billvon 2,475 #26 August 6, 2004 >If you take the percentage of lead it would take to hurt you if you were >shot as opposed to the amount of polution vs mass of the earth and >accelerate it the same - it wouldn't even scratch the surface of rice paper. And if you took the mass of the bullet vs the weight of the earth it would be a million times less and it would still kill you. Was there an applicable analogy in there somewhere? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #27 August 6, 2004 If you throw a rock at an ocean it may ripple a litle bit - but the waves that nature itself produces is deadly.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #28 August 6, 2004 QuoteQuote There is true honesty in that statement. It is not about "preserving the ecosystem." IT is not about allowing the earth to continue its natural processes. I think the biggest mistake environmentalists ever did was framing the discussion in "saving the world". It's not about "saving the world". The world will live long and prosper long after humans are wiped out of existence. The key, is that we need to save the ability of humanity to prosper on earth. The nutshell is that we don't need to save the planet, we need to save humanity. Oddly, humans are the one species on earth that have the ability to severly impact its environment. I have no doubt that we'll continue to do that. I hope we do it before its too late. _Am Ahhh Haaa That is the point!!!!! It has never been about saving the environment! It is about saving ourselves. Darwinism says species come and go ... Humans included. Or, we evolve to the change. Humans are quite adept at learning to cope. The Earth will still LIVE with out us .... Without all Mammals for that matter... THere was a time before us and there will be a time after. Earth though, will not be "Dead" until that ball of fire up there decided to flare up in it's last Hoorahh as it were. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #29 August 6, 2004 QuoteIf you throw a rock at an ocean it may ripple a litle bit - but the waves that nature itself produces is deadly. Which means in a round about way - you put too much stock into the importance of the human race as opposed to Earth.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
markd_nscr986 0 #30 August 6, 2004 Quite a thesis,billvon.......but I didnt see any mention of the largest single contributor of "bad" gases to our atmosphere.......volcanoes!More CO2 and methane and sulfur compounds than all man made sources combinedMarc SCR 6046 SCS 3004 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #31 August 6, 2004 Good point. We should stop companies from building new volcanoes unless those volcanoes meet EPA standards. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,475 #32 August 6, 2004 >I didnt see any mention of the largest single contributor of "bad" gases to >our atmosphere.......volcanoes!More CO2 and methane and sulfur >compounds than all man made sources combined Nope, not even close. Volcanoes pump an average of 500 million metric tons of CO2 a year into the atmosphere; we are putting about 17000 metric tons a year into the atmosphere counting all sources of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. We are 34 times as bad as volcanoes. Or, if you just want to count burning fossil fuels and not wood, clearing of land, landfills etc it's around 7000 million metric tons, still 14 times as bad. Methane? We pump around 371 MMT of methane into the atmosphere a year, compared to 40-50 MMT for all geologic sources. Volcanoes are just a part of that total. Volcanoes just can't hold a candle to a nation of SUV's. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #33 August 6, 2004 Quotevolcanoes, bad, volcanoes not as bad Either of you have any sources for your numbers?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #34 August 6, 2004 I googled "volcano numbers" but I just got a bunch of porn sites saying stuff about "multiple explosive orgasms" and "hot magma all over her face" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #35 August 6, 2004 Those are important scientific discoveries; for the good of the site, I advise you to post your hard won links (unless it's just more advertising and endlessly linking non-porn) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #36 August 7, 2004 Quote Methane? We pump around 371 MMT of methane into the atmosphere a year, compared to 40-50 MMT for all geologic sources. Volcanoes are just a part of that total. Well then - EVERYONE - EVRYONE LISTEN DO NOT FORGET YOUR BEANO!