A Skeptics Guide To Debunking Global Warming Alarmism

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

I hate to hijack a thread, but I just have something bugging the living crap out of me about this whole issue. Why is it that you don't hear anything about the impact of changing our technology. It has already been said by one Global Warming scientist that we have about 10 years to start doing something about it or it will be too late. What I have to say about this is that if it will be too late in 10 years, it was too late 30 years ago.

 

Think for a second outside our own little sphere of influence. What would happen if we all jumped on the GW bandwagon and decided to make a change. Perhaps just one change, fossil fuel automobiles, and lets say to a hydrogen fuel cell or electric car. What percentage of the population in the U.S. could just run right out and buy a brand new car? If it is half the population or half of the existing vehicles in service what would that do to our economy? How many jobs would be lost? Think of how many used car lots you see in your town, would they be affected? What about combustion engine mechanics? Would all of them have to be retrained to work on these new cars? Would we need as many? Would unemployment rise significantly with so many combustion engine jobs being lost? How many other sectors would be affected? What about diesel trucks that haul our goods around, will hybrid semi's be enough to haul goods?

 

What about the global economy? How many countries would be affected by the U.S. moving away from oil imports? Would countries like Venezuela, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Russia and the like be affected by losing a multi-billion dollar industry? Would we be affected by losing much of the domestic oil industry? Would gas prices fall to a point that it would be no longer profitable to even drill for it in this country? What would that do to those who couldn't afford to run out and buy a new hybrid and are still driving around on combustion engines?

 

Sure, the change probably wont happen all at once but even a significant change happening over a short period of time could have dramatic effects on the world economy as well as stability as countries that depend on the oil market look for other ways of making money, like invading a neighbor that has other resources. The need for oil will never go away since too many other industries besides automobile and those related will have a need, i.e. plastics, industrial lubricants, even roofing. But even a significant drop in demand, despite China's increasing demand, would be disasterous. There are inflationary, minimum wage, small business, large business, education, taxes, and other impacts that I won't even go into right now.

 

Speaking of China, we can cure the problem here, but give it another 10 years and China will be outpacing us in demand anyway. The GW phenomena would still be with us. China, however, is moving faster than us on better economy vehicles and hybreds though.

[Dave]

I hate to hijack a thread, but I just have something bugging the living crap out of me about this whole issue. Why is it that you don't hear anything about the impact of changing our technology......

Maybe because the impact of not changing is greater? Not to be an "alarmist" but would it be easier to die, or to change?

[Mr. XC]

What percentage of the population in the U.S. could just run right out and buy a brand new car? If it is half the population or half of the existing vehicles in service what would that do to our economy? How many jobs would be lost? Think of how many used car lots you see in your town, would they be affected? What about combustion engine mechanics? Would all of them have to be retrained to work on these new cars? Would we need as many? Would unemployment rise significantly with so many combustion engine jobs being lost? How many other sectors would be affected? What about diesel trucks that haul our goods around, will hybrid semi's be enough to haul goods?

In Charlotte, NC (most of the major banks are there), most of the cars that you see are less than 6 years old, so for a sizable portion of the drivers, I would say not requiring that you change cars right away but having all new cars standardize on a different fuel will be good enough. I know that there is still a large number of people who will not change their cars as quickly, but that helps keep the change go at a controllable rate. The change will be slow enough for people to cope with. As for moving away from oil causing a loss of jobs in less educated countries: good. Let them make money from some other activity that requires being a little bit more educated. It may be better for them in the long run, IF they decide to improve. Education by help erode some of their religion (which causes many social issues). If not, at least they have less money to wage war with other countries.

 

If the Chevy Volt is out in 2-4 years and there are no similar cars to choose from, I will be getting it. I am hoping that my current car will last long enough for me to wait for it. My current car has been paid off for over 4 years, and I have been saving for another one. Battery packs may be expensive, but engines (and all of the regulation stuff that goes with them) are not cheap either. The Chevy Volt does have an engine, but it will be much smaller and simpler because it does not drive the tires, just a generator. This allows for the battery pack to be smaller (less expensive), but not restrict the driver to short ranges.

[Mr. XC]

I hate to hijack a thread, but I just have something bugging the living crap out of me about this whole issue. Why is it that you don't hear anything about the impact of changing our technology......

