|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
we are putting a lot s*** into it
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:57:31 -0700, Mark Hickey
wrote: That's why I would be opposed to spending trillions of our hard-earned dollars trying to reduce CO2 emissions, when there's very little evidence that it's more than a very, very minor part of the problem. One must wonder how the emissions from a million SUV's compare to a single volcanic eruption-St. Helen's, Pinatubo, etc.. Interestingly, some propose the airborn dust from volcanic eruptions act as a "Sunblock", reducing light that reaches the earth's surface to be reemitted in longer wavelengths that are more readily trapped in the "Greenhouse". So we are back to articles of faith along party lines, that reduces both positions to the stupid "Angels on the head of a pin" speculation. 1: We're all gonna die and we are taking the polar bears with us. 2: Oh, Good. I can grow Super Beefsteak Tomatoes instead of Early Girl Hybrids. 3: President Gore was robbed of his promised Birthright. 4: W, the drooling stammering lackey of Enron and the Oil and War cartels did it all on purpose. _______________________________________ Everybody happy? Now what about CYCLING? _______________________________________ |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
we are putting a lot s*** into it
Specialized wrote:
On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:57:31 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote: That's why I would be opposed to spending trillions of our hard-earned dollars trying to reduce CO2 emissions, when there's very little evidence that it's more than a very, very minor part of the problem. One must wonder how the emissions from a million SUV's compare to a single volcanic eruption-St. Helen's, Pinatubo, etc.. Great example. Remember the uproar over CFCs? They were gonna destroy the ozone 'cuz our air conditioners might leak occasionally. Thing is, a single small volcano released many, many times more of the compounds than mankind has ever produced. So what was our "solution"? We replace the efficient R12 in our air conditioners with R43. Now our cars burn more gas to keep us cool, thereby adding REAL pollutants to the atmosphere. We can repeat the same mistake with CO2 and spend trillions of dollars (and cause more "real problems" than we solve) if we adopt the Kyoto protocol. Another parallel to the current global warming debate - some scientists were convinced that our CFCs were depleting the ozone, and that this was going to cause horrendous changes in our planet. We were going to be forced to become mole people to avoid the sun. Others pointed out the "volcano conundrum", and the fact that the hole over the south pole was much bigger than the one over the north pole, even though the industrial / automotive impact would have been a small fraction of that of the northern hemisphere. Fast forward to today and scientists have figured out that the ozone hole wasn't really shrinking as much as they thought, and naturally shrinks and grows. Interestingly, some propose the airborn dust from volcanic eruptions act as a "Sunblock", reducing light that reaches the earth's surface to be reemitted in longer wavelengths that are more readily trapped in the "Greenhouse". So we are back to articles of faith along party lines, that reduces both positions to the stupid "Angels on the head of a pin" speculation. 1: We're all gonna die and we are taking the polar bears with us. 2: Oh, Good. I can grow Super Beefsteak Tomatoes instead of Early Girl Hybrids. 3: President Gore was robbed of his promised Birthright. 4: W, the drooling stammering lackey of Enron and the Oil and War cartels did it all on purpose. _______________________________________ Everybody happy? Now what about CYCLING? _______________________________________ Heh heh heh. Nice synopsis. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
we are putting a lot s*** into it
Mark Hickey wrote:
Specialized wrote: On Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:57:31 -0700, Mark Hickey wrote: That's why I would be opposed to spending trillions of our hard-earned dollars trying to reduce CO2 emissions, when there's very little evidence that it's more than a very, very minor part of the problem. One must wonder how the emissions from a million SUV's compare to a single volcanic eruption-St. Helen's, Pinatubo, etc.. Great example. Remember the uproar over CFCs? They were gonna destroy the ozone 'cuz our air conditioners might leak occasionally. Thing is, a single small volcano released many, many times more of the compounds than mankind has ever produced. So what was our "solution"? We replace the efficient R12 in our air conditioners with R43. Now our cars burn more gas to keep us