Global Warming Act

Pat McCarthy · Posted: May 06, 2003 12:27 pm Post subject: Global Warming Act

If you care about having a healthy environment to wakeboard in, sign this petition for the Climate Stewardship Act and let your senator/representative know that you support the act.

http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/globalwarming_petition

Leggester · Posted: May 06, 2003 12:57 pm Post subject:

Nope, I feel I must respectfully disagree Pat.

IMHO, Global Warming is a myth.

The earth has gone through swings many times. There has been no empirical proof of global warming.

franknbeans · Soul Rider Joined: 29 Jan 2003 Posts: 272 City: Ft. Worth

I see what you're saying leggester. but if we can cut down on the consumption of fossil fuels, it can't do us much harm.

Pat McCarthy · Posted: May 06, 2003 1:16 pm Post subject:

It's only a myth to people who don't want to change their ways to help fight against the problem. The vast majority of scientific evidence shows it to be a problem. Don't you think people would have better things to do than to perpetuate a myth that causes us to make sweeping changes?

There are thousands of scientists who point to it as a problem, and a small few who say it isn't. But I'll take your side for a moment and let's it's just a myth because we have nothing better to do. Is there a good reason to not try and curb greenhouse gas emissions even if global warming is a myth? What good does it do to use fossil fuels instead of renewable energy? There is no good reason.

Whether global warming is a myth or not is actually irrelevant, because this legislation would also strengthen the economy by building renewable energy sources and making our energy use more efficient, as well as depleting our dependance on foreign oil. Or is importing oil a myth too?

Besides actual global warming, most of the things that emit greenhouse gases also pollute the water and air in other ways, or is that pollution also a myth?

I actually hope it is a myth, because I don't want it to be a problem. But whether it is or not, I see no reason to not support cutting emissions and move towards renewable energy.

derrick lenz · Posted: May 06, 2003 1:21 pm Post subject:

jumalian · Ladies Man Joined: 12 Jan 2003 Posts: 7625 City: san diego

Isn't Global Warming to blame for the higher world temps?

Leggester · Posted: May 06, 2003 1:30 pm Post subject:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

Pat, I see part of what you're saying, but that bill has all the wrong key words for me. As to the "thousands" of scientists. Not really. There's actually been govmt funded studies that have no proven conclusions.

And yes, there have been well intentioned people perpetuating myths.

Plant a tree, remember? Well, out here on the plains, ( Denver ) we've changed the relative humidit by about 20% in the past 30 years. All the folks moving in wanting the trees and lawns they had in other states. Well sir, this is a High Plains Desert actually. Not Illinios. Buffalo grass, cactus and yucca are the natrual plants, not bluegrass and apple trees.

With the studies out now, the natural plains grasses cycle CO2 much better than the trees we've all been encouraged to plant. By about 80% more effeciency.

Therefore, I remain a skeptic.

Leggester · Posted: May 06, 2003 1:47 pm Post subject:

BTW, if you remember the "Little Ice Age", pollution actually helped us ( human beings ).

I think there's good to be found here, but I've seen too many go overboard without conclusive proof.

Pat McCarthy · Posted: May 06, 2003 1:49 pm Post subject:

Really there are scientists that swing both ways on the issue. I've researched both sides of the argument, and there are highly acclaimed experts who feel both ways. The environmental side of things of course leans toward it being a big problem, while big business/auto industry/oil industry think it's no big deal, and both sides have scientists and studies to support their claims.

But as I posted above, whether or not it's a myth doesn't mean we should disregard renewable energy and cutting down emissions of certain gases.

Swass · Guest

Wow - something that gets Pat fired up. It's about time!

criminally_minded · Posted: May 06, 2003 2:38 pm Post subject:

The fact that there is a dirty huge hole in the ozone RIGHT OVER MY HEAD makes me want to sign it, global warming or not, I don't really like cancer.

Leggester · Posted: May 06, 2003 2:48 pm Post subject:

That hole is over the arctic IIRC. Wink

Better get all the hairsrpay off the shelves CM. CFCs are pretty harsh on it as are the manufacturing processes for styrofoam.

Pat McCarthy · Posted: May 06, 2003 3:26 pm Post subject:

Yeah, we should not be using CFCs as well. I understand where you're coming from Leggester, but I still haven't heard a reason why the act shouldn't be supported. People planting trees in the plains of Colorado and wanting their lawns is not a reason to go against this bill. Those people don't sound like they want their lawns for environmental purposes, but to make their yards look pretty.

There are also government studies that think global warming is a huge problem. Notably, the majority of the world, as judged by the Kyoto Act. There are problems with Kyoto, but it obviously shows that most of the world's governments believe it's a huge issue.

criminally_minded · Posted: May 06, 2003 3:32 pm Post subject:

I don't use Hairspray Very Happy

And the effects of the hole are felt in Tasmania as well. We have a 9+ (extreme danger) UV warning all year around, even through winter when its cloudy.