Maybe because the impact of not changing is greater? Not to be an "alarmist" but would it be easier to die, or to change?

Well, it is always easer to die, but that is not as fun (for me anyway).

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

I hate to hijack a thread, but I just have something bugging the living crap out of me about this whole issue. Why is it that you don't hear anything about the impact of changing our technology......

Maybe because the impact of not changing is greater? Not to be an "alarmist" but would it be easier to die, or to change?

 

Dave,

Yea, it's possible the impact of not changing is greater. I think that either way a lot of people will get screwed somehow, death or otherwise. As far as being easier to die or change, whether we change or not might lead to global chaos anyway. Is reducing the impact of our own country enough? Will we just be replaced by China? India? How long do we have?

 

Mr. XC

It's not just the less educated countries I fear. It's ours. 13% of our population is below the poverty line. 17% in the UK and 40% in Mexico. The closing of a single factory can cause entire towns to dry up. How many autoparts factories will be affected? What if these cars are virtually maintenance free and require you to go to the dealership for only occasional maintenene? If you think our border with Mexico is not secure now, just wait until they start getting affected by our economic problems. Our biggest importer of oil is Canada. Do you think their problems won't leak over across the border? Our second largest is Venezuela, though I don't think Bush will let them continue on anyway. Chavez is well on his way to becoming a socialist dictator.

 

"Let them make money from other activity"

Yea, like the drug trade. Or, heaven forbid, start a war with a more fortunate country, perhaps one of our allies, perhaps causing the launch of a nuclear weapon, not even ours, maybe theirs if Iran get's it's way and it's only industry is oil. Increased terrorism. Iranian human wave attacks. Invade some other country or starve to death, hmmmm. blah blah blah

 

You scare me bro. Hell, I scare me.

[Mr. XC]

Mr. XC

It's not just the less educated countries I fear. It's ours. 13% of our population is below the poverty line. 17% in the UK and 40% in Mexico. The closing of a single factory can cause entire towns to dry up. How many autoparts factories will be affected? What if these cars are virtually maintenance free and require you to go to the dealership for only occasional maintenene? If you think our border with Mexico is not secure now, just wait until they start getting affected by our economic problems. Our biggest importer of oil is Canada. Do you think their problems won't leak over across the border? Our second largest is Venezuela, though I don't think Bush will let them continue on anyway. Chavez is well on his way to becoming a socialist dictator.

 

"Let them make money from other activity"

Yea, like the drug trade. Or, heaven forbid, start a war with a more fortunate country, perhaps one of our allies, perhaps causing the launch of a nuclear weapon, not even ours, maybe theirs if Iran get's it's way and it's only industry is oil. Increased terrorism. Iranian human wave attacks. Invade some other country or starve to death, hmmmm. blah blah blah

 

You scare me bro. Hell, I scare me.

I am not convinced that changing the technology will decrease the number of factory jobs. If anything, change creates more jobs, because different factories will have to be built. And large companies do know to take advantage of building their factories in towns with poor people so that they can spend less on payroll. So in a greedy kind of way, some large corporations do address part of the poverty issue. Consider that with increased regulations on gas emissions, domestic car companies have a disadvantage already. Changing to a new technology will be good for GM since it is tough for them to compete in the existing market.

 

I do not think the newer cars will be maintenance free. Regardless, people will probably still crash and damage their cars at the same rate, allowing for the auto parts industry to exist (and others).

 

I do have concern about oil based economy. But it will be slow. And if anything, I think we are more likely to get a nuclear weapon launched at us if we continue funding them with oil money. If we stop using their oil, we can stop interfering (read: stabilizing our oil supplies) with the middle east as much, which is why we are despised by many of them. If we completely pull our forces out and stop funding them, they may collapse under their own internal conflict. By stabilizing them as we do now, we allow them to not feel the full human cost of their own internal conflict. I doubt they will have much time too worry about us if we are off their turf and are too distracted with their own neighbors trying to kill them.

 

Venezuela will still have their coffee and cocoa crops. I do not think that the few who make money from oil share their oil money with their general population anyway.

