Environmental Issues

[Iceberg]

you can support the terrorists all you want, i will cast my lot with the innocents, on the side of good...

There is where I have the greatest troubles with you and those on the right. WE ON THE LEFT DO NOT SUPPORT TERRORISM!!! We only wish that a better option be taken that would result in fewer civilian casualties of a war that was done on faulty intelligence and on a lie.

We here in Canada generally were (and still are), supportive of (and militarily involved in) the effort in Afghanistan where the true coalition fought the Taliban (who harboured and supported Al'Qaeda). This was a true part of the war on terror.

Anyway, now to get back on topic. Much of the last couple of posts (mine included) weren't suited for the thread.

 

[mindido]

I have been thinking about how to respond to Cables last few posts and have come to the following conclusion.

How do you debate a very complex issue with someone that doesn't even have a basic understanding of simple and well known processes and procedures? How do you debate with someone that, when they add 2 + 2, come to the answer of 5? The answer is, you can't. Just two recent examples.

Being a male (and I'm assuming Cable is also) I was dumbfounded by this post:

"explain to me how something that might burn a half gallon of gas/oil mixture can come even close to polluting as much as my car... then explain how it is that my chainsaw is capable of producing thousands of pounds of pollutants in a single year from that half gallon... on this one, the science matters... prove it, or abandon it..."

I remember learning the differences between the 2 and 4 cycle motor way back in an auto mechanics class in high school, 30 to 40 years ago. Am I off here? Don't most males learn basic engines at a very young age?

"the cleanest, most efficient, and least environmentally intrusive way of generating power is nuclear... why are the anti-oil folks also anti-nuclear??"

Since this has already been discussed in Posts 153, 155 and 158 I will be brief. Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and the problem of what to do with nuclear waste have halted further expansion of nuclear power plants throughout the western world. And it wasn't done by "the left". It was everyone! No one stops an industry that big, with so much money to burn, without very broad public support.

And as long as we're on the subject, heres another little statement that always amuses me,

"and private property is just that--private..."

I used to work for a county zoning dept. for about 4 years and would hear this once in a while from people like cable. Invariably, they would show up and start complaining to us when one of their neighbors proposed building something they didn't like (a new subdivision going in next door or a new gravel pit were the big issues around here). We always had a few chuckles when that happened.

Hey Cable! Why don't we put the national nuclear waste storage facility right in your back yard? Want to see someone change their tune real quick?

Anyway, back to the original question. "How do you debate a very complex issue with someone that doesn't even have a basic understanding of simple and well known processes and procedures?

The answer is still that you can't. So what do we do? Well, unless he comes up with something thought provoking or profound, I guess we ignore him.

 

[cableguy]

mindido, in the next few years, i will be coming into a parcel of land that is currently an active gravel pit, which it will continue to be under my ownership until such time as it runs dry... at that point, i would be more than willing to host any number of casks of nuclear waste fuel, provided i was not responsible for security measures... once those things are sealed, they stay sealed... i will not live in fear of anything bad happening as a result... what does france do with nuclear waste??? more than 75% of the power generated there comes from nuke plants... it seems to not be a problem there... oh, and though three mile island was one of only two known nuclear accidents EVER, i dont recall hearing anything about a single person being more than inconvenienced by it.... read about chernobyl, and you will understand that something like that incident simply couldnt happen here... for that matter, it couldnt happen THERE again, either...

regarding private property, your example has nothing to do with private property... it has to do with zoning of property adjacent to private property... a valid complaint would be one about being denied use of your own land... if i want a bigger garage on a piece of property i own, and if i have the wherewithal to build it, there isnt a single reason i can think of to deny me that garage... if i want trees that grow on land i own cut down, no one should be able to tell me i cannot have this done.. those are proper examples of private property issues... basically, someone telling you what you can and cannot do with your own land, NOT someone disagreeeing with an equally valid use of a neighbors land by said neighbor... you have guessed wrong again, mindido... stay inside your own head, you will be infinitely more accurate that way...

you mentioned basic math, which was exactly my point... i happen to have a gem of an example of exactly what i was referring to... in 2002, time magazine had some special issue titled "how to save the earth" or some similar nonsense... a "reporter" named chris taylor wrote that 2 cycle weed wackers/line trimmers/weedwhips release over a BILLION TONS of hydrocarbons EACH YEAR... the weak excuse for printing this malarky is that this "fact" was "read checked," meaning it had appeared in at least two terribly irresponsible and math-challenged publications, and was given NO additional research... as it happens, i have an interview by a local radio talk show host named joe soucheray... the name of his show is "garage logic".. link to the interview is below...

