.....with our "superior" brains, we learned how to adapt the environment to our needs, so we didn't need to adapt. We defy the laws of survival of the fittest by virtue of our brains. Around us each day, we all see examples of reverse Darwinism....individuals who survive and thrive beyond all reasonable expectations and often to the detriment of the species?

 

We are probably altering the climate of the planet.....there's lots of evidence to support that theory. But, we wouldn't be the first lifeform on earth to destroy an ecosystem and cause a mass extinction. In fact we have ample evidence that the first major extinction was caused by green algae that gave off a deadly poisonous gas that killed off most of the dominant lifeforms on the planet. They were methane breathers and the poisonous gas that wiped them out was....oxygen.

 

So we're not the first lifeform to alter the environment to the point that it forces life to evolve in new directions to survive the new environment.

 

The bottom line is that life is resourceful and will always adapt.

 

The planet and life will survive, in some form, but..... we may not.

 

$hit happens.

 

ed

I like your version of life on earth as we know it, it get's better, and then worse, but we always survive, even without Al Gore and Company...... and how have you been doing, missed your posts in recent times, also are you all healed up

now? Regards Ken Ulrich

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I am missing something here. "The planet and life will survive, in some form, but..... we may not." How is that interpreted as, "but we always survive, even without Al Gore and Company". I kind of put myself and my descendents in the "we may not" category, one celled amoebas technically qualify as life, but I can't imagine having a beer with one of them... :thumbsup!:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The same place all the worn off rubber from our tires go.

 

Actually labor costs have nothing to do with China's steel production. Ten years ago China produced about 100 million tons a year, so did the US. Now China produces about 450 million tons a year, the US about 120 million (or did before this downturn). China is a command economy, this growth was ordered by their Government. Most of the cost differential are subsidies and environmental costs. There are differences in Legacy Costs, but they are minor. Steel is a strategic Industry, and the Chinese have always wanted to outproduce everyone else. Look at the "Great Leap Forward", and how Mao's directives caused the rural Chinese peasants to melt down everything they could to meet their production goals. They melted down their pots and pans to make local production goals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really believe that labor costs, healthcare costs, retirement costs, had less to do with the shift of manufacturing to China, then environmental regulations? Are you suggesting the US should operate under the same air quality regulations as China to be "competitive"? Do you believe a government can "decree" that corporations from other countries will move their manufacturing centers to their country? I know there are those who believe that all it takes is "free trade", and the playing field is automatically level, couldn't be further from the truth. Trade has to be negotiated, a country has the right to "insist" that in order for another country to "cheaply" import products into their country, that country has to "progressively" raise the standard of living of it's workers, so those workers can eventually afford the products of the importing country. The US government has abandoned it's labor force in favor of multinational corporations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[font

=Century Gothic][/font]

 

 

Ditto :biggrin:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...