I have used a lot of offcuts of styrofoam for my slider, but they were just going to be junked anyway.

Just let me keep trying to save the world huh? Wink

Your respectfully,
Mr. Holier Than thou

Leggester · Posted: May 06, 2003 3:34 pm Post subject:

True and if they had it under a different name, I'd probably support it.

My point is we have knee jerk responses that are not well thought out. And with that name, the band wagon should be large.

Want their lawns pretty? Well, they probably should have not moved to a desert. This is all new construction. Not that I really mind they moved here, but we tend to effect the environment without thinking. Right now, it looks to be more a popular stand than a thought out one.

That link, BTW supports your stand more than mine.

Well, time will tell us.

criminally_minded · Posted: May 06, 2003 3:37 pm Post subject:

Oh yeah, my fridge is CFC free as well Razz

Leggester · Posted: May 06, 2003 3:52 pm Post subject:

Have a care here. I could not see the whole bill. Maybe it's a feel good bill, but I saw way too many elypsis there without anything of substance. The possibility of:

Large motored boats out lawed,

Truck, the 3/4 ones we all love, are out lawed,

Quads and minis outlawed.

We all love to boat, tow the boats and generally have a pretty pollution causing form of recreation here. This is one of the reasons I'd be very cautious of a bill that doesn't state, in clear letters and time frames, what it is meant to do.

Peace all, just some food for thought.

DaveBrowning · Posted: May 06, 2003 4:17 pm Post subject:

I think i'm gonna have to take leggester's side as usual.

Mister C · Posted: May 06, 2003 4:48 pm Post subject:

Im gonna go with Pat, I think it's a good idea that we move towards renewable energy as well. Just think, wouldnt it be nice to not have to pay for gas every time you go to the lake?

criminally_minded · Posted: May 06, 2003 6:31 pm Post subject:

Tyler T · Posted: May 06, 2003 7:17 pm Post subject:

criminally_minded · Posted: May 06, 2003 7:33 pm Post subject:

Unless they develop the hydrogen engine..... but they will probably make it nessessary to have some super-expensive additive so that :

A) The developers can get some damn money

B) The government can get some damn money

If everyone stopped drinking, smoking, using petrol (gas) and gambleing, the government would go broke! We are ruled by vice!

BillJ · Posted: May 06, 2003 7:35 pm Post subject:

And exactly what is the problem of global warming? Warmer weather = more rain, longer growing seasons, less energy used to heat houses in northern climates, etc.

I've had lengthy discussions about global warming with a friend of mine that has a degree in weather sciences from UCLA. He has done a ton of research on the subject and doesn't feel that it's been proven and that the impacts have been overstated.

Scientists are constantly underestimating the ability of the earth to heal itself. After Mt Saint Helens erupted in 1980 scientists estimated that the area would be a sterile wasteland for 10 years at least. Instead new life was found after just a couple of months. Nature abhors a vacuum.

If the bill just supported the funding and development of alternative energy sources then I would completely support it. But all it does is focus on greenhouse gases.

ohsix · Posted: May 06, 2003 9:02 pm Post subject:

i havent reasearched gloabl warming enough to make a strong opinion but here's my high school chemistry teachers explanation of it:

in the late 1800s the east coast of the u.s. was going through a major drought and heat spell. just a few years earlier the u.s. built a large factory for the world's leading gun powder manufacturer called DuPont to get them to come to the u.s. During the drought DuPont scientists came up with a refrigerant called freon to help refrigerate food. the u.s. patent office granted them a 100 year patent for it. DuPont, noticing that there patent was about to run out the late 1900s, decided they needed to do something about it. they came up with the theory of global warming and told the government that their r-12 freon was destroying the o-zone layer. to remedy this they same up with r-134 freon which is supposedly o-zone friendly and were granted another 100 year patent. my chemistry teacher says r-12 freon is one of the most stable chemicals ever made but the new r-134 is deadly. he then told us about a cargo ship that had a crew of 12 die after the ship was converted to r-134 refrigerant because the cooling system was leaking.

i don't know how much truth there is to this but i found it interesting.

Pat McCarthy · Posted: May 06, 2003 9:17 pm Post subject:

BillJ, I assume you're just kidding in suggesting that warmer weather would just mean more rain and less energy used to heat houses. More rain equals floods, hotter summers mean more energy spent on air conditioning, etc. Basically, the whole point is to not take the earth out of it's natural balance. The true fact of the matter is that our biosphere is so complex with so many factors, we're playing with fire by taking it out of it's natural habitat. Things don't work in a vacuum. If the temperature rises and causes a certain animal to migrate, it might affect the natural reduction of a plant that animal eats, and the plant then overruns crops, or whatever. A global temperature change could end up having few consequences, or it could have tons of very, very harmful consequences. We don't really know. So, why take the risk? I'd rather just cut our use of fossil fuels instead of finding out what global warming would do.