http://www.garagelogic.com/sounds/Timereporter 8.21.02.mp3

this show is more common sense than politics... if you wish, it is available on a webcast from http://am1500.com.. the show website is http://garagelogic.com..

brief summation, IF there are a billion of these machines in existance, which there almost assuredly arent, they would EACH have to release a TON of hydrocarbons into the air in a given year... i wont presume to speak for everyone, but i know factually that i burn less than a half gallon of gas/oil in a year... a lawn service that has enough accounts to keep busy from spring to fall, and that has three of these machines, will burn about 6-7 gallons apiece in a year...

imagine one person out of every five owning one of these... not households, but individual people... add to this that the US market is about 40% electric powered trimmers, and you end up with far fewer trimmers that need to somehow exhaust more than 2000 pounds EACH of hydrocarbons... bottom line, this story, and many others like it, are garbage designed to scare people who arent smart enough to take a second look, or who have already made their minds up... with stories like this on your side of this discussion, i am amazed you question my doubt... have a listen if you have a few spare minutes... runtime is 6:46, but the last couple minutes are rehash...

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

You just remember the next time you're trimming around the monkeygrass that youre contributing to the extinction of "thousands" of plant and animal life that disappear every single day!! Every day!:jawdrop: Hell forget global warming we got bigger problems!! *cough*

 

[Iceberg]

oh, and though three mile island was one of only two known nuclear accidents EVER, i dont recall hearing anything about a single person being more than inconvenienced by it....

You neglect to mention that the effects of nuclear material often take many years to appear. Increased cancer rates, birth abnormalities and defects, and other health problems are likely to be increased in the areas near the accident as a result.

With your lack of reading in the science of climate change, it doesn't surprise me that you "don't recall hearing anything about a single person being more than inconvenienced by it." You don't seem to be that much of the investigative sort.

Also you neglect to mention the effects on wildlife as a result of the accident. Fish could actually have some radioactive material inside them, which could actually be passed on to humans through consumption. Sea birds and other animals could also be feeling the effects.

Hell forget global warming we got bigger problems!!

Like what? Terrorism? Hell no! The loss of life as a result of global warming will be far FAR greater than that of terrorist activities (barring a group launching multiple nuclear or bio-chem attacks, but that's extremely unlikely).

The Pentagon said that climate change (and not terrorism) is the 21st Century's greatest national security threat. Not an environmental group, but the PENTAGON!

 

[mindido]

Ahhh Hell, I wasn't going to respond to cables ludicrous and polemic remarks but he just makes it too easy.

"in the next few years, i will be coming into a parcel of land that is currently an active gravel pit, which it will continue to be under my ownership until such time as it runs dry... at that point, i would be more than willing to host any number of casks of nuclear waste fuel,,,"

Ssshhhhh, cable, I wouldn't let the neighbors know. They'd probably have you locked up. But in case you decide to go ahead, make sure you contact ANYONE in Nevada, I'm sure you can get all the help you want and plenty of money too! Ssshhhhhh, just don't let the neighbors know.

"once those things are sealed, they stay sealed... i will not live in fear of anything bad happening as a result... "

Really? I haven't heard of a single thing built by man that lasts at least 500,000 years. NOTHING lasts forever.

"regarding private property, your example has nothing to do with private property... it has to do with zoning of property adjacent to private property... a valid complaint would be one about being denied use of your own land... if i want a bigger garage on a piece of property i own, and if i have the wherewithal to build it, there isnt a single reason i can think of to deny me that garage... if i want trees that grow on land i own cut down, no one should be able to tell me i cannot have this done.. those are proper examples of private property issues... basically, someone telling you what you can and cannot do with your own land, NOT someone disagreeeing with an equally valid use of a neighbors land by said neighbor..."

Cable, look up the definition of private property. These issues are fought in virtually every county in the country daily. Get your head out of the sand and read your local newspaper once in a while.

