Cold, Hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Baiting Guru Joined: 08 Feb 2005 Posts: 2301

You should see me after a burrito. Laughing

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:47 am

^^So you're the one melting the Antarctic Peninsula???

Supposedly there is research in NZ going on to reduce the methane "produced" by cows by playing around with the grass' chemical composition. A couple of years ago there were plans to impose a methane tax on farmers for the emissions of their cattle.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3005740.stm

It didn't go down very well.

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:52 am

Here's how to fix that broken flying machine: Eco-cities

If not, two big farms will have to do; one in Northwest Alaska, and one somewhere warmer...

Baiting Guru Joined: 08 Feb 2005 Posts: 2301

Josh wrote:

A couple of years ago there were plans to impose a methane tax on farmers for the emissions of their cattle.

The farmers would be right to simply sell all their cattle. Then, sell the land to developers so they can build more houses, using more energy created by burning coal. Meanwhile, the New Zealand beef industry would collapse, greenhouse gases would increase, there'd be less food, and everyone would be happy as pigs in poop.

We need to tax politicians in the form of 2 years pay for every stupid tax they try and impose (or suggest).

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 4:59 am

magildo wrote:

Here's how to fix that broken flying machine: Eco-cities

Looks like a really interseting book that one. I wonder if he proposes to increase urban density (to reduce travel and use land more efficiently) or to reduce density so everyone has enough land around them to be self-supporting.

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:22 pm

@Josh:

It is the thought of using up all our resources that is more of a compelling argument to me that we should do what we can to switch to renewables. Even if someone does not agree that greenhouse gases are causing global warming, how can they argue with the logic that at some point we will run out of oil. It takes millions of years to make more and we are using it a lot faster than it is created. If we switch to solar/wind/whatever that is renewable then we can slow or stop the use of oil/coal etc.

My concern (at least in the US right now) is that people look at Ethanol and Bio-Diesel as alternatives. The problem is that if we used ALL of our farm land for corn and turned ALL of that into Ethanol we would only replace about 12% of our oil needs... not to mention not have much to eat!

Posted: Fri Aug 24, 2007 8:28 pm

Stargate said:

Quote:

You should see me after a burrito.

You should have heard the fatal four way going on in the crapper at work the other day. That olfactory meltdown was legendary.

Master Baiter Joined: 15 Mar 2006 Posts: 193

There are signs that the global consensus (or conspiracy, if you prefer) on climate change is beginning to crack in the face of opposition and reasoned argument from the so-called "global warming deniers".

Viscount Monckton has issued a challenge to Senator Al Gore, inviting him to take part in a televised debate about Global Warming. Gore has not, so far, accepted the challenge and is unlikely to do so because even he knows that his sanctimonious, alarmist film 'An Inconvenient Truth' is a tissue of lies and that faced with an intelligent, erudite and highly articulate opponent he will only be shown up as the tosser he is.

*** BANNED *** Joined: 18 Jul 2004 Posts: 2049

^^^^^^ Yes some believe still that global warming is a conspiracy.

There are also many who still believe the earth is flat.

Master Baiter Joined: 15 Mar 2006 Posts: 193

^^^^
Yes, true but there are others that will believe anything that's fed to them without question.

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:43 pm

Come on folks.

This thread has been degrading from an intelligent discussion to Mickey Mouse for a while now.

Either back on course, away from politics and ad hominems or it's time for the keys.

Posted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 9:57 pm

I've always thought Dr James Lovelock's "Gaia Hypothesis" made sense, although many scientists and other 'experts' have dismissed him as a crank for many years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis

While I am as concerned as anyone about global warming - self-preservation is a very human instinct - I think there is a bigger picture and that the planet will dictate our ultimate fate as a species rather than vice versa. Unless a meteor wipes us out like the dinosaurs.

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:26 am

@Gansher:

I think that we have the ability to dictate our fate. Even if we have or do screw up planet Earth to the point that humans cannot survive on it, we can, if we put our minds to it, move off this planet. I don't doubt for a minute that mankind can do it, but will we?

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:54 am

Perhaps in many, many hundreds of years' time we MIGHT have the technology and skills to inhabit other planets but I'm not sure we have that amount of time left to fix things here. There is still a huge amount of complacency and ignorance about the damage we are doing collectively as a species and individually. And I agree that our almost total dependence on oil and it's by-products is an urgent problem because it's a finite resource and when it's gone it's gone. So far there don't appear to be any viable alternatives although many environmentalists in Australia are now conceding that perhaps nuclear power is the least worst option after all.

We can all do our bit by thinking micro - turn off lights you don't need; don't keep your house aircon'd like fridge all summer long; take a shower, not a bath; heat only the rooms you are using; walk 2 blocks to the store, don't drive; get a bicycle, etc.

One statistic that always makes me pause is that while America has approx 4% of the world's population, it produces about 25% of the greenhouse gases. I don't think anyone has dared calculate how much India and China are contributing to the problem. One of the first signs of global warming is changing and/or more extreme weather patterns and I'm sure everyone, wherever they live, has noticed this in the last few years. It's most definitely happening and whether it's an entirely man-made problem, or part of the cyclical nature of these phenomena, we have a responsibility to minimise its impact now and for future generations.

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 3:33 am

Gnasher wrote:

we have a responsibility to minimise its impact now and for future generations.

But by default, some of the children of future generations will become 419 scammers. Is it not therefore our responsibility to burn oil based products like it's going out of style and throw away all our old supermarket carrier bags?

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 11:21 am

@Ganaher:

Returning to more nuke power I think is starting to gain some serious consideration here in the US as well. Of course that is also ultimately a finite resource as well, just not as finite as oil/coal.

One problem there will be the fact that you have all this electricity, now how do we make it work in cars? I would assume that in rural Australia, just like rural America, that public transport is not really an option? So we have to have some kind of car that can use the electrical power and that does not take 8 hours to recharge.

Not to mention the problem of the radio active waste and what to do with it.

Nuke power I think is a bridge from the oil/coal dependency to whatever renewable resource we end up with. Hydrogen might play a role in that conversion as well.

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:28 pm

Well I guess we get to the discussion about car companies and their vested interest in producing petro/diesel powered vehicles instead of electric cars which of course are more expensive to produce and purchase. These cars don't generate a million BHP either and people are still obsessed with speed so the prospect of driving anywhere at a stately 50mph is anathema. And what about air travel? Any alternative fuel out there or do we go back to the Hindenberg?

Posted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:44 pm

Oh certainly there are a lot of obstacles to overcome. What I find annoying about a lot of the hard core environmentalists is that they want the change to happen overnight. Start generating what power we can from renewables and if we cannot generate enough power to meet demand then people will just have to do without. That is not a good solution. Can you imagine the rebellion, misery, death and destruction that would cause? We have no choice but to transition to something that is renewable and not bad for the environment.

Of course that means a lot of batteries, and they have all kinds of heavy metals in them and are nasty to produce..... so pick your poison I guess?

*** BANNED *** Joined: 18 Jul 2004 Posts: 2049

Baldrick wrote:

^^^^
Yes, true but there are others that will believe anything that's fed to them without question.

Absolutely!!!! - You are most correct sir Thumbs up

That is what has kept Karl Rove employed all these years.

Not quite a Newb Joined: 14 Jul 2005 Posts: 41

You can thank GoldHat for the lock. Rolling Eyes

Cold, Hard facts take the heat out of some hot claims	View next topic View previous topic