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #37 August 8, 2004 Quote>I didnt see any mention of the largest single contributor of "bad" gases to >our atmosphere.......volcanoes!More CO2 and methane and sulfur >compounds than all man made sources combined Nope, not even close. Volcanoes pump an average of 500 million metric tons of CO2 a year into the atmosphere; we are putting about 17000 metric tons a year into the atmosphere counting all sources of anthropogenic carbon dioxide. We are 34 times as bad as volcanoes. Or, if you just want to count burning fossil fuels and not wood, clearing of land, landfills etc it's around 7000 million metric tons, still 14 times as bad. Methane? We pump around 371 MMT of methane into the atmosphere a year, compared to 40-50 MMT for all geologic sources. Volcanoes are just a part of that total. Volcanoes just can't hold a candle to a nation of SUV's. According to this study your numbers are Half of what they should be .... more like 1000 Megatons/yr Oh, and you will notice this is just "SOME" of the volcanic output. Where do you get your #'s bill? Please post sources. http://jardhitafelag.is/papers/PDF_Session_12/S12Paper103.pdf ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
newsstand 0 #38 August 8, 2004 Tough to prove it is where the problem is. Lets say you go to your Dr. and the doc says you have a fatal diesease but certain lifestyle changes can reduce or eliminate the impact. Being a good medical consumer you go to another Dr. who says. No problem, just normal life changes. Now confused you seek a third opinion. This one says you might have a disease or it might be normal but the suggested lifestyle changes are good for you anyway so why not implement them? If the global warming believers are right we need to make changes. If they are wrong dumping less crap in to the environment is good for us anyway so why not make the changes? Oh I know "It is expensive and will cost jobs." How about "it will stimulate the economy and create jobs in new sectors?" "Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening." -- Oliver Wendell Holmes Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallRate 0 #39 August 8, 2004 I was looking into this (volcanic contributions of C02) when I first saw this thread. This is one link that I found, which appears to support Bill's figures. http://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html I don't know if it's accurate. Just contributing. FallRate Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #40 August 8, 2004 This is a complex issue and things (as in most things) are not black and white. I do agree that the "greens" have over simplified the issue. I can recommend to read some of the stuff the skeptical environmentalists and Dr. Bjorn Lomborg have written. Good starting point is www.lomborg.com Lomborg's take is that there are problems with global warming and pollution, but that the priorities and actions are wrong. He did a study that showed that if Kyoto is fully implemented it would only have a minor effect on global warming and suggests that other measures for the same amount of cost would have far better effect for the environment.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #41 August 9, 2004 "Hey play nice...." Aye yer right, don't post angry (work shit, nothing to do with you) being the lesson. I must try and avoid venting frustration on the forum.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #42 August 9, 2004 "Why are they so damned worried about the rising sea levels? Because it might wash away their Malibu beachside properties and interfere with human activity." Quite the opposite. I'm more concerned about the effects on people who can't even afford a decent house, let alone a pad in Malibu. The people who can't afford sea defences, flood barriers, etc. The people we bail out every time their crops fail. The West coast of South America. for example, suffers every time there is an El Nino 'anomaly'. Or the poor folks of places like Bangladesh. And my summer, lost, all lost to global climate change.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #43 August 9, 2004 "it would only have a minor effect on global warming" Any effect at all would welcome Mikkey, granted Kyoto is not perfect, but at least its a start.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #44 August 9, 2004 Yes, kyoto was a start, but at what cost to the US consumer or to US companies? Was the cost worth the outcome? Is that why we pulled out? If the world invented and Emission free car but it cost 100,000 dollars to buy, would it make sense to outlaw all cars in the US which were not emission free? Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #45 August 9, 2004 "Yes, kyoto was a start, but at what cost to the US consumer or to US companies? Was the cost worth the outcome?" The US didn't sign up to Kyoto, Full stop. It didn't cost the US anything other than the expenses of the bureaucrats to attend the various summit meetings. "Is that why we pulled out?" I don't really know the real reason.. Cost? Bad science? Seemingly unfair? 