 

I wish we can just get rid of the drug trade issue by legalizing and regulating the drugs domestically. Think about all the money our government could make by producing and selling pot. Of course, it will be regulated so that it is stricter than liquor. Perhaps sold a drug stores with limits per person. Yes, that is not perfect, but at least it will get rid of most of the violence and keep the money in the US (thus, not funding other countries). I know that I am dreaming about this. It is too much to ask for our current government to take lessons from the Prohibition. (I hope that I did not just hijack the thread.)

 

Yes, there are good reasons to be scared, but I think oil money only makes things more scary. The sooner we get off of oil (which is going to happen at some point anyway), the less of a drastic change it will be. I do not see how prolonging the oil issue will help.

[neverclear5]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Neverclear and Woodsmoke will both claim this was funded by the oil industry.

 

I have a feeling that you, Nivek, just like me, will remember back a couple decades when the world was in a tizzy over hairspray and the subsequent ban of aerosol cans for fear that they were the culprit in global warming/cooling. After hairspray came cow farts, and now SUV's. What will be next? Beer burps?

 

 

Hey, when did I become a conspiracy nut??

 

On scientific debates, I just put forward major scientific opinion.

 

It might shock you to know that I find the annoying pseudo-scientific bollocks around global warming (on both sides) rather frustrating too. All I would point out is that the weight of scientific opinion is of the opinion that the naturally occuring amount of insulation around the earth, made up of water vapour, cow farts, etc. is added to by extra carbon dioxide from human activity. This is a simple observable fact and is indisputable. At the same time we see a sharp rise in temperature above the normal fluctuation in earth's temperature. Now this could be just an unusually big fluctuation which started, coincidentally, at the same time we bagan burning a lot of stuff. If you want to think that after examining the facts then fine, but don't tar me with the moronic babbling nutjob brush and don't make the decision because you happen to like big cars. I happen to have a thing for american muscle cars myself.

 

p.s. you do realise that CFC's from break down the gas ozone, which is a major constituant of the ozone layer which absorbs certain bandwidths of electromagnetic radiation to our great benifit. The CFCs in the atmosphere HAVE weakened parts of the ozone layer, which again is an observable, recorded and irrefutable fact (unless you think the ozone fairy scooped it up and stole it at the same time we started pumping out CFCs). This is why hairspray, refridgerators, etc. use other chemicals now. You seem to present this "tizzy" as if the scientists at the time were proven wrong, when in fact they have been proven right by every respected scientific institution that has bothered to look at the issue.

[Dave]

Dave,

Yea, it's possible the impact of not changing is greater. I think that either way a lot of people will get screwed somehow, death or otherwise. As far as being easier to die or change, whether we change or not might lead to global chaos anyway. Is reducing the impact of our own country enough? Will we just be replaced by China? India? How long do we have?

50 to 75 years. Isn't that about when the oil is going to run out? At that point we will have no choice. Predicting doomsday and then saying anything done is for naught because of that prediction doesn't really work. We need to change our bad habits.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Here is another article on subject.

 

I don't think there is a *wrong* answer in this discussion, as the eveidences we're looking for haven't been conclusive for any side or aspect as clearly and definitive as would be liked.

 

As long as discussion remains civil, this is a neat subject to slay electrons on and we all learn a little or lotta something from each other.

 

kFL

 

Climate scientists feeling the heat Inbox

 

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html

 

Jan. 22, 2007, 12:34AM

Climate scientists feeling the heat

As public debate deals in absolutes, some experts fear predictions 'have created a monster'

 

By ERIC BERGER

Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle

 

 

Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

 

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

 

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

 

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

 

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

 

"Some of us are wondering if we have created a monster," says Kevin Vranes, a climate scientist at the University of Colorado.

 

Vranes, who is not considered a global warming skeptic by his peers, came to this conclusion after attending an American Geophysical Union meeting last month. Vranes says he detected "tension" among scientists, notably because projections of the future climate carry uncertainties — a point that hasn't been fully communicated to the public.

 

The science of climate change often is expressed publicly in unambiguous terms.

 

For example, last summer, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, told the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce: "I think we understand the mechanisms of CO2 and climate better than we do of what causes lung cancer. ... In fact, it is fair to say that global warming may be the most carefully and fully studied scientific topic in human history."

 

Vranes says, "When I hear things like that, I go crazy."

 

Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming.