I think it's also better for scientists to underestimate the Earth's ability to repair itself. We still know so little about it, is it safe to just assume that the Earth will always just repair itself? Isn't that a bit dangerous, lazy, and selfish?

If such an act outlawed our big wakeboarding boats and trucks, I wouldn't have a problem with that. The technology is there to make cars and boats that virtually don't pollute, or pollute very litte. But we won't move there until the consumer demands it, or laws demand it. I'd suffer the inconvenience of having a huge wakeboarding boat being outlawed until someone came out with a low-pollution way to wakeboard. And you know what, someone would. Don't you think the boat companies would be figuring it out pretty fast at that point?

BillJ · Posted: May 06, 2003 10:24 pm Post subject:

Actually Pat, I'm not kidding. The fact is that the earth is coming out of a minor ice age (meaning in the last 10,000 years). The earth has been MUCH warmer than this - all you have to do is look at the fossil evidence and things like frozen mammoths found in Alaska with their stomach full of tropical-type vegetation. We look at 50 years of climate data and make assumptions and predictions, but the earth has it's own cycles and I doubt that what we're doing right now will have a major impact on those cycles. I'd be much more concerned about global cooling than global warming.

I'm not against reducing greenhouse emissions or developing alternative fuels. In fact I think that we MUST find alternative fuels. Imagine a world where we aren't dependent on oil imported from the mid east! But I don't agree with the "sky is falling" scare tactics promoted by some.

Pat McCarthy · Posted: May 06, 2003 10:39 pm Post subject:

I can agree with that Bill...but I'd classify this as sky is falling scare tactics. Especially when the Bush administration has only repealed every environment treaty/act/law they can get their hands on.

As long as you can honestly tell yourself you disagree with the act out of logic and reason you believe in, instead of disagreeing because it's inconvenient to you, that's fine with me.

I've just encountered so many people who disagree with pro-environmental policies simply because they don't want to feel guilty about how they're living, it's inconvenient, they don't want to change how they live, or they just think environmentalists are hippies or wackos.

One thing I always come back to though, what do pro-environmental people have to gain from scare tactics? How does curbing greenhouse gas emissions benefit anyone so much they'd use scare tactics? It's not like there are all these environmentalists getting rich from stronger environmental laws or policies. However, there are lots of people getting rich as long as we disregard the environment....interesting isn't it? Who benefits from the Bush administration rolling back environmental laws that already have been in effect for years? Is the Bush administration trying to fight back against scare tactics, or are they helping people get richer?

Lakebu · Outlaw Joined: 09 Mar 2003 Posts: 158 City: NorCalif.

Restructuring Climactic and Environmental
Changes of the Past 1000 Years:
A Reappraisal
April 28, 2003

A recently published study by researchers at Harvard and the University of Delaware reveals that the 20th century was not the warmest or the most extreme period of the last 1,000 years - many parts of the world were warmer during the period 800-1200 C.E. than today. From about 1300 to 1900 C.E. the world experienced unusual cold, with the 15th-16th centuries possibly the coldest period of the prior 10,000 years. That eliminates the argument that the warming surface temperatures of the 20th century were extreme, therefore unusual, therefore unnatural (man-made). The strong implication is that any current warming is probably natural and cyclical, and there is not much we can do about it.

This study, funded in part by NASA and NOAA examined the results of more than 240 scientific reports, most published within the last 5 years.

Restructuring Climactic and Environmental
Changes of the Past 1000 Years:
A Reappraisal
(PDF file - Adobe Acrobat required)

Josh R · Posted: May 07, 2003 1:02 am Post subject:

Tell the tiny nations in the pacific glabal warming isn't a problem, or you don't care about the environment... They are going to be the ones who suffer while the water rises. But i'm assuming if you don't care about the environment, you would be too selfish to care anyway. It doesn't directly effect you. Cutting emisions on the other hand...

OttoNP · Addict Joined: 13 Jan 2003 Posts: 848 City: MI

It is good to take steps to reduce emissions but that bill is too much. As an engineer I can tell you that emissions have been cut down a lot and to the point where you don't want to increase the standards that are in place. Air quality has improved in most places in recent years.

If this bill passes, the price of all vehicles will raise, it will delay the release of hydrogen vehicles, cost a lot, the new vehicles will not be as safe (they will make them lighter to gain fuel economy).

It is easy for non-technical senators to say we want no emissions and it sounds great to the people, I'm totally against pollution but you have to be reasonable. There is no oil company evil dictator keeping us dependent on oil. If there was some engine that ran on nothing someone would make it out of their garage and people would buy it, that is what is great about America. One gallon of gas has 132X10^6 joules of energy. This is 31,000 food calories, so for every gallon of gas your car burns it is like your drinking 220 cokes. Energy is a requirement for transportation, you have to get the energy from somewhere and gasoline is a very cheap source of energy. Even when we do get hydrogen powered vehicles, which won't be combustion, we will still get the hydrogen from oil.

