| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 01:44 am: | 
|
Anyone ever wonder where all the carbon released by fossil fuels originated? Trees, plants, dead dinosaurs. In other words, it was part of the environment. Should we not be concerned about the effects of all this carbon being depleted from the environment? It's a damn good thing we are able to use it as fuel and get it back into the environment where it belongs! Put more carbon into the air, plants grow like crazy. The Earth really is an amazing living organism.
As to depleting fossil fuels... economics will auto regulate that scenario. When oil and coal actually do begin to go scarce, their price will rise, alternate forms of energy will become viable, we'll be happy to pay $5/gal to fuel our Buell. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 01:57 am: |
|
Read "the Prize" a book about the oil industry.
Simply, everyone pumps it out as fast as they can to make as much money as possible, as fast as possible, before the guy next door pumps it out.
Biggest problem with running your bike on methanol/ethanol, your range gets worse. Other than that, I like booze for fuel. I think the carbon cycle works fine, if we can keep the oceans healthy. |
Jimidan
| | Posted on Saturday, April 19, 2003 - 04:22 pm: |
|
Bomber wrote:
"I like to think that I live a bit more responsibly than your last paragraph describes . . . "
Why?
Hey, I USED to be a greenie weenie, and when I first started to work at EPA I actually thought that I was making a difference. I even recycled my junk mail! The longer I was there, the more I learned. The more I learned, the less enthusiastic I became. The less enthusiastic I became, the more I became convinced that human beings are incapable of the drastic lifestyle changes, including birhtrate, necessary to avoid catastrophe.
Don't take my word for it, check out this 1992 "Letter to Humanity", from the Union of Concerned Scientists. Some 1,700 of the world's leading scientists, including the majority of Nobel laureates in the sciences, issued this appeal in November 1992. The World Scientists' Warning to Humanity was written and spearheaded by the late Henry Kendall, former chair of UCS's board of directors. The conditions have only degraded further since then.
http://www.ucsusa.org/ucs/about/page.cfm?pageID=1009
The way I see it, it just really doesn't make sense for me to make meaningless personal sacrifices to try to live the right way, when nobody else is. If you can't beat them, join them! I probably have less than 40 more years on this planet, so why should I worry?
Shucks, the right wing philosophy that Blake and others profess is rapidly gaining momentum in this country, fed by our natural greed. It is now a political majority...there is no turning back. I mean how do you keep them down on the farm after they have seen Broadway? Actually, I am more like these right wings guys than they would probably care to admit, but I don't delude myself for a minute about what I am doing and why.
Blake wrote:
"The basic truth is that the Earth is wonderfully self regulating. If we somehow do manage to screw up the environment soooo badly that vast populations suffer and die. Guess what? Afterwards, the Earth will cleanse itself and return to a more pristine state all on its own. It isn't the environment that suffers in the long run, it is human kind."
I agree with this 100%.
Blake, I read your post of on the 5th...particularly this section:
"I disagree with allowing those who actively support the extreme green agenda or any related extremist agenda to oversee and conduct the very federally funded studies and research that are then held up as unbiased scientific evidence to further their agenda."
I don't think you can get much more of an extreme agenda than is being pushed by the current administration in Congress.
Let me repeat my agenda: "...live it up to the max, forget about recycling, reducing consumption, reusing products, have as many kids as you want by as many women as you can have sex with, screw the limits on fishing and hunting, drive the biggest, baddest SUVs you can buy, ride the loudest bikes, forget about voting, worry only about yourself and your family, screw the poor and homeless, it is now all about ME!"
The reason being is that it really will not make any difference to do likewise...the runnaway train is nearly unstoppable! With the worlds population on the vertical side of the "J" curve, there simply is no need for any of us to try to conserve, etc. It is like putting a bandaid on a cerebral hemorage. My advice is to stock up on assault rifles and ammo...you will need them to protect yourself.