cool, thereby adding REAL pollutants to the atmosphere. This is untrue. From the FAQ http://www.faqs.org/faqs/ozone-depletion/stratcl/ "In summary: * Older indirect _estimates_ of the contribution of volcanic eruptions to stratospheric chlorine gave results that ranged from much less than anthropogenic to somewhat larger than anthropogenic. It is difficult to reconcile the larger estimates with the altitude distribution of inorganic chlorine in the stratosphere, or its steady increase over the past 20 years. Nevertheless, these estimates raised an important scientific question that needed to be resolved by _direct_ measurements in the stratosphere. * Direct measurements on El Chichon, the largest eruption of the 1980's, and on Pinatubo, the largest since 1912, show that the volcanic contribution is small. * Claims that volcanoes produce more stratospheric chlorine than human activity arise from the careless use of old scientific estimates that have since been refuted by observation. * Claims that a single recent eruption injected ~500 times a year's CFC production into the stratosphere have no scientific basis whatsoever." We can repeat the same mistake with CO2 and spend trillions of dollars (and cause more "real problems" than we solve) if we adopt the Kyoto protocol. It was not a mistake. It was an example of world agencies recognizing a problem, confronting the economic realities, instituting global policy agreements and getting some progress on the problem. It's an example of what can be done -- not a counter-example. This is a all very reminiscent of the debates that raged over automobile pollution control in the late 60's - early 70's. There was an uproar over the impact on vehicle cost and efficiency, despite the horrific air quality of the time. The right choice was made, nobody debates that now. Another parallel to the current global warming debate - some scientists were convinced that our CFCs were depleting the ozone, and that this was going to cause horrendous changes in our planet. We were going to be forced to become mole people to avoid the sun. Others pointed out the "volcano conundrum", and the fact that the hole over the south pole was much bigger than the one over the north pole, even though the industrial / automotive impact would have been a small fraction of that of the northern hemisphere. Fast forward to today and scientists have figured out that the ozone hole wasn't really shrinking as much as they thought, and naturally shrinks and grows. You are exaggerating and distorting. You are representing sensationalism as fact and marginal opinion as science. You've really got to move past Fox News. The atmospheric chemistry is pretty well understood, and most of the world's leadership came to relatively quick agreement to phase out CFC's. The economic consequences haven't been as dire as the hysterics predicted and atmospheric CFC levels have stabilized. It's a success story, as is that (mostly) of pollution control in the industrialized West. We could use a few more. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
we are putting a lot s*** into it
Peter Cole wrote:
Mark Hickey wrote: Another parallel to the current global warming debate - some scientists were convinced that our CFCs were depleting the ozone, and that this was going to cause horrendous changes in our planet. We were going to be forced to become mole people to avoid the sun. Others pointed out the "volcano conundrum", and the fact that the hole over the south pole was much bigger than the one over the north pole, even though the industrial / automotive impact would have been a small fraction of that of the northern hemisphere. Fast forward to today and scientists have figured out that the ozone hole wasn't really shrinking as much as they thought, and naturally shrinks and grows. You are exaggerating and distorting. You are representing sensationalism as fact and marginal opinion as science. You've really got to move past Fox News. The atmospheric chemistry is pretty well understood, and most of the world's leadership came to relatively quick agreement to phase out CFC's. The economic consequences haven't been as dire as the hysterics predicted and atmospheric CFC levels have stabilized. It's a success story, as is that (mostly) of pollution control in the industrialized West. We could use a few more. I was quoting from memory, and hadn't read up on the subject for a number of years. In doing a little digging, it does appear that the concept of a volcano as a major contributor to the ozone reduction has been pretty well debunked (at least as THE major contributor - there's some debate about how much chlorine from a large eruption reaches the stratosphere it seems). Then there's still the question of why there is a large hole in the ozone over the hemisphere