| Author |
Message |
    
Road_Thing
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 09:29 pm: | 
|
Blake: Por nada, amigo!
r-t
 |
Road_Thing
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 09:32 pm: |
|
And, since we're talking about destroying the environment, I've been putting toxic fiberglass dust all over Road_Thing's_Garage this week, doing a little custom bodywork on the ol' S2!
Thanks to Ricky Morrison for inspiration and guidance!
r-t
(spring can't get here soon enough) |
Jim_Witt
| | Posted on Monday, March 03, 2003 - 10:33 pm: |
|
Blake advised:
You want the truth? Take a sample of opposing arguments, apply critical thinking and logic, find the middle ground, there you have it, probably as close as you will ever get.
So focusing on pollution and ground water contamination specifically from commercial or industrial operations and gasoline burning engines what is the middle ground, as you understand it from an non-political environmental perspective?
BTW, where do I find opposing arguments?
-JW:> |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 03:07 am: |
|
Jim,
Take the Sierra club on one side and the industry pundits on the other. Consider both points of view, stir, apply logic and reasoning.
I just reread some of your quoted quasi statistics on Texas pollution...
#1 in the Emission of Ozone Causing Air Pollution Chemicals
I've heard that on a hot summer day pine trees emit copious amounts of ozone. East Texas, as well as being speckled with oil wells, is blanketed with vast tracts of some of the finest Yellow Pine to be found.
#1 in Toxic Chemical releases into the Air
Whose definition of "toxic", and how long does the toxicity endure once released into the ambient atmosphere?
#1 in use of Deep Well Injectors as method of Waste Disposal
So? You worried about brine and drilling fluids that are injected into a formation over 3,000' down which is where virtually all of it originated in the first place??? 
#1 in counties listed in top 20 of Emitting Cancer Causing Chemicals
Uh, how much of the supposed cancer causing chemicals are emitted? Also, do you know how many counties Texas has? That's an obvious propagandist's BS statistic.
#1 in Total Number of Hazardous Waste Incinerators
So? You have a problem with vaporizing hazardous waste into harmless gas and solids?
#1 in Environmental Justice Title 6 complaints
Got me there, don't know what that means or entails.
#1 in production of Cancer causing Benzene & Vinyl Chloride
So? We ship it out of state. 
#1 Largest Sludge Dump in Country
One thing we have is plenty of room for sludge. So?
See how reasoning and logic can work? All that stuff sounds so terrible on the surface. It really isn't, not a real piece of damming evidence anywhere. But what really is absurd is to blame any of those empty stats on GW like he was the one responsible for their existence. What I really hate is that there are actually a large contingent of weak minded fools who will buy into that kind of propaganda. Sure there is some truth in there, but mostly it's sensationalistic scaremongering.
<coughcough> Scuse me... Gotta go get another lung transplanted and an intestinal tumor excised.... |
Whatever
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 09:30 am: |
|
Reepi:
'Take the time, money, and human capitol we are applying towards environmental issues.'
'Now, apply that same amount or more towards technological solutions to the problem.'
HEY !!! This is exactly where I was going with that thought. Although I don't know about corn or anything like that really... not in detail. (I read technological jargon and run in the woods and then deal with data etc and the law all day at my job, I generally will read about social movements or biographies in my spare time, or spiritual philosophies, etc.)
There are many 'environmentalist greenies' who are not Luddites, who do not believe we should revert back to the dark ages and who do not think the EPA is evil (even though any government agency has it corrupt components).
There are plenty of people who believe in technological advancement of R & D on clean fuels, organic farming and sustainable (wind, etc) energy.
Also, there is a HUGE wealth of information that Indigenous Cultures around the world can offer us (the so called 'civilized' world) if we might just stop and listen to them instead of trying to wipe their asses out so we can take their metals and oil and gas that they just happen to be born on top of.
Not too many cultures came to us with the complaint that they had to hunt and gather their own foods etc and that they spend 90% of their energy on survival... ah well... you might get my point a little bit but, actually...
I remember coming back from living in 'the bush' in Morocco some years back and standing in a supermarket just STUNNED that there were over 12 brands of yogurt on the shelf and that there were hundreds of kinds of junk food I had not seen in 10 weeks. LIKE just shocked... and then I realized I did not really miss the excessiveness we take for granted as Americans at all, not at all.