 

But within the broad consensus are myriad questions about the details. How much of the recent warming has been caused by humans? Is the upswing in Atlantic hurricane activity due to global warming or natural variability? Are Antarctica's ice sheets at risk for melting in the near future?

 

To the public and policymakers, these details matter. It's one thing to worry about summer temperatures becoming a few degrees warmer.

 

It's quite another if ice melting from Greenland and Antarctica raises the sea level by 3 feet in the next century, enough to cover much of Galveston Island at high tide.

 

Models aren't infallible

Scientists have substantial evidence to support the view that humans are warming the planet — as carbon dioxide levels rise, glaciers melt and global temperatures rise. Yet, for predicting the future climate, scientists must rely upon sophisticated — but not perfect — computer models.

 

"The public generally underappreciates that climate models are not meant for reducing our uncertainty about future climate, which they really cannot, but rather they are for increasing our confidence that we understand the climate system in general," says Michael Bauer, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.

 

Gerald North, professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University, dismisses the notion of widespread tension among climate scientists on the course of the public debate. But he acknowledges that considerable uncertainty exists with key events such as the melting of Antarctica, which contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 200 feet.

 

"We honestly don't know that much about the big ice sheets," North says. "We don't have great equations that cover glacial movements. But let's say there's just a 10 percent chance of significant melting in the next century. That would be catastrophic, and it's worth protecting ourselves from that risk."

 

Much of the public debate, however, has dealt in absolutes. The poster for Al Gore's global warming movie, An Inconvenient Truth, depicts a hurricane blowing out of a smokestack. Katrina's devastation is a major theme in the film.

 

Judith Curry, an atmospheric scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, has published several research papers arguing that a link between a warmer climate and hurricane activity exists, but she admits uncertainty remains.

 

Like North, Curry says she doubts there is undue tension among climate scientists but says Vranes could be sensing a scientific community reaction to some of the more alarmist claims in the public debate.

 

For years, Curry says, the public debate on climate change has been dominated by skeptics, such as Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and strong advocates such as NASA's James Hansen, who calls global warming a ticking "time bomb" and talks about the potential inundation of all global coastlines within a few centuries.

 

That may be changing, Curry says. As the public has become more aware of global warming, more scientists have been brought into the debate. These scientists are closer to Hansen's side, she says, but reflect a more moderate view.

 

"I think the rank-and-file are becoming more outspoken, and you're hearing a broader spectrum of ideas," Curry says.

 

Young and old tension

Other climate scientists, however, say there may be some tension as described by Vranes. One of them, Jeffrey Shaman, an assistant professor of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University, says that unease exists primarily between younger researchers and older, more established scientists.

 

Shaman says some junior scientists may feel uncomfortable when they see older scientists making claims about the future climate, but he's not sure how widespread that sentiment may be. This kind of tension always has existed in academia, he adds, a system in which senior scientists hold some sway over the grants and research interests of graduate students and junior faculty members.

 

The question, he says, is whether it's any worse in climate science.

 

And if it is worse? Would junior scientists feel compelled to mute their findings, out of concern for their careers, if the research contradicts the climate change consensus?

 

"I can understand how a scientist without tenure can feel the community pressures," says environmental scientist Roger Pielke Jr., a colleague of Vranes' at the University of Colorado.

 

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

 

"The case for action on climate science, both for energy policy and adaptation, is overwhelming," Pielke says. "But if we oversell the science, our credibility is at stake."

 

eric.berger@chron.com

[neverclear5]

Nearly all climate scientists believe the Earth is warming and that human activity, by increasing the level of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, has contributed significantly to the warming.

 

This is the point I usually try to make

 

 

Models aren't infallible

Scientists have substantial evidence to support the view that humans are warming the planet — as carbon dioxide levels rise, glaciers melt and global temperatures rise. Yet, for predicting the future climate, scientists must rely upon sophisticated — but not perfect — computer models.

 

"The public generally underappreciates that climate models are not meant for reducing our uncertainty about future climate, which they really cannot, but rather they are for increasing our confidence that we understand the climate system in general," says Michael Bauer, a climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in New York.