'rich countries' were supposed to lead the way, with more lax restrictions on poorer countries. Politically bad timing? It would have meaqnt punitive taxation on fuel, which is not on your Boss's current agenda Any or all of the above.... Upshot is, no US support, Kyoto will probably fail. Lack of US support also meant that Russia wouldn't sign up to it. If they can't persuade the world's biggest producer of CO2 to signup, its not really worth pursueing. By the world's biggest producer, I'd just like to remind you that the US produces 25% of man-made CO2, with just 5% of the population. But thats not really as bad as it sounds......EG if you are say Switzerland with little or no heavy manufacturing, you simply ain't going to make that much CO2, even though you might use CO2 intensive products, imports etc. Kyoto had a CO2 emissions license bartering system, so Switzerland could trade their allowance of CO2 emissions with the country of origin for their imports, or simply go without those products.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #46 August 9, 2004 QuoteThe West coast of South America. for example, suffers every time there is an El Nino 'anomaly'. Or the poor folks of places like Bangladesh. First off, El Nino is not an anomaly any more than La Nina is an anomaly. It is no more of an anomaly than a category IV hurricane - horrible when they happen, but not exactly unexpected. It is no more an anomaly than an earthquake of greater than 7.0 - horrible, but they happen. In a single night in 1970, 300,000 people died from flooding in Bangladesh. 175,000 were killed in 1898. Most of this comes from storm surge from cyclones. Yes, those people need not die. Global warming was not responsible for the deaths in 1898, was it? Still, I recognize and agree with your point that in places like Bangladesh, which is nothing more than a flat, densely populated river delta with very low elevation, rising water level could kill millions. That's why I continue to stress that the environmental movement is dishonest if it argues that interference with natural processes is wrong. The environmental movement seeks global cooperation in maintaining the environment. I view it as a concerted attempt to mold the environment in a way best suited for humankind. I dont' have a problem with that. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #47 August 9, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe West coast of South America. for example, suffers every time there is an El Nino 'anomaly'. Or the poor folks of places like Bangladesh. First off, El Nino is not an anomaly any more than La Nina is an anomaly. It is no more of an anomaly than a category IV hurricane - horrible when they happen, but not exactly unexpected. It is no more an anomaly than an earthquake of greater than 7.0 - horrible, but they happen. In a single night in 1970, 300,000 people died from flooding in Bangladesh. 175,000 were killed in 1898. Most of this comes from storm surge from cyclones. Yes, those people need not die. Global warming was not responsible for the deaths in 1898, was it? Still, I recognize and agree with your point that in places like Bangladesh, which is nothing more than a flat, densely populated river delta with very low elevation, rising water level could kill millions. That's why I continue to stress that the environmental movement is dishonest if it argues that interference with natural processes is wrong. The environmental movement seeks global cooperation in maintaining the environment. I view it as a concerted attempt to mold the environment in a way best suited for humankind. I dont' have a problem with that. What you say is TRUE. It is the main reason in the US that most insurance companies don't carry flood insurance on home owner policies without paying extra. Stupid people LOVE to live in flood plains!!! Live by the River, Die by the River It is a poker expression, but it comes from real life. People lived by the rich fertile ground of rivers, however, you can pay the price every few years when it swells..... ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nacmacfeegle 0 #48 August 10, 2004 Okay guys, El Nino ignorance aside..Here is one scenario that we can play out, and it does affect you, intimately. When the likes of us Europeans see something we don't particularly like, we tend to take consumer driven action. If you folks continue your rightly or wrongly held denial that WE are not fucking up the environment, its likely that we will start boycotting goods from guilty nations. It happened large style with South Africa during the apartheid era for example. So Europe boycotts US origin imports, how will that affect your balance of trade......its already pretty poor. "Live by the River, Die by the River " Don't expect an awful lot of sympathy when California shakes itself to bits then.-------------------- He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #49 August 10, 2004 What major industry do we need from you?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #50 August 10, 2004 QuoteWhat major industry do we need from you? Just where do you think we'll get our hagis from, smart guy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