My two bedroom apartment I have today would afford the upper echelon in any third world country (I am talking a Professor and his family (a wife and 2 or 3 kids), someone with a PhD in his very technical field) a huge improvement on what they can afford today.
Our perspective is entirely out of whack as Americans I think, because we are bred to be consumers first and foremost and not to think for ourselves. Mass media is just that (for the masses who do not want to go and find things out on their own).
Fortunately there is freedom of speech here in the US and as imperfect as the 'democracy' is, I would not really want to live anywhere else...
except maybe in Socialist Europe, but that is another story.
Gotta work.
Charlotte
PS Best anti war slogan:
'I asked for Universal Health Care and all I got was this lousy Stealth Bomber..' |
Mikej
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 09:43 am: |
|
"Indigenous Cultures "
Getting to be known these days as First Nations in the U.S.A., and Fourth World in the rest of the world.
"'I asked for Universal Health Care and all I got was this lousy Stealth Bomber..' "
Or, I asked for a career and all I got was a job. (but I'm working on that one now) |
Road_Thing
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 10:03 am: |
|
Char said:
"Fortunately there is freedom of speech here in the US and as imperfect as the 'democracy' is, I would not really want to live anywhere else... "
and I say "Amen!" to that, too. Someday over cold malted beverages I can share stories of my two years in Burma...
r-t |
Cowboy
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 11:04 am: |
|
I thank we are doing very well with the enviroment here in the USA. but in a large part of the world, Sunday comes on friday and the men ware dresses we are fighting a loseing battle, so why handicap our people when they are drowning us with thier filth. |
Whatever
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 01:22 pm: |
|
Men wear dresses in many parts of the US !!! What the heck does that have to do with anything ? Hell, GWB probably wears them on his day off, too !!! LOL ! |
Nevco1
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 04, 2003 - 03:34 pm: |
|
Think I would settle for the Stealth Bomber. Bet I could sell that for way under market value and live happily ever after. LOL |
Billfish
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 12:17 pm: |
|
I like Blake's post,"...you have allowed yourself to fall victim to the bullshit liberal green propaganda."
Somewhat related topic. For those who still belive in the global warming hoax. Check out www.globalwarming.org |
Blake
| | Posted on Wednesday, March 05, 2003 - 06:43 pm: |
|
I do want ALL coal fired power plants upgraded to modern clean air standards. I also understand why the deadline for that mandatory upgrade has been extended.
I disagree with bankrupting an entire county of farmers, and their families who were guaranteed by the federal government a continuous supply of irrigation water, all because of an obscure dwindling species of fish.
Unless it is a clearly advertised and mandated pre-existing law prior to an owners' acquisition of their property, I disagree with preventing property owners from mowing to protect against brush fire the areas immediately surrounding their homes in favor of providing habitat for a rodent.
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'm thinking of the fraud recently committed in a study of the ranges of some mammals where researchers planted evidence to support their agenda. I recall the case that involved planting the fur of Lynx in an effort to extend their documented range and thus fraudulently limit/curtail the actions of commercial interests in the area.
I'm very sad that 96% of California's old growth redwood forests have been greedily consumed and decimated.
I love Oregon's 100% public access coastline. I wouldn't mind a bit if CA, via a publicly funded buyback, removed every single coastal residence in favor of the OR model.
I'm frustrated by the general lack of environmental sensitivity in East Texas. I understand its origins and that it IS constantly improving.
I angrily resent and disagree with the policy of some public school systems to present the liberal extreme green indoctrinational agenda to our children.
I think the EPA mandated noise limits for motorcycles are complete bullshit and need totally rewritten. I agree there should be some limits, but they should take into account the acoustic nature of our perception of the various frequencies and their ability to traverse distance. The low frequency thrum of a single or twin cylinder bike are MUCH less irritating than the high pitched scream of an inline four. Don't even get me started on the noise produced by some types of tires especially on concrete roadways, compression braking of diesel tractors, or the acoustic output of two cycle lawn and garden tools. Got an undisciplined incessantly barking dog in your neighborhood? |
Whatever
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 01:41 pm: |
|
 |
Billfish
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 01:59 pm: |
|
As far as best anti-war slogans go, here's a few notables seen at a recent "peace rally".
