# Environmental issues.. and 'An Inconvenient Truth'?



## Synesthesia (May 25, 2006)

hi all,

I read Nick Phoenix's post at Sounds Online regarding the film An Inconvenient Truth, which he urges people to go and see. Its not out here yet I dont think - I hadnt heard of it. However I did recently read Michael Crichton's book 'State of Fear'.

I am very interested in this issue, as I have always been an environmentalist in my beliefs, and I was quite shocked to discover some strange 'issues' in that lobby.

Interesting reading is Crichton's speech at 

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/index.html

and click on the link:

"Fear, Complexity, Environmental Management in the 21st Century"

I really hope not to start a political debate, and please don't go down that path, but I am very interested in any opinions regarding what is to be done about the 'science' of this matter - how can we get to a place where we can definitively trust what the scientists are telling us, from either side?

Is there anything the man or woman on the street can do? I fear not. I have always supported WWF (World Wildlife Fund not the other one!) which is my only 'active' participation so far in this.

Interested in hearing opinions anyway!

Cheers

Paul


----------



## choc0thrax (May 25, 2006)

Synesthesia @ Thu May 25 said:


> Is there anything the man or woman on the street can do?



Start looting right now.


----------



## Stephen Rees (May 25, 2006)

Synesthesia @ Thu May 25 said:


> Is there anything the man or woman on the street can do? I fear not.



I think there is. We all have control over our own impact on the Environment. I try to be as environmentally friendly as possible, or at least do as little harm as possible. Now maybe scientists and politicians can't decide on the large scale things or have their own agendas, but that doesn't affect my ability to do small common sense things like using the car as little as possible; not wasting water / electricity / gas; picking up rubbish if you see it in the countryside etc. etc. It may make a small difference, but it is a real difference. The fact you are supporting the WWF. That is another small but real difference. And all the small things add up


----------



## Ed (May 25, 2006)

I saw an amazing car on TV developed by Honda that drives very well, is very quiet, and the waste product is *WATER*!!!! Its even apparently very safe, it runs on hydrogen. Apparently you can even make your own hydrogen as well. The developer also things its possible to develope a similar system for space rockets! :shock: 

The problem is getting everyone to switch :( And of course the government wouldnt like it because if no one needs petrol anymore that means no more taxes from petrol companies!


----------



## José Herring (May 25, 2006)

What's the movie about?

Personally for me I've always been suspect of the "science" behind the idea of global warming. If you look at the raw data--a mean temperature graph for a year going back each year to 1880 which I have looked it, it cleary shows no upward trend in temperature. It also cleary shows that the trends go up and down year to year and that there's no real pattern.

But, when I've mentioned that in the past I get slammed by people as being a neo right wing conservative hayseed that doesn't know anything about science and leading experts this and leading experts that blah, blah, blah... leading experts suck!! They often have money motivated issues given that charitable contributions to science are practically in the trillions. I was at a UCLA graduation and those professors at that school got $500,000,000 dollars in grant money to continue "research" of which in the past 30 years, one professor, had maybe come up with 2 or 3 useful inventions that he sold to auto manufacturers at which point he subsequently left that school and started to work for private industry. It's at that point I realized that the human race's child like faith in scientist solving all the worlds problems was as flawed as expecting government to solve them. To many scientist like politicians are on the personal take. 

My parents neighbor was a university scientist. She got so frustrated at the lack of actual usefulness of science at the university level that she started her own business. For years she went trying to get her peers to take her seriously while they pored billions into one Sci-Fi project after another including Reagan's "Star Wars" she was barely making a living as a prof. making somewhere around $24,000/year for about 25 years. Then she sold one of her inventions to private labs around the world and she's now a multi millionaire. Of course then the unversity came to her and said that since she was an employee that they deserved a piece of the pie. This was after she was rejected for putting up her ideas for grant money by that same University.....Brother. She told them to f#$k themselves and they went after that money. In the end she won but talk about a mafia. They never gave a shit about her or her ideas starving her practically to death for 25 years so that she and her husband could never have a family, but as soon as she made money they where all after it.