Now it is time for a nice spirited ride on my gas guzzler 88" Buell with open end cap exhaust, (while you guys gather your recyclables);-). I am going to rev it up at all stop lights in town. This morning I took a nice 40 mile ride in the country in my 6,000 lb. Chevy van with 350 c.i. 4-barrel carb, to go kayaking. I really needed that vehicle, since I was carrying my 200 lb. butt and my 35lb. kayak on the roof! It is a wonderful world we live in...and I am proud to be an American! Support our troops! |
Blake
| | Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 01:48 am: |
|
Quote:I don't think you can get much more of an extreme agenda than is being pushed by the current administration in Congress.
I agree with your first three words. 
I guess I'm just an optimist and can see the significant progress in conservation and environmentalism made in the last 30 to 40 years. Some want/expect it to all happen overnight and get all frustrated when it doesn't. Have some faith. Look at California and the ever tightening emissions standards this nation mandates. Overall, we are assuredly heading in the right direction.
I have to laugh every time I hear another press release by the "concerned scientists". Why are they concerned, according to them we'll all be dead or suffering terribly from the catastrophic consequences of global warming. Look back to the population predictions of 30 years ago. According to the scientists of that time, we should have, what, like 20 billion people infesting the world today? Simple extrapolation of current or past population growth trends is far from science, but that is how many agenda blinded activists see fit to present their case. It is bunk. |
Jimidan
| | Posted on Sunday, April 20, 2003 - 11:34 pm: |
|
A very wise man once told me to question so called "facts" by subjecting them to a simple test: If the person or source who is telling you this "fact" is trying to sell something or has any thing to personally gain from telling it to you, then it probably is BS. I will take my facts from independent sources who have nothing to gain from telling it to me.
Blake said:
"I guess I'm just an optimist and can see the significant progress in conservation and environmentalism made in the last 30 to 40 years."
An "optimist" who ignores the consensus of Noble laurette scientists is not a realist.
While some minor progress has been made in the last 30 to 40 years (beginning with the last liberal President we had, Richard Nixon who started the EPA), it hasn't addressed the source of all of the other problems...over population. In fact, it hasn't even mentionioned it. The Reagan/Bush and the Dubya administrations have done all within their powers to negate these meager steps. Clinton didn't do as bad, but he didn't help much either.
and continued:
"I have to laugh every time I hear another press release by the "concerned scientists".
Yeah, those Nobel laurette scientists are real jokesters, a laugh a minute. I can see them now in the board room..."let's play a trick on all humanity! Let's tell 'em if they don't start making unreasonable sacrifices in their life, that it will result in changing the climate so much that they will die! Ha, ha! What a hoax."
It is useless to continue a debate with those who simply dismiss the best science as bunk...like I said in my first post, "It is like these folks want to believe in Santa Claus soooo bad that he actually has become a reality. It will do no good to argue with them because their beliefs are based on faith not facts."
This mentality is spreading like the plague...more reason to keep fiddling. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 01:49 am: |
|
Jimidan,
The EPA can't address overpopulution, not in the charter, and a free society won't put up with interference in their breeding habits. In Red China, forced sterilization, and killing the newborn 3rd child at delivery are having an effect on growth, but I'm not going there. An "advanced" or "modern" society typically flattens out it's own growth curve with contraceptives, Russia had negative growth a few years back. "Backwards" or "third world" countries are where the baby boom is, should we engineer wheat as a contraceptive & give it away there? Moral issues abound on THIS topic. No offence is meant here, even though I'm arguing.
Here is a quandry that gets very little airtime.
What happens to carbon loading, oil prices, and air quality when Red China drives 2 Billion SUV's??? There is no way an aero, low slung, groomed surface only car will sell there, so it's pick ups and SUV's.
Dare we tell the whole planet that they must skip the carefree century of freedom brought about by relatively regulation free industrial growth that we had? Surely they must go straight to "advanced tech" & pay for modern cars & processes, despite the fact that they are coming from goats and open pit mines w/no pollution control at all?? Logic & a care for the ecology says so, but such control is impossible, or at least has serious side effects. We can't even change stuff like the jerk in Zimbabwei. a country that had a food surplus, taking the farms away from the successful farmers & give it to party hacks & city people, leading to shortages & famine.