 

 

But this is the one we need to be wary of. Global warming is happening and is bad. Thats pretty much a concensus opinion, but when other things which may or may not be linked are thrown in as fact then the waters are muddied. If we find no link between the warmer temperature and hurricanes then people say "you lied to us, maybe its all not true". Then when we examine the huge problems for people farming areas and crops that are very dependant on temperature, which is the major real-life problem, the whole thing is thrown into doubt. Even though its not the top class scientists who are making the wild claims, everyone gets "tarred with the same brush" and legitimate research and concern gets discounted. People only seem to react to pictures of crying babies with dead mothers so some want to link any of these pics they can find to their cause. It is frustrating that people only ever want to fix problems and rarely try to prevent them.

[Mr. XC]

Pielke says he has felt pressure from his peers: A prominent scientist angrily accused him of being a skeptic, and a scientific journal editor asked him to "dampen" the message of a peer-reviewed paper to derail skeptics and business interests.

Well, there is no arguing about this part. If this was a peer reviewed paper, to dismiss it without releasing scientific papers that refute the argument is just bad science.

[NotBlinded]

If humans do have an impact on global warming, could it be considered good knowing that we are overdue for the next ice age? Our warming period is over if trends can be predicted.

 

With or without global warming, the Times reports many experts are convinced the current warmth should end “any millennium now.” Not only is the next ice age overdue, but the scientific evidence suggests the Earth typically transitions from warming periods to full-fledged ice ages in a matter of decades. This, as the Times noted, has many scientists wondering: Is it really wise for policymakers to be considering drastic steps to forestall warming?

James M Taylor

 

Greenhouse Gases May Avert Next Ice Age

 

This article is 3 years old and the show I watched on this was probably about that long ago. I'm not up to date on the scientific findings on this correlation.

[woodsmoke]

That opens up a whole new can of worms, though. If ice ages are a natural part of the Earth's climatic cycle there's probably a good reason for that. If we're very possibly fucking things up now just by turning up the thermostat a degree or two for a little while, how much damage do you think we could do by intentionally cranking up the heat in order to altogether throw off the natural turn of events?

[Ouroboros]

I think I heard that global warming could end up in a new ice age, but I could be wrong. I think it had to do with the temperature in the oceans rising a few degrees then the polar-equator currents will shut down and we'll get freaky weather. Seriously, I just don't know what to think. The planet is going warmer that's a fact, what causing it that's debatable. I suspect it's a combination of the planet going in cycles of large temperature shifts, and that we're contributing to the effect by misusing the resources. Most likely we won't be able to stop the warming, not even by going to old farmer style living. A better solution could be to find ways of making humanity safe when (if) the catastrophe hits.

[Amethyst]

Have to agree with Han. I agree that global warming is happening. From what I've read, I suspect it's a combo of humans + natural causes. I wonder if changing now would really help it though. Plus there's no way you can get everyone on earth to change; there will always be people who are unwilling to give up old technology, at least until they die off. Even if we all turned into non-religious versions of the Amish, and gave up electricity + gas + other modern conveniences, would that even reverse the effects?

 

Plus if there's ever a nuclear attack anywhere, which is even more likely in this day and age, wouldn't that totally mess up the weather cycle? Could that trigger a new ice age (probably not overnight, but over a period of years)? Or is that science fiction? I think the problem is that nobody knows because it hasn't happened yet.

 

But I do think that as a species, some of our efforts should be going into making sure that we humans survive somewhere on the planet and can rebuild, or at least start, a new civilization of some kind if a catastrophic event were to happen.

 

I heard about this vault somewhere they're putting seeds in:

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18925343.700

 

It's a good start.

[neverclear5]

gave up electricity + gas + other modern conveniences, would that even reverse the effects?

 

 

Not neccesary mate, theres plenty of energy to make electricity. The reason we're warming up is that the energy from the sun can't escape as well any more. I'm english and its annoying that people don't seem to realise that we are particularly lucky being an island. We have wind, river, solar and sea to exploit. A large enough off-shore wind farm can supply the UK without swithing off a thing. A colleague of mine is working with wave power generators. Small scale solar/wind systems that can be fitted to your roof can supply about 20% of your power over the year. There are plenty of solutions out there, but they arn't always cheap to set up as its emerging technology. Internal combustion engines where expensive and awkward when they were first introduced. The problem is, someone comes up with a new plan which will work okay but be a bit expensive, because it's a first try, and it gets shot down straight away. Anything that makes something move can be used to generate power, all you need is to move a coil of wire in a magnet, or vise versa, which is exactly what they do in a modern power station. Any turning wheel can be made to produce AC currewnt, as comes out of your home sockets, and many other types of motion can be used in other ways to do the same thing.