So what's to stop a a guy from scaring the hell out of everybody with confusing data about global warming backed up with, "if you give us more money we'll solve it...". 20 years later there's still no solution but, "if you give us more money we'll solve it.." and the government doles out money and private foundations dole it out in the trillions and yet no real answers are forth coming but more hocus pocus science.

I hope that at least the movie tries to reveal that. That might be worth seeing. But I'd hate to see a movie that's just a one sided rant about how we're all going to die and the human race is doomed.... 

Air polution and clean environment. Let's move on to that. Global warming is iffy at best but dirty air, water and land is a fact that we can actually do something about. Personally, locally, nationally and worldwide. And on that we are actually being effective and things are getting cleaner. Especially since the '70's. But we need to do more. Way more. And scaring everybody with global warming isn't solving anything. But, scaring people with dirty air, at least people can see that. And, they'll move to act.

Jose


----------



## choc0thrax (May 25, 2006)

The oil companies are responsible for killing off the electric car...or at least that's what the video told me today on msn.com as I was eating hamburgers. I've long dreamed of how awesome it would be to live in some sort of post apocalyptic world. Now all we need is some zombies thrown in there and it's like being in a movie everyday! Not those stupid fast zombies from recent films but the slower ones from the 80's.


----------



## PaulR (May 25, 2006)

choc0thrax @ Thu May 25 said:


> but the slower ones from the 80's.



Normal everyday life in other words.


----------



## Nick Phoenix (May 25, 2006)

"An Inconvenient Truth" is about global warming. There is no scientific debate that global warming is real and that it is caused by human CO2 production. The media has created the doubt. Scientists have no doubt. Humans are producing massive amounts of CO2 and this heats up the planet. Go see the movie when it opens nationwide. It's really good and go to www.climatedisaster.com. And do me a favor, one of these days when everyone agrees on global warming, and trust me that day is coming soon, make it a point to condemn all the f##$$king lying [email protected]*ksuckers that misled America for all these years when they knew the truth, or ignored the facts to make a buck.


----------



## Jack Weaver (May 25, 2006)

This planetary body has gone through continual and unending temperature cycles since its formation. The sun is the largest contributor to this situation. 

Hysterical political comment on either side isn't going to change the climate one iota.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 25, 2006)

Hey J guys (Jack and Jose) - you're believing what you want to believe. So what if the climate has always changed. There's plenty of evidence that this is a man-made climate change that started with the industrial revolution and is accelerating at rapid pace. Ignoring it will be certain suicide. This is not hysterical, not political, it's reality. Wake up!

As I posted on SOL after reading this here, everyone should read "Collapse" by Jared Diamond. It's not about global warming (although he does touch on it), it's about how societies have made decisions that led to their survival (for example Japan and the Dominican Republic) or complete failure (for example Easter Island).

It's eye-opening, and I think the most important book in the world right now. Seriously. You J people need to read it more than anyone.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 25, 2006)

And Jose, I don't think you're right-wing for believing that, I just think you're deluded and irrational.


----------



## Thonex (May 25, 2006)

Jack Weaver @ Thu May 25 said:


> Hysterical political comment on either side isn't going to change the climate one iota.



No.... but CO2 will.


----------



## Patrick de Caumette (May 25, 2006)

Hard to believe that people have doubt about the significant, negative impact our oil based society has on the environment!

Yea, there has always been climat change but it usually took place over hundreds of years (not counting meteor fall)
This time, man got into the picture and now that China has joined us in this mad consumption driven race, it should take too much for everyone to be forced to open their eyes to this vital issue.


----------



## tobyond (May 25, 2006)

This issue is kind of like the tobacco argument about 30-40 years ago, doctors all knew it was bad but too many politicians were getting their pockets lined by tobacco money. Unfortunately this time there is more at stake.

The coolest thing about the high gas prices is that all my suv driving friends are contemplating a hybrid purchase!


----------



## Nick Phoenix (May 25, 2006)

Jack Weaver @ Thu May 25 said:


> This planetary body has gone through continual and unending temperature cycles since its formation. The sun is the largest contributor to this situation.
> 
> Hysterical political comment on either side isn't going to change the climate one iota.