I started out to say "don't be discouraged" and I think I just hit pessimistic speed bumps in my own attitude.  |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 02:21 am: |
|
Jimidan,
Who is the one with the agenda to sell. Certainly not I. You? Ever wonder how the union of concerned scientists, an utter hodgepodge of varying and usually HIGHLY specialized scientists, comes to a consensus on their decrees? What the hell does a biotech germ expert know about the ionosphere or the effect of carbon on the climate? You might want to do a little more learning on what exactly the union of concerned scientists is all about.
And simply spouting invoking "Nobel Laureates" sounds impressive, but doesn't really convince me of anything. You are most often talking about people who are very extremely narrowly focused withing their field of expertise. Not the most qualified group to advise humanity on general issues of a far reaching, diverse, and complex nature.
You don't see any significant improvement in our environmental practices in the past 40 years?... Your credibility just went completely to hell and I'd have to agree that our debate is pointless.
Ulneaded gas?
Emissions standards?
Clean air act?
Wetlands?
Endangered species?
Clean water?
HOV lanes?
Energy conserving lubricants?
Reduced industrial VOC emissions?
Elimination of ozone depleting flourocarbons?
Freon reclamation?
Recycling?
Energy conserving homes?
Propane fueled vehicles?
Hybrid cars?
Electric cars?
More efficient, cleaner power plants?
Solar power?
Wind power?
Fuel cells?
And on, and on, and on...
Our rivers are cleaner, our air is cleaner, our lakes are cleaner, even smoking has become a social faux pas. |
Reepicheep
| | Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 09:59 am: |
|
Jimdan... why on earth would somebody who has nothing to gain from a particular theory spend a lot of time publicizing it and taking the time and energy of developing and maintaining a defense?
Dismissing the opinions of these people is stupid. Understand they have a vested interest, look at their data and conclusions skeptically, demand further evidence where necessary, and crossrefrence to other proovable traceable data.
Just like any thinking person would do with Nobel winners, the EPA, or the "Centers for Science in the Public Interest" (that near as I can tell seems interested in neither).
If you think Nobel prizes, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the EPA are somehow non-political rigid fact based technocracies of some sort with nothing to be gained by a particular viewpoint, then YOU are the one that believes in Santa Clause  |
Jimidan
| | Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 12:45 pm: |
|
Aesquire:
"I started out to say "don't be discouraged" and I think I just hit pessimistic speed bumps in my own attitude."
See what I mean? Don't think about this crap, just have a good time. There is no reason to stress your self out over something you have no control.
Blake:
"Who is the one with the agenda to sell. Certainly not I. You?"
I don't think you or me...hell, I am on fixed income. It is those that are selling products, especially those that have negative externalities in the use and manufacturing of those products. They need to do their proper PR to keep the public in the dark..."nothin' wrong here, boss...nosiree!"
and continuing:
"Ever wonder how the union of concerned scientists, an utter hodgepodge of varying and usually HIGHLY specialized scientists, comes to a consensus on their decrees? What the hell does a biotech germ expert know about the ionosphere or the effect of carbon on the climate?"
Hey, the Union of Concerned Scientists was just an example of one group of highly qualified experts sounding the alarm. I don't belong to them or any other environmental groups (any more). The process they use to come to a consensus is of little import...the fact is that they did. They are pretty smart guys, so I would expect them to have conflict resolution skills at the minimum.
Environmental degradation is a multifaceted problem, and measuring it requires many specialties as the Earths systems are breaking down. These guys don't have to work outside their fields and in fact, a multidisciplined approach is desireable. I just offered USC as one readily available source of scientific information (which is a HECK of a lot more than you offered) to back up my points.
As a side note, I also have worked with (and against) industry engineers, lawyers, researchers, environmental techs, and lobbyist for years, and I can say from personal experience that industry will try to get away with what they can. I even helped put some of them in jail! It does not have a conscience, rather a board of directors with an eye firmly on the bottom line. They do like to dazzle you with smoke and mirrors.
Certainly, when we were establishing policy and setting standards at the EPA to protect human health and the environment, we were not using opinion papers by the UCS (although much of the research projections were equally as dismal). However, we were using research conducted by some of their members, since they are the best of the best in the world. Much of the best research is NOT done in the US, BTW. The US is seriously lagging behind, due to political considerations.