[Ex-COG]

I heard on the news this morning that the top dogs of several corporations are calling on President Bush to take steps against global warming. Stricter caps on emissions, and such. Sorry I can't give lots of details, as I was driving at the time and couldn't take notes. It seems that if big business is getting worried enough to want the government to take action, then something must be up. Or is there some sort of profit to be made by the corporations in all of this?

[neverclear5]

IOr is there some sort of profit to be made by the corporations in all of this?

 

 

Yes there is. People only focus on the negative aspects, spending money converting things, spending money on new cars, spending money on new technology development. Thing is, if there's spending going on, then someones collecting. And the fact that, until recently, big business has been out of the game allows for smaller businesses to come out of the woodwork and supply these needs. The major costs here are to large industrial companies, but the benifits can be reaped by smaller and newly formed companies. Its the american dream people!

[The Sage Nabooru]

Well it's like the ol' bumper sticker says, "Think globally, act locally". Personally, I myself have recycling trucks pick up my stuff once every two weeks. They came by just this morning, as a matter of fact. Every time I'm stuck with a piece of trash, I think to myself: "Is this recyclable?" Then I try to picture it sitting for hundreds if not thousands of years in a dump somewhere, animals treading on it and perhaps eating its toxic chemicals. That alone makes me wash it out and put it in the bins.

 

The gigantic, overwhelming cost it costs me?......Five bucks a month.

 

A lot of people seem to think that enviromentally-friendly thinking is some huge, frustrating leap into a terribly burdened and harder life, and it's not. I buy the household cleaners that are biodegrable and non-animal tested for about the same price as the regular stuff. I make sure to only turn on those appliances, electronics, lights, etc. that I am using, and to keep everything turned off when it's not in use. Washing out recycling does not take the huge chunk of time and effort that everybody seems to think it does. I'm careful about my dishes and laundry: if it's still clean, smells fresh and looks okay, it goes back into the closet; if it's still clean and/or was only used to hold water or can just be rinsed out quickly, I put it back in the cabinet. Some people might get squeamish at the idea of eating out of a bowl that previously held peanut shells without being scrubbed hard in hot water and soap, but I've yet to contract e. coli.

 

I also think about other kinds of trash. It's very, very rare for me to throw out an item of clothing or a book just because I'm done with it. If it's clothes, I either sell them to the local resale shop, give them to Goodwill or, if they're in tatters, I might rip them up and use them as housecleaning rags. (Old jeans make great silver polishers.) Books I might sell to the paperback store or give to the library. In this way I not only lower my trash amount but also give back to the community.

 

I do admit I have a lot of guilt over my car, but I make efforts to be sure that I cut down on the amount I use it. When I go grocery shopping, I make sure I buy enough for dinners to make sure that I won't have dinner delivered or drive out to get it. On trips or while going out having fun, I carpool. It's a 2005 Cobalt so it uses far less gas than my first car of the previous decade. Also when I do get gas I make sure that I close the gas cap tightly; keeping it lose might let out some of it via evaporation or something (I read about it in a gas brochure, trust me on this one).

[Ouroboros]

Its the american dream people!

I don't know if it's particularly the American dream, but just human nature gone awry. Greed is one of the most powerful drives in humanity and America only established a political environment for greed to flourish, and that leads to over-consumption and short-sighted plans. Interesting that in the most egotistical country in the world, where "me-myself-and-I" is more important than the neighbor, that's where you have the largest population of Christians... go figure.

[Dave]

Well it's like the ol' bumper sticker says, "Think globally, act locally". Personally, I myself have recycling trucks pick up my stuff once every two weeks......

We have no garbage service here. Every two months I make a trip to the "county waste facility." 99% of what I take goes into the recycling bins. The rest goes into a composting bin. Any left over food scraps get flung outside and they're gone by morning. Something eats them.

 

I am working on building a new house in a few years. It will probably be a straw bale house with radiant floor heating using a heat pump that gets heat from the ground. Photovoltaic shingles are making progress and might be affordable by the time I'm ready. The whole roof will generate electricity. If not at least I'll have the water solar heated before it goes into a tankless water heater.