Jack, You are not alone in your thinking. But the question is how did you form this opinion. Was it the results of many hours of studying scientific graphs and reading dozens of reports from credible scientists? Most people have formed an opinion on global warming from little snippets they have heard or read, here and there. I am sad to say that most of that info is propaganda that has been spread by very powerful energy companies. You know, the same ones that have marched us off into endless wars. Scientists that refute the facts on global warming being caused by humans are either on the payroll of energy companies or they are politicians posing as scientists. You know, like Bush's first environmental appointee, who for the first time since the office's inception, was not a scientist, but a lobbyist. He resigned after he was caught doctoring a study detailing the seriousness of global warming. 

Anyway, here's my version of the argument greatly condensed. CO2 content in the atmosphere rises and falls every year. The reason for this is most of the land and plantlife is in the northern hemisphere. Plants and trees breathe CO2 and exhale oxygen. All measurements confirm a major reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere every northern hemisphere summer. This happens every year because plants grow in the summer. So here, we can see a direct effect of plants growing on the surface and how they change the atmosphere. This is an irrefutable fact, that all studies confirm. It goes to show how vunerable the atmosphere is, because we can see this type of change from plantlife. It is also a fact that the earth goes through cycles of warm and cold. This happens naturally due to factors such as the sun. It is also a fact that every time during the last ice ages and heat waves, CO2 content in the atmosphere goes up and down matching the rise and fall of temperature. The reason for this is complicated, but basically as the weather warms, weather patterns become unstable and more drastic and drought and floods become more commonplace, thus reducing the amount of healthy plant-life. So CO2 goes up because there is less life to absorb it. There is also irrefutable proof for this. In the last hundred years and particularly in the last 20 years, man made CO2 has skyrocketed to a level double than that of any period in recorded environmental history (600,000 years I think is what we can measure in the ice). Are we all so stupid to think that this will not have any consequences? Are we denying that we are producing CO2 in abundance by burning fuels? Or that we are cutting down and burning forests? Well, we are doing these things. The clean air act of 1972 can clearly be seen in layers of ice that show a reduction in CO2 that year. We solved the ozone layer problem easily. Nobody denied that was true because it didn't affect big business.

How is it that intelligent people that rely on science every day in countless ways can dismiss such simple science? Answer: propaganda is very powerful. Go see the film and let's get united instead of divided.


----------



## tobyond (May 25, 2006)

Unfortunately the problem with a film like this is those who would most benefit from seeing it write it off as leftist propaganda, thus leaving those who do attend those who already understand the gravity of the issue (preaching to the choir.)


----------



## Jack Weaver (May 25, 2006)

Hmm, seems to be a few responses to my few sentences penned earlier….

Always enjoy a healthy debate.
There are more than two sides to this situation. No stale, re-hashed political thought allowed here. 

Is CO2 a problem? Yes, it is. Is it going to destroy civilization any time soon. Probably not. Will it cause some negative changes? Yes of course it will. Does the nature of earth have built-in mechanisms to clean itself? It probably does and probably many that we don’t understand yet. 

Environmentally speaking, everything on this planet effects directly or indirectly everything else. Everything. Our thoughts effects the thoughts of others. Example, frightening movies effects the thoughts of children and their emotional maturation process. Radical fundamentalism in the Middle East and in the West have created brittle, dogmatic pseudo-theologies that allow no freedom or creative thinking. 

Discordant emotions effect everything around the generating source of them. (Ever walk into a room where people are arguing? Notice how thick the atmosphere is?) Ever been near a riot? Ever compared the emotional atmosphere of a covent to a that of a rap concert?

Yes, the earth is a very plastic, resonant entity. The total gamut of man’s creations have a reaction in nature. All of our creativity needs to be of a level that is elevating to nature. Do I think nature is revolting in response to man’s behavior? Yes. 

A clean energy source would be good. A clean life lived (mentally, emotionally & spiritually) by us all would benefit the earth even more deeply. 
Humanity is not going to be harmed as much by immediate ‘environmental disaster’ as much as it is already being effected by discordant thoughts and emotions. 

Truly Best Wishes,
Jack


----------



## Nick Phoenix (May 25, 2006)

Jack Weaver @ Thu May 25 said:


> Hmm, seems to be a few responses to my few sentences penned earlier….
> 
> Always enjoy a healthy debate.
> There are more than two sides to this situation. No stale, re-hashed political thought allowed here.
> ...