The UCS has a readily available data base that is user friendly (unlike most of EPA sites) that breaks it down into terms that the average Joe can understand...this stuff is very technical as can be imagined...a fact that the industry uses to its advantage when taking on citizens groups.
and then the laser smart bomb:
"And simply spouting invoking "Nobel Laureates" sounds impressive, but doesn't really convince me of anything."
Actually, after reading many of your posts on a variety of subjects, I am not sure that if the good Lord came to your door personally and told you the same stuff, that it would convince you ;-)! What does it take? I think first you must have an open mind...
Next, I never was under the delusion that I was going to convince you of anything. I am here for entertainment puroses only...trying to keep my brain from turning to jello during retirement. I have stated what I am doing about what I see as an inevitable situation...nothing! My only concern is for my grandchildren.
and finally, Blake's Shock and Awe:
"You don't see any significant improvement in our environmental practices in the past 40 years?... Your credibility just went completely to hell and I'd have to agree that our debate is pointless."
Not that I ever had any credibility on here, or especially with you. However, I will reiterate that I spent 30 years working in various aspects of environmental protection...although, I know that doesn't compare with your experience in thermodynamics when discussing this field. Like I have said, these measures you mention are like mere bandaids on a cerebral hemorage. You are still talking about end of pipe solutions to symptoms of the problem...look at the big picture. Like most engineers, you seem to profess that any problem can be solved if you just pump enough engineering into it. The rub here is that this problem is not an engineering one. It is a complex combo of social, political and religion...stuff they didn't teach you in calculus. You can put all of the engineering bandaids you want on this one and it will only marginally slow it down. Without controlling the population, all of the easy bandaid solutions mean very little.
Like Aesquire points out, the Earth is in this condition and the Third World isn't even on board yet. If we are making this big of a dent in the vital processes now, wait until they are.
and Blake's post script:
"Our rivers are cleaner, our air is cleaner, our lakes are cleaner, even smoking has become a social faux pas."
Cleaner than what? The '50s through the '80s, when the unfettered economy controlled its own enviromental regulations? The bar was set pretty low then, and it isn't much higher now. In KY for example (not your Mecca of indusrial development), which has more miles of waterways than any other state besides Alaska, 1/3 of the LAKES are too polluted to meet primary drinking water standards. There are fishing advisories on 90% of the rivers, and the Ohio River has a ban on eating the fish for its entire length. It don't look good for the home team, bro!
Reepcheap says:
"Jimdan... why on earth would somebody who has nothing to gain from a particular theory spend a lot of time publicizing it and taking the time and energy of developing and maintaining a defense?"
That one is pretty easy...they have children and grandchildren they are worried about. They have social responsibilty and a passion to try to not let man's darker reptilian cortex (lizard brain) destroy the many wonderous and beautiful accomplishments. They are unselfish and dedicated to the higher ideals of preserving the greater good. I used to be there myself.
Frankly, I think they are all spinning their wheels, you know, doing a burnout in the parking lot of life. It is going to get interesting with the resource wars, empire building, regime changes and the like. I can foresee a bleaker time ahead for sure. The process of dumbing down has begun. We were lucky to have been born in this time period where we have antibiotics (that still work), and human health is relatively good. Enjoy it to the max, and remember, intellegent people can disagree. I am still having fun!
I think we have pretty much beat this one to death. What method of timing do you think Buell should use to control its over head cam machines? Chains, belts or gears? |
Bomber
| | Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 02:46 pm: |
|
ah, Jimi . . . .I try to do right for my kid, for yours, and because it's, ehem, the right thing to do . . . .
will it halt the deforestation of whatever South American country that the folks over at greenpeace have adoppted this week? nope, it won't . . .course, it won't cause a killer fog in london either . . . .
tell ya what, you do yours, I'll do mine, and we'll agree to disagree . . .. makes life much easier that shouting slogans at each other . . . .I'll admit to having made my mind up after reviewing all the facts I could get my hands on, and you have clearly done the same . . . . further facts will likely not chnage my mind, and it's clear that further facts won't change yours. |
Blake
| | Posted on Monday, April 21, 2003 - 05:51 pm: |
|
Jimidan,
It seems that you think industry is the devil in the environmental scene. Damn industry, how dare they seek to adhere to the law, employing all those people and manufacturing all the stuff that enhances our enjoyment of life. Do we need environmental police to keep them honest? Unfortunately yes. However, not all industry is embodied by a mentality of blind greed, the environment be damned.