with very little CFC production and use, and why there isn't a corresponding one over the north pole. And the reading I've done does validate the fact that there is still a lot to learn about the subject, and not yet a real consensus among all the atmospheric scientists. But you're right, I was (unintentionally) exaggerating when I brought up the volcano angle, and was no doubt underestimating the effect of man-made CFCs on the ozone. Mea culpa. Still, I remember a lot of panic among soccer moms who seemed to believe that their progeny would burst into flames if they weren't slathered with SPF10000 sunscreen before every exposure to the sun, due to the "hole in the ozone" (which at most resulted in a few % reduction in ozone in the mid-latitudes). That (IMHO) is the real similarity between the current global warming hysteria and the ozone issue. Both have some basis in reality, but have been blown far out of proportion by skewed and inaccurate, sensationalist reporting. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
we are putting a lot s*** into it
Kevan Smith wrote:
In article , Mark Hickey wrote: That (IMHO) is the real similarity between the current global warming hysteria and the ozone issue. Both have some basis in reality, but have been blown far out of proportion by skewed and inaccurate, sensationalist reporting. Why would the right wing corporate media do that? It's in their interest to promote the status quo. Oh, wait, they _are_ promoting the status quo by labeling global warming concerns "inaccurate" and "sensationalist." Which explains the unanimous vote by the Senate to NOT follow the Kyoto protocol, right? 'Cuz they're all right wing corporate hacks. LOL. Yes, you used those terms, but I heard them on Fox first. I've heard the arguments long before that, but I'd be surprised if you could actually manage to watch Fox. You don't seem to tolerate alternate viewpoints very well. ;-) Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
we are putting a lot s*** into it
Kevan Smith wrote:
In article , Mark Hickey wrote: Which explains the unanimous vote by the Senate to NOT follow the Kyoto protocol, right? 'Cuz they're all right wing corporate hacks. From my vantage, that's fairly accurate. Those in the Senate you would call "liberal" are still conservative to me. I have no problem believing that at all, Kevan... ;-) In fact, I view _you_ as a very far right wacko (but I'd buy one of your frames). But there's no question that regardless of party or professed ideology, all in the Senate are corporate whores. Corporations have the best government their money can buy. I'm not sure it's "all"... I'm idealistic enough to want to believe that there are still career polititians who are serving for the sake of serving. And I'd disagree with the premise that it's entirely corporations that hold sway over our elected officials - it's also a lot of special interest groups (including the evil corporations, of course). I think the whole problem IS the concept of a "career polititian". The founding fathers had a concept of a government body made up by those wealthy enough to be able to serve without needing to be paid (and presumably, therefore much more immune to influence). And the rest of the model was that they'd serve a short while and then retire voluntarily. While that sounds archaic and totally non-PC today, it would have some serious advantages. For example, like him or hate him, it's hard to imagine Gov. Arnie Schwarzenegger (not a career polititian by any means) rolling over for a kickback from anyone. He simply doesn't need the money. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
we are putting a lot s*** into it
Mark Hickey wrote:
Kevan Smith wrote: In article , Mark Hickey wrote: That (IMHO) is the real similarity between the current global warming hysteria and the ozone issue. Both have some basis in reality, but have been blown far out of proportion by skewed and inaccurate, sensationalist reporting. Why would the right wing corporate media do that? It's in their interest to promote the status quo. Oh, wait, they _are_ promoting the status quo by labeling global warming concerns "inaccurate" and "sensationalist." Which explains the unanimous vote by the Senate to NOT follow the Kyoto protocol, right? 'Cuz they're all right wing corporate hacks. LOL. Yes, you used those terms, but I heard them on Fox first. I've heard the arguments long before that, but I'd be surprised if you could actually manage to watch Fox. You don't seem to tolerate alternate viewpoints very well. ;-) Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame I don't think any body that watches Fox could possibly be a Democrat. I won't watch Fox news just because they are so obviously tilted. The same people probably think Rush Limbaugh actually knows what he is running on about. Bill Baka |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