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 25, 2006)

Or from another angle: we can almost certainly choose to stop committing slow suicide if we slow down the rate at which we're emitting greenhouse gases. Continuing on with our heads up our asses will not work.

It's our choice, just as it was that Japanese shogun's choice to start planting trees as a slow-growing crop when he saw what was happening to Japan, or Bellager's choice to stop cutting down the forest in the Dominican Republic. Despite having an incredible population density, Japan is now something like 2/3 forest, and look how prosperous it is; the Dominican Republic is poor, but it's nothing like Haiti on the other half of that island.

We can also choose to go the way of the Easter Islanders, or the Greenland Norse, or many other societies that starved to death.

This is what 'Collapse' is all about.


----------



## Jack Weaver (May 25, 2006)

Nick sez:

_"100s of millions, if not billions of people will die, because sea levels will rise 20 feet and weather patterns will change completely"

"the death of most humans"_


Nick, are you sure that you aren't overstating the case? I'm going to stick with my thesis:

"A clean energy source would be good. A clean life lived (mentally, emotionally & spiritually) by us all would benefit the earth even more deeply. 
Humanity is not going to be harmed as much by immediate ‘environmental disaster’ as much as it is already being effected by discordant thoughts and emotions." 

With Enduring Respect,
Jack


----------



## José Herring (May 25, 2006)

Awe man you guys made me pull out the graphs again!

Here's a Nasa graph of global surface mean temperature changes since 1996.

If you look carefully you'll find that it's impossible to predict a trend. Also notice that we're measuring in 10ths of degrees here.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C_lrg.gif

Here's another Nasa graph that contradicts the other graph:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

If you look at this graph you see that the graph is scaled improperly making it seem like there's a huge rise in temperature but really it only amounts to 1 degree in 125 years. 

So you can see why some people are skeptical.

Personally I find that the idea behind global warming obscures the real environmental issues. Chemically poluted air, food and water are going to kill us in the next ten to twenty years but Gobal warming....we're looking at 250 to 300 years. Lucky for us they're both connected. If we clean the air, food and water supplies with cleaner burning fuels and less CO2 being dumped into the atmosphere we'll also stave off any global warming. But really I'm more concerned with cancer caused by toxic air rather than conflicting data coming from scientist about global warming. Let's stick to what's real. Clean air, clean water, cleaner foods. And if that solves the "global warming" trend so much the better.

I'm not saying that Global warming isn't true. I'm just saying that it's iffy and there are more important topics to focus on that are immediately more pressing and life threatening. 

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 25, 2006)

The earth's temperature is increasing at a rate of about 1/10 of a degree per year - and that may be a self-fueling and -accelerating phenomenon as the heat that was getting reflected back by the ice gets absorbed the the water that takes the ice's place. If you only look at ten years you don't have nearly enough data, because there's always a variance. But over time, it's been well established that the temperature is increasing at that rate.

That isn't in dispute by anyone (except you?), by the way. The argument is whether we're contributing to that, and the people who say we're not are looking farther and farther out there with every passing day.

To me it's not a very impressive argument to say that there are more important problems than survival and therefore we should ignore it.


----------



## José Herring (May 26, 2006)

Nah, your data is tainted. 

I've looked up a lot of data and here it goes.

Global warming upon closer inspection is localized to major population centers. It isn't extending out to rural areas. So, man kind is responsible for the increase in temperatures in major population centers.

The flaw in the thinking is in not compartimentalizing the data and considering it all globally. But if you do a quick search for average temperatures around the world you'll see that all the rise is in the major cities. Nowhere else.

From the graphs it's not 1/10th per year but more like 1/10 of a degree per 30 years. So I don't know if you're looking at a graph or if you're just spewing out something you read. Which is fine, but back it up with real numbers.

Anyway, I will concede that it does look like there is a slight warming trend in the major population centers of earth which most definately means that a)man is responsible and b) combustable fuels are the cause.

So let's just move off the doom and gloom of the whole world is going to die bullshit and really look at the data factually and see what can be done about it.