"War Has Never Solved Anything; except for ending slavery, Fascism & Nazim".
"Saddam Hussein kills his own people, let's not interfere". |
Jim_Witt
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 06:27 pm: |
|
So “when” do you think the proper “time” will come for the utilities and refineries to invest in state-of-the-art pollution controls if a plant undergoes a major expansion or modification? To my knowledge we just went through a history-making explosion in the last 8 years with electrical generating plants, semi-conductor facilities and pharmaceutical plants. To my understanding the government was going to “help” with the funding to clean up the utilities and refineries. I’m all for allowing flexibility to modernize, but how many more years is it going to take. If the government has billions lying around somewhere (probably social security) to buy off Turkey or any others for U.N. votes, why couldn’t they have found another funding source to implement the pollution controls before our current terrorist situation arose.
2004 Budget Request.
JW:> |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 08:28 pm: |
|
To paraphrase Heinlein, make the boardroom water supply (coffee too) come from the output pipes of the factory. That makes pollution control problems self correcting. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Thursday, March 06, 2003 - 08:43 pm: |
|
I am in favor of safe clean nucular (we are talking Texas right?) power. Bear in mind there are no commercial power plants in this country that were designed after I was born. Swiss & South African designed pebble bed reactors are safer than coal fired plants. A rational society would have built the infrastructure to deal with waste products (across the board) none of the problems are insoluble. (although some wastes are)
While we're at it, how about a windmill on all high tension power line towers? All house roof tiles on south facing roofs should be fireproof solar panels, molded to snap together.
When you're ready to make me King I will reveal the rest of the secrets to happiness.
42? ? shhhhhh! |
M2me
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2003 - 03:03 pm: |
|
Why don't we subsidize synthetic oil? I don't know how much that would reduce our dependence on foreign oil but it would have to help a little bit. With synthetic lube costing two and three times as much as natural I don't see a lot of people voluntarily switching. Even with the superior qualities of synthetics it still comes down to economics for a lot of people. If synthetic were subsidized so it was at least the same price or even cheaper, I think people would switch in large numbers.
I realize this isn't necessarily environmental, but I was just thinking about synthetic oil, Iraq, etc. |
Crusty
| | Posted on Friday, March 07, 2003 - 10:10 pm: |
|
President Bush Destroys the Environment in Favor of Industry
Sounds good to me. |
Jim_Witt
| | Posted on Friday, April 11, 2003 - 09:53 pm: |
|
Cheers,
Didn't know where else to place this puppy but if you're interested in looking over An Analysis of the President's Budgetary Proposals for Fiscal Year 2004 that was just passed in the Senate, read on.
-JW:> |
Sportyeric
| | Posted on Sunday, April 13, 2003 - 03:04 am: |
|
So PJ O'Rourke figures we can't do anything for the environment 'til everyone in India and China has a Lincoln Navigator and a 50" TV. Sadly, he's right. To paraphase Agent Smith in The Matrix,"Humans are a virus, growing and growing 'til we poison our environment and have to move on to a new one."
And yesterday's paper had a story that the DDT that they continue to use in China is getting blown over the Pacific and continues to appear on the West Coast. So the starving Third World does, apparently, still enjoy the benefits of the wonder pesticide DDT. Fortunately, Reepi says that it doesn't have any ill effects when it gets here so that's a winner all round.
Doesn't really fit the heading but its late. |
Jimidan
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 02:35 am: |
|
After working in environmental science for 30 years in the KYEPA, I find these anti-environment diatribes to be pretty useless. Are these comments supposed to make us feel more secure in our plight...to tell us it is OK to plunder our only home like our ancestors did? The problem with that mentality is that there aren't any more "new worlds" to migrate to.
It is interesting how some on here insist on factual posts backed by volumes of data when discussing any other topic. When the environment is brought up, the discussion reverts to myth and conventional wisdom.
I think human beings are afraid to admit that we are on the path of the lemmings, so we attack the body of science and the messengers. Unfortunately, this is a dangerous path, albeit a seemingly unavoidable one. The very competitive edge that allowed humans to rise to the top, will take us over the edge because we can't turn it off.