we are putting a lot s*** into it
Bill Baka wrote:
I don't think any body that watches Fox could possibly be a Democrat. I won't watch Fox news just because they are so obviously tilted. The same people probably think Rush Limbaugh actually knows what he is running on about. If you never watch it, you'll never know. The difference is that Fox puts on pundits from both sides and lets them each present their case. Sometimes it's clear that the Democrat/Liberal has it right, sometimes it's the Republican/Conservative. But it's always educational. If you prefer to get your news from those who don't do that, it's fine with me. But why settle for media with a "hidden bias" (one that's been well-documented) when there are alternatives that will let you actually develop your own opinions rather than have theirs subtly applied to everything you hear? At least with Limbaugh (almost never, ever listen to him myself, BTW) acknowledges his bias. You know what you're getting, and can judge the content accordingly. But when Dan Rather spoke, most listeners thought they were getting the straight story, rather than "Dan's twist". A great example - the mainstream media has convinced the majority of Americans that the economy is struggling. However, virtually every indicator says the opposite. Fox reports that we're in the middle of a very strong economy. Which approach would you prefer? Factual, or one guided by political leanings? Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
we are putting a lot s*** into it
Kevan Smith wrote:
In article , Mark Hickey wrote: The difference is that Fox puts on pundits from both sides and lets them each present their case. I can't believe you said that seriously. First of all, it's not like there are only two sides to issues. Second, FOX chooses "liberals" who aren't really "liberals" at all. The range of "debate" on FOX is laughable. I think Kevan's on to something here, Mark. Those so-called liberals Fox trots out are just actors! You can tell by their over-the-top, spittle-out-the-mouth, snarling hatred of GWB. They must be "plants" to make people side with the attractive, polite conservatives they find to juxtapose with those rude and nasty "fake libs". Oh, well... Fun while it lasted! |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
we are putting a lot s*** into it
Mark Hickey wrote:
Bill Baka wrote: I don't think any body that watches Fox could possibly be a Democrat. I won't watch Fox news just because they are so obviously tilted. The same people probably think Rush Limbaugh actually knows what he is running on about. If you never watch it, you'll never know. The difference is that Fox puts on pundits from both sides and lets them each present their case. Sometimes it's clear that the Democrat/Liberal has it right, sometimes it's the Republican/Conservative. But it's always educational. If you prefer to get your news from those who don't do that, it's fine with me. But why settle for media with a "hidden bias" (one that's been well-documented) when there are alternatives that will let you actually develop your own opinions rather than have theirs subtly applied to everything you hear? At least with Limbaugh (almost never, ever listen to him myself, BTW) acknowledges his bias. You know what you're getting, and can judge the content accordingly. But when Dan Rather spoke, most listeners thought they were getting the straight story, rather than "Dan's twist". A great example - the mainstream media has convinced the majority of Americans that the economy is struggling. However, virtually every indicator says the opposite. Fox reports that we're in the middle of a very strong economy. Which approach would you prefer? Factual, or one guided by political leanings? Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame Mark, The only way I get non-biased news is when I turn on my short wave radio and listen to the news direct from other countries. It would wake up most people to hear what they say on their own station about the United States. I get BBC, Australia, Japan, even China (Red biased) and many others in 'Engrish'. We are not as healthy or as popular as what Fox would have people believe. Bill Baka |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Putting a Coker tire on the Airfoil rim | Chrashing | Unicycling | 1 | January 22nd 06 02:22 PM |
Checklist for putting together kids bikes | DaveB | Australia | 3 | September 27th 05 08:38 AM |
We're Putting That Bitch On Ice | [email protected] | Techniques | 0 | June 24th 05 06:37 AM |
putting on a mountain bike race | paul heaton | UK | 7 | February 11th 05 08:52 PM |
Putting cyclists at risk | Wallace Shackleton | UK | 25 | March 19th 04 11:51 AM |