Also, in my research I found that the mean temperature for Boston has remained constant for the last 30 years with the peak year being in 1990. So as a quick fix we could all move to Boston.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 26, 2006)

Which pole are you calling a major population center?

But even if you were right that it's not global, do you know where we get our water from in Los Angeles? Melted snow from the Sierras. What would happen if the snow pack disappeared?


----------



## midphase (May 26, 2006)

I think that the very fact that people (Fox and most media) are going against this film and accusations of false studies and unscientific determinations are arising is probably a good indication that the film is right on the money.

I also think that Michael Chrichton is certifiably nuts and many people who know him confirm this.

I also think that to truly believe that all the shit we're putting in the air, water and land is having no impact on the planet is pretty insane. You can make the argument that things might not change as rapidly as some studies predict, but to believe that there is little or no impact is...insane.


----------



## Dan Selby (May 26, 2006)

Jose, 

Respectfully: the vast, overwhelming majority of climatologists, geologists, meteorologists disagree with you. Not lay people who have looked at a few graphs but people with doctorates in their chosen field who have dedicated their lives to studying the data. 

Ten years ago there was some debate amongst scientists as to whether or not human CO2 emissions were/are significantly contributing to global warming. Today there really are virtually no knowledgable dissenting voices. 

The precise impacts of global warming cannot be predicted. Scientists cannot say that hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming but they are saying, with certainty, that storms like Katrina, and probably bigger ones, will hit the Gulf of Mexico with increasing regularity and severity over the coming years and decades. 

Heat waves of the type that struck three years ago in Europe where 28,000 people died, mainly in France, will become much, much more common. 

It is, unfortunately, real. It's happening and it is bloody scary. 

Here in the UK, even the politicians, Blair and leaders of all the major parties (a breed notorious for their short term-ism) now describe global warming the greatest challenge mankind faces in this century. 



josejherring @ Fri May 26 said:


> Awe man you guys made me pull out the graphs again!
> 
> Here's a Nasa graph of global surface mean temperature changes since 1996.
> 
> ...


----------



## Synesthesia (May 26, 2006)

I really want to see hard empirical evidence- graphs, research papers, etc - to support what is being said on global warming.

Consider this petition:
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

Over 17,000 scientists have signed a petition saying, in part, "there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."

The petition is being circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, an independent research organization that receives no funding from industry. Among the signers of the petition are over 2,100 physicists, geophysicsts, climatologists, meteorologists, and environmental scientists who are especially well-qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere. Another 4,400 signers are scientists qualified to comment on carbon dioxide's effects on plant and animal life. Nearly all of the signers have some sort of advanced technical training.

Are these people simply wrong? Is this a lie?

It seems to contradict the assertion that 'almost all scientists support the global warming hypothesis'.

I re-assert, I am impartial, I support environmental charities, I am just looking for a 'non-spin' arguement amongst all the politics that shows me in clear understandable terms that global warming exists, and does not rely on me believing without any hard data what a group of people are saying.

Respectfully,

Paul


----------



## rJames (May 26, 2006)

Synesthesia @ Fri May 26 said:


> I really want to see hard empirical evidence- graphs, research papers, etc - to support what is being said on global warming.
> 
> Consider this petition:
> http://www.oism.org/pproject/
> ...



Be careful about "data". It is used to manipulate the populace.

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that the above petition was started by a group that wanted to prove that global warming is not an issue.

They might put together a petition that is very specific regarding emissions so that all the employees of the big multinational concerns who make their livings off of humans burning mega amounts of carbon fuel.

What is meant by, "human release of carbon dioxide, methane..." Are they talking about the physical processes of the human body or are they talking about the processes that occur because mankind has created machines that ALSO create these byproducts?

The wording of the question presages the answer.

A good propagandist controls the questions, just like a lawyer. Don't ask a question unless you know the answer.

Yeah, I'm a little bit skeptical.

I do know this for sure. IN the winter I have to turn on the heat and in the summer I have to turn on the air conditioning...otherwise I would be uncomfortable.