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. You cannot tell someone that they don't believe something, or feel a certain way. They are lost in the world of double-speak, like in Lord of the Flies, where history is changed to suit the moment.
Blake said:
"Take the Sierra club on one side and the industry pundits on the other. Consider both points of view, stir, apply logic and reasoning."
I have seen volumes of data independently collected and verified by the top scientists in the world (this data is rarely if ever covered by the mainstream media), and it tends to be a lot more like what the Sierra Club is reporting than the industry "pundits". The industry has a vested interest in making itself look good, for obvious reasons. It doesn't have a conscience...rather a board of directors. The Sierra Club is not trying to sell you anything, and has no reason to lie as they are just the messenger...a news outlet, as it were.
The mainstream news does a particularly poor job of reporting environmental news, at least in part because it has conflicts of interest. There is a big problem when you have 6 mega corps (that own a variety of polluting industries) owning 90% of the media in the USA...how can you apply logic and reasoning to info you will never see? Plus, environmental news is complicated stuff that happens over long periods of time. Few reporters can even understand it, much less live long enough to conver it. Plus, if it doesn't bleed, it doesn't lead.
Blake continues:
"See how reasoning and logic can work? All that stuff sounds so terrible on the surface. It really isn't, not a real piece of damming evidence anywhere."
I saw no evidence that you offered to the contrary. There is plenty of data out there...
he continued:
"But what really is absurd is to blame any of those empty stats on GW like he was the one responsible for their existence."
I agree it is absurd to blame the state of Texas's environmental woes on GW...he wasn't there that long and everyone knows the Governor of Texas is virtually powerless. For that matter, I think it is giving GW way more credit than his relative importance warrants. These problems exist because of a pattern and practice of years of environmental abuse and an unfettered approach to industry regulation...the stuff Texas is famous for.
and finally:
"What I really hate is that there are actually a large contingent of weak minded fools who will buy into that kind of propaganda. Sure there is some truth in there, but mostly it's sensationalistic scaremongering."
What data do you have to back this up? Do you KNOW this or do you just (want to really, really bad) believe it? |
Billfish
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 10:19 am: |
|
For those who are interested check out:
www.globalwarming.org |
Bomber
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 10:30 am: |
|
Jimidan
While I agree with the majority of your points, your statement that the Sierra Club has nothing to sell is, er, a little off from accurate . . .
When I was a memeber, long ago and far away, their consting demads for tithing, and their refusal to account for the funds they had already gathered disgruntled me to the point of dropping my membership . . . .way too much emotion, and not enought facts (much like the NRA and most organized religions, I agree with the core principle, but cannot abide the tactics, or dogma)
As for your remarks concerning Texas, I suggest you expand them to cover most of the developed world . . . . we've all gotten pretty good at puching our damaging activities elsewhere . . .
one thing most environmentalists miss is what I call the "and then?" factor.
"Stop Slash and Burn Agriculture!" good idea . .. and then? how does that family in the amazon basin feed it self?
"Stop grossly polluting vehicles!" you bet! and then? I've yet to see legislated technology appear on the whim of congress . . . . . .
as in every endevour, it's easy to throw stones . . . . . .much much tougher to help find a fix for the problem . . . . . . finding fixes is something I don't ofetn see from those who identify themselves with the environmentalist cause |
Sportyeric
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 02:03 pm: |
|
There's lots of easy fixes, but they are impossible politically.
In Canada, the government wants to discourage smoking in order to keep health care costs down (and for the general good of the public.) So, they tax cigarettes to an extreme. Some people then, like myself, say,"Crap. A pack a day is $250/month. I just can't afford this anymore." And quit! Nobody is going to make an election issue of it. And so the world is improved. (I was gonna get a plate for the bike that read NICFIT 'til I found out the cost.)
Slap $2/gallon extra tax on gasoline. Bring the price up to what they pay in Europe. SUVs will disappear in favour of more fuel efficient vehicles and our air will become cleaner.