If you really want to make a difference, try to get congress to eliminate that bill and make a new one that gives the funding that bill would require to establishing an infrastruture for dispensing hydrogen, or as tax breaks for people that use lower emission cars, in other words, use that money to acceleratre the development of hydrogen powered cars.

Nick
________
Alaska Dispensaries

Craig · Posted: May 07, 2003 6:04 am Post subject:

We are actually due for the next ice-age to arrive in the near future. I am against polution, as any sane person should be, but I am not convinced of global warming. Three years ago I was flying at a big oil spill on the Patuxant river here in Maryland for about 4 months. I got to know most of the environmental scientist quite well while I was there, and we discussed it. These were scientists who flew in from around the world to help clean up this spill, and the consensus was that global warming is BS. One even told me that no "credible" evidence really exists, and that no serious scientists supported the theory. I am sure there are SOME scientists who do, but it seems to me it is mainly Hollywood types on the bandwaggon, and they don't know @#$%% about @#$%^!

I guess the bottom line is that I am sceptical, and reserve judgment until more compeling evidence is presented.

Pat McCarthy · Posted: May 07, 2003 10:19 am Post subject:

Well, we could debate global warming all day, it's already being done in the scientific community, but Craig, it's not just "hollywood types" that think global warming is a problem. I would bet in my research on the subject that the majority think that greenhouse gases and emissions are a big problem. Will it cause problems? That's another story.

Otto, good points. However, just because air quality has increased in some places doesn't mean the job is done. There are tons of places where air quality is still extremely bad, and cases of asthma and other respiratory diseases are rising in those areas. I'm unsure why this bill would delay the release of hydrogen vehicles? Of course, there are also many who think that hydrogen vehicles are not a plausible solution in the near future anyway, and as you point out, the hydrogen still has to come from some type of resource.

I agree you have to be sane and reasonable, and there isn't one evil oil dictator. However, the auto and oil companies do fight against improved environmental measures, because it costs them money in the short term. You can't deny that.

It would be great for a bill that promoted a hydrogen infrastructure and provided tax breaks for low-emissions cars. However, the Bush administration is hoping to give bigger tax breaks to SUVs instead.

I don't think we should just focus on cars, when the manufacturing industry can lower their emissions even further. You say that it's to the point where we wouldn't want to increase the standards. Can you elaborate why? I'm curious on that one.

I think we're better off going overboard on environmental laws and measures and paring them back if they truly are overboard. Currently the majority of politicians and businesses fight against the changes. The world population is just continuing to grow, while the resources continue to shrink and get more abused. That leads to inevitable problems, we might as well start fighting against that as much as possible now.

Leggester · Posted: May 07, 2003 10:23 am Post subject:

Yet you are against any 'paring' back. Or is it just because it's President Bush is tyring to do it?

Trynig to pare back something that's already law is near impossible.

These are just my opinions.

Pat McCarthy · Posted: May 07, 2003 10:41 am Post subject:

No, I'm not against any paring back. I just don't think the current paring back being done by the Bush administration is neccesary, do you? They're paring back laws and treaties thave have been in place for years over multiple other presidencies. I haven't seen any legitimate reasons why the paring back they've done is good for anyone but large businesses who benefit from the laws being easier on them, but I'd be happy to read about why the laws need to be pared back if anyone has a link for me.

The paring back is definitely not good for the environment, and personally I'd take the environment over helping out large businesses any day of the week. Businesses will rise and fall....but the health of the planet is more important.

Trying to pare back something that is a law is not that difficult as they're showing now. They've already pared back many laws, and plan on cotinuing to do so.

I'm not a Bush-hater or anything of the sort, I'm just perplexed why the administration has such a blatant disregard for environmental issues and advancement. Well, I'm not perplexed actually. The majority of Bush's campaign financing and supports are large industry companies, who have the greatest environmental impacts. They scratch Bush's back, he scratches theirs....politics at it's finest! It's the system we operate in, and unfortunately the environment is the loser at the moment.

Feel free to read up on the paring back:

http://www.lcv.org/fedfocus/fedfocus.cfm?ID=433&c=5

BillJ · Posted: May 07, 2003 10:52 am Post subject:

President Bush is among those promoting what’s been called the “hydrogen economy,” including $1.5 billion for research and development in his latest budget proposal.

http://www.msnbc.com/news/910362.asp?0dm=N14NB

That links is an interesting article about an agreement between GM and Dow Chemical for fuel cells. Dow produces excess hydrogen which will now be used to generate electricity using GM-supplied fuel cells.