----------



## Dan Selby (May 26, 2006)

Hi Paul,

A good start might be here: http://www.ipcc.ch/ - The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change did a report in 2001 and have another one due soon, apparently

The full report is here:

http://snipurl.com/climatereport

and the "summary for policy makers" (which is still pretty comprehensive and has plenty of graphs and hard data without being too dense) is here:

http://snipurl.com/reportsummary (link is to a pdf file)

Also, there is a page with quite a few other interesting links here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/links1.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/clima ... nks1.shtml)

Respectfully,

Dan


----------



## Nick Phoenix (May 26, 2006)

josejherring @ Thu May 25 said:


> Awe man you guys made me pull out the graphs again!
> 
> Here's a Nasa graph of global surface mean temperature changes since 1996.
> 
> ...



NASA is part of the problem Jose. There are a thousand ways to present temperature. They release graphs that are approved by politicians and bury the rest. Mean temperatures can be calculated many different ways. The problem is that in the poles everything is GREATLY exaggerated. Temperatures there are increasing very rapidly and this is melting the ice at an alarming rate. This is increasing exponentially. This ice and the ice in the south pole is the greatest threat mankind faces right now. Even Tony Blair flipped out when he saw the data recently.


----------



## Nick Phoenix (May 26, 2006)

Synesthesia @ Fri May 26 said:


> I really want to see hard empirical evidence- graphs, research papers, etc - to support what is being said on global warming.
> 
> Consider this petition:
> http://www.oism.org/pproject/
> ...


----------



## Synesthesia (May 26, 2006)

Nick Phoenix @ Fri May 26 said:


> Synesthesia @ Fri May 26 said:
> 
> 
> > Consider this petition:
> ...



Nick - 

I really struggle with absolutist statements like that. What are they stockholders in? If you look at the site, there is a complete list of every PhD holder who has signed that petition. These scientists are all lying stockholders?

Dan - 

Thank you very much for those links. I'm going to refrain from making any further comment in this topic until I have had time to study them, in particular the IPCC site, and read some of the papers on there.

One thing is for sure, even amongst the few peer reviewed studies (which I gather is what the IPCC bases its studies on) that exist, there seems to be a startling range of data, some reports showing one thing, some showing the opposite, and obviously which studies you choose to look at will skew your results accordingly.

My concern is that its not all about the evil capitalists but there is also an impact on the developing world, and on how resources are targeted, but my scientific background is preventing me from making my mind up about what I believe until I have studied enough of the data.

One last interesting article I found which may be of interest is on the economist site:

http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=718860

However, as I mentioned, I need to spend some time studying more of the data. I guess my purpose in posting this topic has been to get some pointers as to where to look for materials, and in that regard I have had some very useful responses!

Respectfully as always,

Paul


----------



## José Herring (May 26, 2006)

Nick, I have no doubt in my mind that the Nasa data is tainted. Even their way of presenting the data is tainted. The graphs are not scaled correctly and the phrase "temperature anomaly" is just begging to be manipulated.

All I'm calling for really is that acurrate graphs with real numbers be put up so that we can know for sure. I've looked for 30 minutes last night and couldn't find one graph that I would consider real so there's obviously some sort of cover up going on.

I actually do think there's global warming. I'm not yet convinced about how dangerous it is or if this is just a natural part of the evolving Earth. At one point the polar caps where tropical areas. This wasn't too long ago. So I wouldn't be suprised if it goes back to being a tropical resort.

I'll see the film. There may be evidence that I'm missing. I'm big enough to admit that and I want to see change too. 

I'm buying a hybrid as my next vehicle. :smile: 

Jose


----------



## Dan Selby (May 26, 2006)

josejherring @ Fri May 26 said:


> All I'm calling for really is that acurrate graphs with real numbers be put up so that we can know for sure. I've looked for 30 minutes last night and couldn't find one graph that I would consider real so there's obviously some sort of cover up going on.



See the links I posted above, Jose.

Best,

Dan


----------



## sbkp (May 26, 2006)

I'm probably putting solar power on my next house. The one we're (apparently) buying is already designed with "passive solar", so the utility bill even in the winter is something like $75.

Then my big dream is to have a straight electric car, charged by my solar system. Take that, Chevron!

Our new house is also next to an organic farm. Gobs of fresh produce for $10/box! No fuel to ship it anywhere.

You want to make a huge environmental impact? Check out the oil, water, and chemical requirements of supplying a meat-eating diet.