Put a recycling tax of $100 on computers and use the money to extract the heavy metals from them to keep them out of the landfill. Our local phone company has a program going to re-cycle cell-phones, giving working ones to women's shelters, and recycling materials from the rest. Apparently everything but the rubber of the keypad can be re-cycled. Keeps two dump-truck-fulls/year out of the landfills. I don't think they do it profitably, but I don't know what their incentive is. Without the profit motive, or philantropy, it falls on government to require industries to clean up after themselves.
Government forced friggin' airbags on us. (Not really necessary if people would buckle up as 85% of Canadians do, but mandated for the protection of Americans who have about a 50% seatbelt compliance rate.)(That's not really Yankee-bashing so don't even start!) So government could equally well enact laws to save our health from the pollution we create. The fact is we are energy gluttons and should be either educated, encouraged, or forced to cut back.
And as that relates to President Bush, I don't think he's doing much in that regard. Considering his background and friends, I don't see how anyone could expect anything else. Until the environmemnt becomes a make or break issue in elections, we will continue to leave our garbage for future generations to live with. |
Jimidan
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 02:25 pm: |
|
Bomber says:
"...your statement that the Sierra Club has nothing to sell is, er, a little off from accurate . . ."
I stand by my statement...what are they selling? Oh yeah, t-shirts and caps. Like most environmental groups they are a non-profit organization. They disseminate information that others produce, and do not conduct their own research. They have a rather small staff of folks they pay minimally, and rely on mostly volunteers...hardly a match for the well paid lawyers, lobbyist and staff of BFI (big f**king industry). They do not operate on a level playing field with BFI for these reasons, so really, that is why I do not give $$$ to environmental groups any more. They can't possibly win...it is kind of like trying to stop a run away train by setting mouse traps on the rails.
And he continues:
"When I was a memeber, long ago and far away, their consting demads for tithing, and their refusal to account for the funds they had already gathered disgruntled me to the point of dropping my membership . . . "
Like any non-profit organization, they run it on club dues and donations. They have to solicit this money from their membership...which is not an easy or pleasant task...usually utilizing telemarketing companies. They are required by law to make the annual statement available to anybody...which doesn't mean that they have to send you a copy...hell, this would eat up their meager contributions in no time.
and added:
". . .way too much emotion, and not enought facts (much like the NRA and most organized religions, I agree with the core principle, but cannot abide the tactics, or dogma)"
Like any volunteer organization, they rely on emotion to keep their voluteers motivated enough to get off of their fat asses and get some things done. Like all volunteer organizations, there are battles won but they have no chance to win the war. Money and greed are just too powerful. Unlike the NRA and organized religion, they deal with the real science. When you are dealing with science, of course, there are dissenting opinions. There are "hired guns" working for BFI that will say anything for a buck...just ask Jeffery Wigand (former BW tobacco executive). The NRA deals with scare tactics (Willy Horton is gonna rape your daughter unless you have an assault rifle under your bed) and religion deals with faith exclusively (see my original post).
and he continued:
"As for your remarks concerning Texas, I suggest you expand them to cover most of the developed world . . . ."
True, but Texas was the state referred to in the post I was responding to...and they are famous for their abuse.
and finally:
"one thing most environmentalists miss is what I call the "and then?" factor."
That is not the only thing they (and everybody else) miss. The examples you site are what we call "end of the pipe" problems. Think of it in industrial terms...where you have a factory that has several waste streams collectively coming into a waste treatment facility (wtf). Then you have the effluent of the wtf going into a stream through a single pipe. The effluent is tested from this pipe before it enters the stream, and technology is applied to try to reduce the pollutants to meet the necessary standards. Applying this "end of pipe" technology can be very expensive and often has less than satisfactory results. This has been the way we have dealt with environmental problems until very recently. It is much more effective and far simpler for the factory to apply technogy to the source of the contaminants, and eliminate most if not all of them, rather than trying to treat them at the end of the pipe.
The real problem with environmental degradation isn't that we have SUV's or slash and burn agriculture (although those indians in the Amazon managed to feed themselves long before they started to cut down the rain forest). These are merely symptoms of the problem. The real problem is that we have WAY too many people on this planet. If we fix this source problem, then all of the symptoms (the end of pipe problems) will disappear.