 

[cableguy]

duke, if a little exhaust kills off a species, that species was far too fragile to be allowed to remain here in violation of darwinism... i am a fan of extinction--it is simply natural progression... the greenies are too holy to recognize that we humans are also part of the ecosystem, for good and bad.. extinction predates humans, and if humans ever expire as a whole, i am quite certain that extinctions will continue unabated...

mindido, my head is not in the sand... i recognize that what i want, what this nations founders envisioned, and what is morally and legally right, is different from what we have now.... this is sad, but something that hopefully, in time, can be overcome...

nothing made by man has lasted 500 thousand years because man hasnt been making things for 500 thousand years... nothing lasts forever... well, you may be right--or not... there simply isnt enough information... perhaps the universe has been here forever... planet earth seems to have withstood the test of time rather well... there you go again, making wild speculations and labeling them scientific...

iceberg, since you are the boards self-proclaimed nuclear disaster expert, what ill effects have arisen from the three mile island accident, aside from a wholly unjustified panic attack brought by the media??? also, why is the nuke power program france has a bad thing??? you left that one alone, i noticed...

oh, and regarding hydrocarbons and engines... neither of you cares to take that challenge on??? the originating source was time magazine... i would think both of you would be eager to prove my thinking wrong... instead, you label it crazy, and stop talking about it... interesting, dont you think?? i am also waiting for that governmental program that solved the problem that spawned its creation..

i am also convinced that neither of you have any faith in the human mind, the concept of innovation, and that both of you believe that what we have now is what we are stuck with forever... through time, humanity has consistantly added new things to our worldview... assembly lines, machinery, cars, airplanes, the wheel, bugspray, even space travel... why withhold all faith in the human mind when faced with some problem?? why must the solution always be heavy regulation??

 

[Duke E. Pyle]

shit i was kidding bout the weed eater. Actually its from the cutting of trees that the lefties make the outrageous claim of thousands of species a day going extinct. Don't pretend you haven't heard of the claim being preached either folks. Just pokin at it. I did however like how terrorism was "again" shoved down my throat. What a way to "get one in".

 

[Iceberg]

I'll respond to your posts, cable and Duke, later, but here's a report on the resignation of a White House official regarding editing of climate change reports:

http://us.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/06/11/climate.official.resigns.ap/index.html

Cooney, a lawyer without a background in science, once headed the oil industry's lobbying on climate change.

Told ya!

The White House defended the changes, saying they were part of the normal, wide-ranging review process and did not violate an administration pledge to rely on sound science.

BS. The administration is relying on Cooney and his former colleagues who are lobbyists, not scientists. Not only is the oil industry disinforming the public, but so is the Bush Administration.

The changes tended to emphasize the uncertainty of evidence that greenhouse-gas emissions are causing global temperatures to rise.

There is NO UNCERTAINTY! It is simple physics discovered almost 110 years ago by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius.

"Mr. Cooney has long been considering his options following four years of service to the administration,"

"Four years of service to the administration," but four years of disservice to the public and the world.

ETA: A great article re: Cooney:

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0613-22.htm

 

[Iceberg]

The US contribution to climate change in figures:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0613-02.htm

 

[cableguy]

someday, i hope to understand why you so dislike this country and capitalism... i hope to see why you are completely blind to the other side of this issue... i hope to understand why everything that goes against your line of reasoning is a conspiracy...

 

[Iceberg]

One: I do not hate your country and capitalism. I just love this planet too much to see anyone trash it like your nation is doing, in terms of pollution and reducing environmental standards.

Two: What other side of the issue? There is only one side, that the planet is undergoing an unprecedented increase in temperature and it is primarily the result of human activities. Science has only one side to the story, the truth. It is either fact or fiction, and what the Bush Administration is feeding the citizens of the US is entirely fiction.

Three: What conspiracy? This is the planet we are screwing with. There is no conspiracy, only that the US administration is conspiring with the fossil fuel industry to reduce environmental laws and reject all scientific findings with regards to this crucial issue.

https://secure.environmentaldefense.org/donate/undoit/graphics/post_half_imposter_final.pdf

 

[cableguy]

yep, no conspiracy, EXCEPT the one you champion repeatedly, and as long as there is dissent, there are two sides at minimum... as stated in another topic, go ahead and think what you want...

 

[Iceberg]

yep, no conspiracy, EXCEPT the one you champion repeatedly, and as long as there is dissent, there are two sides at minimum... as stated in another topic, go ahead and think what you want...