----------



## Nick Phoenix (May 26, 2006)

sbkp @ Fri May 26 said:


> I'm probably putting solar power on my next house. The one we're (apparently) buying is already designed with "passive solar", so the utility bill even in the winter is something like $75.
> 
> Then my big dream is to have a straight electric car, charged by my solar system. Take that, Chevron!
> 
> ...



I just moved into my new solar powered house in Venice, radiant heat, bamboo floors, recycled glass tile etc.. I was bloody expensive, let me tell you. Hopefully costs will come down and all the promised government subsidies will kick in, so more people will do it. The coolest thing I have seen is a french compressed air car. Air goes out cleaner than it goes in. If you can power the air compressor off your solar panels, then you are golden. Electric cars have batteries which die fast and polute and there are dangerous fields from the battery, so they need improvements.


----------



## sbkp (May 26, 2006)

Nick Phoenix @ Fri May 26 said:


> I just moved into my new solar powered house in Venice, radiant heat, bamboo floors, recycled glass tile etc..



Congrats!



> The coolest thing I have seen is a french compressed air car. Air goes out cleaner than it goes in. If you can power the air compressor off your solar panels, then you are golden. Electric cars have batteries which die fast and polute and there are dangerous fields from the battery, so they need improvements.



True, true. That's why it's also better (and cheaper) to use the utility company as your battery for your house. We wouldn't want 6000 pounds of batteries in every house.

I'm gonna look into the compressed air car. That sounds groovy.

- Stefan


----------



## sbkp (May 26, 2006)

Nick Phoenix @ Fri May 26 said:


> recycled glass tile



Is that a floor tile or countertop? One of our neighbors has a single-piece recycled glass countertop that is incredibly cool.

- Stefan


----------



## Frederick Russ (May 26, 2006)

Nick Phoenix @ Fri May 26 said:


> Electric cars have batteries which die fast and polute and there are dangerous fields from the battery, so they need improvements.



Hey - how about those hydrogen powered batteries - same deal? 

If you think about it, our reliance on oil is part of the problem of why we're at war: to secure a vested interest in a race to pollute our planet so that Chevron and Big Oil can stay in power. They've successfully helped bury patents that would allow 100mpg carborators and electric-assisted vehicles. Why? Money - and it seems that our government officials can be bought by interest groups as seen in so many of the scandals and corruption cases that run rampant now. I cannot think of a more powerful interest group than Big Oil however.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 29, 2006)

We I saw 'An Inconvenient Truth' last night. You J guys really need to see it - you'll see plenty of evidence how ludicrous is it to believe this isn't real and that man isn't causing it. Actually everyone should see it. It's really good.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 30, 2006)

I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" a few days ago. Anyone that have doubts about the reality of global warming caused by CO2 should see it. - Then come back and discuss. It is a powerful movie that covers all bases, not just interpretations of any particular graph. 

That discussion will be: What can we do to stop this man-made disaster from happening.


----------



## Jack Weaver (May 30, 2006)

Good Afternoon Nick,

One of the ‘J” guys here. 

Regarding global warming specifically what I believe is if there is global warming (and there are reasons to believe so) it is caused by numerous quantifiable sources, among them human activity. 

There is enough diametrically opposed scientific opinion generated by identical empirical data to support just about anybody’s argument. 

I seriously doubt the forecasts of immediate doom and gloom and the millions of deaths. However, I do understand how those living in southern California might feel that way based upon their daily observations of ‘car-topia’. It’s good that the whole earth isn’t like that. 