 

That house would cost me only slightly more than a regular stick house but use one tenth the lumber, one 50th the heating costs, and if I get the fancy shingles I'll be able to sell power to the electric company.

 

It takes more thinking and planning than money.

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

Well it's like the ol' bumper sticker says, "Think globally, act locally". Personally, I myself have recycling trucks pick up my stuff once every two weeks......

We have no garbage service here. Every two months I make a trip to the "county waste facility." 99% of what I take goes into the recycling bins. The rest goes into a composting bin. Any left over food scraps get flung outside and they're gone by morning. Something eats them.

 

I am working on building a new house in a few years. It will probably be a straw bale house with radiant floor heating using a heat pump that gets heat from the ground. Photovoltaic shingles are making progress and might be affordable by the time I'm ready. The whole roof will generate electricity. If not at least I'll have the water solar heated before it goes into a tankless water heater.

 

That house would cost me only slightly more than a regular stick house but use one tenth the lumber, one 50th the heating costs, and if I get the fancy shingles I'll be able to sell power to the electric company.

 

It takes more thinking and planning than money.

 

 

Good job Dave! I was planning on doing something like that when solar panels, geothermal heating and cooling, and the like get cheaper and wind technology advances more.

[Dave]

Good job Dave! I was planning on doing something like that when solar panels, geothermal heating and cooling, and the like get cheaper and wind technology advances more.

I've come up with a new idea (though I doubt I'm the first) for radiant floor heating; on the south facing side of my house will be lots of windows letting sunlight in on a large cement slab. This slab will have the tubes in it for the radiant floor heating. On cold, but sunny, days the sunlight will heat the slab and I can then circulate that heat throughout the house via the RFH system. On days that won't work I could still use the geothermal. During the summer the sun is higher in the sky and the roof overhang will prevent sunlight from reaching the slab. A simple, low energy, evaporative cooler will keep the house cold enough, if it is needed.

 

Info on Radiant Floor Heating.

Info on GeoThermal Heat Pumps.

 

It seems they're pretty cheap now.

[Mman2000]

First off, like many people here I don't buy the whole "OH MY FUCKING GOD THE WORLD IS OVERHEATING IT'S ALL HUMANS FAULT AND IF WE DON'T STOP DRVING SUVS THE WORLD WILL INCINERATE US ALL" bullshit from Al Gore or any other enviro activist.

 

I also believe that there are people from both sides that just need to shut the fuck up and let science find the solution. When the enviro-nuts scream about how skeptics like the people at junkscience.com are pawns for big oil it doesn't mean much, and when the skeptics return the favor by saying that scientists who believe in anthropogenic global warming are only waving the DANGER flag to keep grants coming in from government and activists, IT DOESN'T FUCKING MEAN MUCH EITHER. Those are both just plain ad hominems and are completely irrelevant to the issue. It doesn't matter if one side's funded by big business and the other by big government, what does matter is whether or not they're making valid points.

 

Here's what really pisses me off with the enviros, they are always against something. They're against, big oil, against SUVs, against just about every fucking thing that doesn't equal living a minimalistic lifestyle for the sake of this damn planet. If any enviros are reading this, get the point: I'm not going to stop playing video games because my Xbox 360 consumes energy and "increases the strain on this precious earth". People aren't going to stop needing and wanting things because satisfying said needs and wants might hurt the environment. We don't need guilt, coersion, and scare tactics to make the world a cleaner and better place, we need science. We need to start supporting researchers who are busting their asses to make technology cleaner more than we support environmentalist whackjobs screaming at us for using technology at all (while using it themselves of course). We need to give the space program a fucking steroid injection and light a fire under its proverbial ass so the day we can expand our population into space colonies and other planets will come sooner.

 

The real question isn't "what bad are humans doing to the environment?", it's "what good can humans do for it?".

[Dave]

First off, like many people here I don't buy the whole "OH MY FUCKING GOD THE WORLD IS OVERHEATING IT'S ALL HUMANS FAULT AND IF WE DON'T STOP DRVING SUVS THE WORLD WILL INCINERATE US ALL" bullshit from Al Gore or any other enviro activist.

So, you're attacking the messenger with a knee jerk reaction?