I once worked for a heavy industrial manufacturer who closely monitored their use of coatings for VOC's. Before production ramped up to meet increased sales (market demand), they changed their entire coating systems in order to reduce VOC emissions. What an evil company. 
I also worked offshore. Rig management mandated and regularly emphasized vigilence and care against allowing any pollutants to escape from the rigs into the ocean. It blew me away how rigorous the efforts to keep junk out of the ocean really were. Most successful businesses know full well that it is in their best interest to help maintain the environment. Things can certainly continue to improve. They will.
You glibly dismiss my list of positive developments as "shock and awe." You seem to think that the UCS is some group of all knowing objective geniuses who should be heeded without question. I strongly disagree. Their record is far less than stellar and often seems to be politically motivated. Are not most of them academicians?
As to population... Japan thrives with extreme population densities and maintains the environment quite well. Are North and South America or Europe or Africa, or Australia anywhere near approaching the population density of Japan? More scaremongering. I don't buy it. There is no dire worldwide population growth crisis. Try again. People are living longer, healthier and more productive lives than ever before. That trend is not likely to change. Nature has its ways and even modern man is not immune. Proactive cultural change, War, and disease will keep the population of Earth in check. Got SARS? How about AIDS? Nature has its way.
I think this debate boils down to different philosophies, those of optimism versus pessimism.
You list some interesting information about the waterways of KY; to that I can respond meaningfully. What do you think might pollute the lakes in KY that are tagged unfit to supply drinking water? And what does that designation really mean? What are the agents responsible? Are they bacteriological, chemical, or simply mineral. Are they man made? What in the Ohio river makes the fish unfit to eat and when did it get there? Has the Ohio river's pollution continued unabated?
You are pretty good at using dramatic rhetoric and half truths to sell your point. That doesn't work too well with me. Try again. |
Jimidan
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 22, 2003 - 04:47 pm: |
|
Blake stated:
"It seems that you think industry is the devil in the environmental scene."
Nope, industry is only giving us what we want, and it is not ALL industry, just some bad actors. It is a major contributor to the pollution load though, and you really have to watch them.
And continued:
"they changed their entire coating systems in order to reduce VOC emissions. What an evil company. "
It is not uncommon for companies to change their plant process to incorporate water based coatings instead of those with high VOCs. It saves them money down the road. It also is good for the air. You worked for a responsible player.
and:
"As to population... Japan thrives with extreme population densities and maintains the environment quite well."
Really? Japan doesn't grow its own food and has no natural resources. Its trawlers have overfished the Pacific and its people EAT whales. They make pretty good cars and bikes though. I can say that Toyota of KY has been a very good corporate citizen though, and has implemented environmental controls that were state of the art, without being asked to do so... now if we could just get the Ford plant in Louisville to do it. I think the wiley Japanese are a bit more sensitive to public perceptions than Ford, even though they pay their employees more (without a union) than Ford.
and:
"I think this debate boils down to different philosophies, those of optimism versus pessimism."
I think my guarded pessimism is warranted base on the solid science I have seen. I hope I am wrong. But when it really gets down to it, I am not much different than you in that I am doing nothing to slow the train down...just as if I pretended it wasn't there.
You can read all about KY's environment on the Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission's site, a state agency that advises the Governor and reports trends. They have a report called the State of the Environment of KY.
and he finishes with a complement, well, as much of one as he is able to muster:
"You are pretty good at using dramatic rhetoric and half truths to sell your point."
Thanks dude! That is as much of a complement as I have seen you give anyone on here. Now, which half was the truth again? |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 12:57 am: |
|
Really?