This is a far different type of issue. Due to the fact that this topic is scientific (meaning there is only truth and fiction), and that the overwhelming consensus among climatologists worldwide is that climate change is happening and that it is largely the result of human activities, the other side of the debate is, with a confidence of nearly 100%, wrong.

Therefore, sure there may be two sides to the "debate." However, the side which includes skeptics and fossil fuel executives is, with nearly 100% certainty, wrong.

As Jamie Whyte, past Cambridge University lecturer in Philosophy has indicated in his book Crimes Against Logic, one is entitled to their opinion, however, it may be wrong. One's opinion is not necessarily correct, and one has no right to have their opinion be correct.

 

[cableguy]

truer words were never spoken... look in the mirror... your opinion, based on whatever activist science you want to base it on, is not necessarily correct... the same is true for mine... bottom line is still reading a big, fat, INCONCLUSIVE... correlation does not beget causation... that too, is surely a crime against logic... it was, in my logic course 12 years ago, and i doubt the laws of logic have changed since then... your conclusions are based on assumptions that i am not willing to accept as valid, and therefore i reject the premise of the argument... still...

 

[Iceberg]

your opinion, based on whatever activist science you want to base it on, is not necessarily correct...

"Activist science"? Perhaps the only thing that is not "activist" is science.

Science is based on procedure, statistical testing, hypotheses and conclusions, and retesting. Climate change has undergone all of these and has passed the test with flying colours. Climate change science is as sound as biochemistry. Sure, there is more to do, but such is the nature of science. Fine-tuning the results, and these have been done between the IPCC reports of 1995 and 2001. The report in 2001 solidified much from the 1995 report and rejected little from the report, except for much of the uncertainty. (In other words, much of the uncertainty has been thrown out the window.)

your conclusions are based on assumptions that i am not willing to accept as valid, and therefore i reject the premise of the argument...

Fine. You are free to do that. However, you are, with almost 100% certainty, incorrect.

bottom line is still reading a big, fat, INCONCLUSIVE...

More FOX News and Bush Administration (or shall I add a couple of asterisks each after BU and sh) propaganda. The statement that it is inconclusive is an opinion you are entitled to have, but it is simply wrong.

Please read some scientific journal articles, such as those from Nature, Journal of Climate, and Science, or even the IPCC report, then you may learn something about the science. Then we'll see if you have the same opinion.

 

[Texan]

Let me explaiin some basics about science and religion.

Good science relies on, and must have, two things;"proof" and "reproducability". 2 + 2 = 4 is a "proof" that any elementary student anywhere in the world, that has been taught basic math, will recognize as a correct answer. This "proof" is also "reproducable". That means that anyone, anywhere, given the same problem, can come up with the same answer using the same methodology. If these two things are not present in a science, then it is not a science. It may be an art or it could be a belief.

Maybe now we are getting somewhere, if only you would apply these basics to this topic.

 

[Iceberg]

Let me explaiin some basics about science and religion.

Good science relies on, and must have, two things;"proof" and "reproducability". 2 + 2 = 4 is a "proof" that any elementary student anywhere in the world, that has been taught basic math, will recognize as a correct answer. This "proof" is also "reproducable". That means that anyone, anywhere, given the same problem, can come up with the same answer using the same methodology. If these two things are not present in a science, then it is not a science. It may be an art or it could be a belief.

Maybe now we are getting somewhere, if only you would apply these basics to this topic.

Yes, because by using the same methodology, the same results will occur.

An example is the aforementioned Keeling Curve (measuring CO2 concentration at the Mauna Loa Observatory) correlating rather well with the temperature increase since the 1850s. One can easily reproduce the results by using the same methodology, and can improve on them by tweaking this methodology or by smoothing the data.

The skeptics' arguments are based on a belief system, not the scientists'.

 

[Texan]

The science is based on assumptions and thus a belief system.

 

[Iceberg]

That is incorrect, since science does not rely upon faith. Belief systems are based on faith. Science is based on truth and not faith.

There are multiple belief systems (Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Paganism, etc.), but there is only one truth, which is found in scientific discovery.

The assumptions of which you speak are called variables, which are set at the time of modelling in terms of climate research. These variables are tweaked when new data comes in to fine tune the process and results to produce more reliable conclusions (i.e. with a greater confidence level). Read this to find out more about climate modelling:

http://www.climateprediction.net/science/index.php