I think that this will be an impossible task, like the run away train I was talking about. By the time we realize collectively what we have to do, it will probably be too late...for us anyway. We are fragile creatures that require specific and narrow environmental conditions. We have a very slow reproductive cycle. Actually, there is a large contingent of scientist who contend that we may have already passed the point of no return...we really don't know when the critical mass will be exceeded.
What does all this mean (your "and then"? Working with the science in EPA for 30 years has taught me what this really is all about. It means 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!
As you can see, I have become a bit jaded by my retirement...sometimes you can know too much! |
Bomber
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 03:02 pm: |
|
Jim
yessir, I can see your jadedness. also your bias.
both are ok, so far as I'm concerned . . . .everyone has biases (they are often of great comfort -- yours on the Sierra Club for instance -- they are no more unbiased than is big industry, I think)
I like to think that I live a bit more responsibly than your last paragraph describes . . . I've not halted doing many things that folks I'll call SUV conservationalists ask me too (be interesting to run a list of Sierra Clubbers driving SUVs, yes? ((grin))), but I DO try to cut down on the impact I have . . . .
seriously, any tips that I, as a private citizen, can do to help? |
Blake
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 05:03 pm: |
|
Jimidan,
Why do I need to present evidence to refute false logic and bullshit?
Okee dokey. You want evidence to refute all the silly scaremongering?
Global warming has been THE pet issue of all enviro active scaremongering campaigners of late. Did you not get the news recently? Scientists very recently discovered that the Earth was far warmer during the middle ages than current global warming predictions forecast for our future. That was one of the most productive and fruitful ages in human history. Then it got cooler. Now it is once again warming. It is a global trend not a manmade doomsday scenario.
Should we continue to strive to curb our pollution? Of course. Are we facing a dire scenario as promulgated by the enviro scaremongers? Nope.
By the way, I stated plenty of facts within the material from which you drew my quotations. Apparently you choose to ignore it.
You also apparently missed my later post on March 5th.  You may be too dedicated to your own agenda to permit subjective consideration of my views. Don't you think that we are FAR more sensitive to environmental issues now than we were 50 years ago?
Oh brother, another cospiracy theorist... so the newpapers and news media giants are the bad guys on the environment now eh? BAHAHAHAH!!! Your comment is typical of the ones that Jim had layed out. Fantastical claims, no substance. Six mega corporations... wooooooooo. The specter of "mega" corporations sending fear through the public's psyche. wooooooooo. You ever visit Mexico City? How about Istanbul? Katmandu?
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. |
Crusty
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 06:44 pm: |
|
You can not destroy the environment. You can only change it. Even a featureless radioactive ball in space has an environment,albeit a simple one. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Friday, April 18, 2003 - 10:17 pm: |
|
Featureless ball?? not soon I hope, I was kinda hoping we could hold off on that one till the sun swelled up & cindered the place.
I have been following the "global warming" issue for longer than it had a cute name. Climatealogical Archeology is a hobby. So is discarded technology. (voodoo 5 rules!! oops) The Vikings stormed forth during the LCO (little climactic optimum) and their colonies failed at the end of that global warming trend.
Solar flux
My thought is, using fossil fuels for fuel is insane, the resource is the capital we must use to find renewable ones, we are only cheating our grandchildren.
External combustion engines don't have the smog problem of internal. (but I'm keeping the Buell!)
The environment IS self regulating, and I don't want to be eliminated in the process, so we better be responsible with our crud. Look at the old Soviet Union, and see how the people are being eliminated by their own pollution.
China may (I'm taking bets here!) find their super dam project destroys their agriculture just like the Aswan dam trashed Egypt's. (not to mention changed the political scene, 1 Israeli F-4 with a small nuke on the Aswan dam leads to a wall of radioactive water sweeping Cairo into the Med. notice how Egypt is not even close to screwing with Israel?)
Not all environmentalists are nuts. But some are. Rush Limbaugh knows Diddle about science, and repeats what he reads, and he reads what he wants to believe. (like all of us)
Global warming is real, thank goodness. We are in an Ice age. At least that is what I read, and the explanations make sense.
Oh by the way, If they say "global warming" and "ozone layer" in the same breath in an argument, they are clueless.
Walk lightly, pack out what you pack in, and DON'T get between a mother and her cubs. |
|
President Bush Destroys the Environment in Favor of Industry »
Archive through April 18, 2003