Yes, really.
Japan doesn't grow its own food and has no natural resources.
Wrong on the food. Your ignorance is layed bare. They grow massive amounts of food. But the issue is not one of self sufficiency; as it was raised by you it is one of over population and the detrimental (irreversible and catastrophic in your view?) effects on the environment. Their environement looked fine to me, even pristine.
Its trawlers have overfished the Pacific
So what. What seafaring culture hasn't overfished? We live and learn right? When the fishing becomes so poor it isn't worth fishing anymore... Guess what? Then the fish repopulate, and quite quickly. Ain't nature grand?
and its people EAT whales.
So? You eat cows. What's that have to do with the environment? A whale is a big swimming cow. do you feel sorry for cows too? Save some grass, shoot a cow!
They make pretty good cars and bikes though. I can say that Toyota of KY has been a very good corporate citizen though, and has implemented environmental controls that were state of the art, without being asked to do so... now if we could just get the Ford plant in Louisville to do it. I think the wiley Japanese are a bit more sensitive to public perceptions than Ford, even though they pay their employees more (without a union) than Ford.
The Japanese are smarter than we are in some ways. I have a LOT of admiration and respect for them and their culture. Spent a bit of time working with them.
I think my guarded pessimism is warranted base on the solid science I have seen.
Sure would be nice if you would share some of that solid evidence. I think your view is too narrowly and immediately focused. You might see a different future if you stepped back and examined our situation from a much wider field of view, both qualitatively and historically. Things are getting better, much better, all the time.
You can read all about KY's environment on the Kentucky Environmental Quality Commission's site, a state agency that advises the Governor and reports trends. They have a report called the State of the Environment of KY.
Hey, you are the expert and the man who offered the half speak non technical jargon as evidence ot support your point. The least you can do is clarify your evidence. At least give me a web page. Sheesh. Talk about evasive.
Thanks dude! That is as much of a complement as I have seen you give anyone on here. Now, which half was the truth again?
You got yourself some right purdy lips there. Is that a better compliment for a Kentucky boy?  Seriously though (man, I crack me up), the half truths are the vague and (without further clarification) meaningless information you stated about the state of KY water resources. If you'd answer my questions, we might get the rest of the story. You refused. On the surface saying that a bunch of lakes fail to qualify for sources of drinking water sounds horrific. I'm betting the truth is significantly less frightening. Like say a little runoff from a nearby pasture or chicken farm. I didn't fall off the turnip truck just yesterday... it was a couple weeks ago.  |
Jimidan
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 05:16 am: |
|
"At least give me a web page."
Do a search on the name. Sorry to have upset you. |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 23, 2003 - 03:59 pm: |
|
I'm not upset, DAMNIT!! |
Anonymous
| | Posted on Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:20 pm: |
|
cows are just food, but whales are also the trust of big countries. in addition, they won't trust the asian. their children are too naive to know this affair.
ps i don't like coming to the minor site like this.
Inappropriate anonymous post by "Kitty"
edited by blake on June 17, 2003 |
Whatever
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 03:04 pm: |
|
By the way... maybe it is way after the fact... the thing about environmental regulation is IT MUST BE FOLLOWED BY SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT...
Am I screaming? No, but I am being emphatic... check this out... South Africa World Conference on Sustainable Development... there are ways of living that do not wreck the earth... unfortunately not many of the politicians on any of the ballots support this idea...
Sustainable Development |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 09:46 pm: |
|
I couldn't will myself to wade through all that blathering. Do you have a summary? |
Whatever
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 01:41 pm: |
|
Good GOD Blake, I thought you were the Fact Finding King... summarize it yourself.  Anyhow you would just tell me that my summary is biased by my politics... |
Whatever
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 01:45 pm: |
|
Try Reading This |
Jim_m
| | Posted on Wednesday, June 18, 2003 - 03:12 pm: |
|
Because Blake requested it and no one answered...
http://www.kyeqc.net/pubs/soke01/slide.html
The State of Kentucky's Enviroment 2000-2001 (apparently the latest one) |
|
President Bush Destroys the Environment in Favor of Industry