And those who suggest change are right. We do need to find alternate sources of energy and new ways to live. I support this and try to live in consonance wiòZ:   ;[\Z:   ;[]Z:   ;[^Z:   ;[_Z:   ;[`Z:   ;[aZ;   ;[bZ;   ;[cZ;   ;[dZ;   ;[eZ;   ;[fZ;   ;[gZ;   ;[hZ;   ;[iZ;   ;[jZ;   ;[kZ;   ;[lZ;   ;[mZ;   ;[nZ;   ;[oZ;   ;[pZ;   ;[qZ;   ;[rZ;   ;[sZ;   ;[tZ;   ;[uZ;   ;[vZ;   ;[wZ;   ;[xZ;   ;[yZ;   ;[zZ;   ;[{Z;   ;[|Z;   ;[}Z;   ;[~Z;   ;[Z<   ;[€Z<   ;[Z<   ;[‚Z<   ;[ƒZ<   ;[„Z<   ;[…Z<   ;[†Z<   ;[‡Z<   ;[ˆZ<   ;[‰Z<   ;[ŠZ<   ;[‹Z<   ;[ŒZ<   ;[Z<   ;[ŽZ<   ;[Z=   ;[Z=   ;[‘Z=   ;[’Z=   ;[“Z=   ;[”Z=   ;[•Z=   ;[–Z=   ;[—Z=   ;[˜Z=   ;[™Z=   ;[šZ=   ;[›Z=   ;[œZ=   ;[Z=   ;[žZ=   ;[ŸZ=   ;[ Z=   ;[¡Z=   ;[¢Z=   ;[£Z=   ;[¤Z=   ;[¥Z=   ;[¦Z=   ;[§Z=   ;[¨Z=   ;[©Z=   ;[ªZ=   ;[«Z=   ;[¬Z=   ;[­Z=   ;[®Z=   ;[¯Z=   ;[°Z=   ;[±Z=   ;[²Z=


----------



## Nick Phoenix (May 30, 2006)

Jack Weaver @ Tue May 30 said:


> Good Afternoon Nick,
> 
> One of the ‘J” guys here.
> 
> ...



I would be really curious to see what YOU think of this movie. Would it change your mind at all? I wonder... Please see it and report back. That would be very cool.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 30, 2006)

What you say makes me even more adamant that you need to see it, Jack. It's not at all a political play, it's what he's been doing with his life since losing the election, and he doesn't say we have less than ten years to survive. There isn't any scientific evidence to support what you're saying! Really - the CO2 levels now are many, many times what they've been in the past 650,000 years.

China is an ecological disaster. It would be great if we could change them, but they're hell bent on achieving first-world living conditions, and there's no way to stop them with Kyoto accords. They're planning on adding as many new households with their new-found prosperity as we have in the entire United States, for example! 

However, we're the ones who contribute by far the most to the impending disaster. I'm not trying to be patronizing, but you owe it to yourself to become informed about what's really going on - whether you go to the movie or not. What I can promise is that you wouldn't regret spending half an evening and $10 seeing it, whether or not you like Al Gore.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 30, 2006)

Oh, and I'm glad you like the Scarbee review. 

It's a great library.


----------



## José Herring (May 31, 2006)

Nick,

You're always talking about hard empirical evidence and then blame anybody that disagrees with you as being irrational.

I've looked at the hard empirical evidence, which btw is published freely to anybody who want's to take a look, and the hard empirical evidence shows a 1 degree rise in the last 100 years. I've now verified that with about 10 different sorces.

So yes the globe is warming. Yes we need to do something about it. But as far as earth problems go it ranks down about number 10. I'm more worried about middle eastern countries developing nukes, poluted air, poluted water, reliance on fossil based fuels, big oil companies and car companies squashing any further development in the area of cleaner burning cars, poluting factories in the east, leaking nuclear dissasters in Russia, Slashing and burning of needed vegitation in south america, ect.

The earth heating up is just a symptom of the many other things that are wrong about this planet. If we handle the other things then global warming will be a thing of the past. If we fixate on this one debatable issue then we'll miss the actual real issues which are really the cause of global warming anyway.

All I'm saying is that other things are far more real and terribly more important and far more immediate and dangerous.

Global warming is but a symptom of an ever degrading enviroment. I fear that focusing on global warming will produce the effect of giving a kid asprin for a fever. You treat the fever but the underlying cause is still present. Kill the bateria and the fever goes away. 

I think we're on the same side just looking at it in two different ways. 

On another note, isn't it CO that we should be worried about and not CO2. Don't plants use CO2. CO is the dangerous one right?

Jose


----------



## choc0thrax (May 31, 2006)

I don't need graphs and studies to see the earth is warming up. This January there were times when I could go outside in a T-shirt. Right now with humidity it's 99 Fahrenheit here and it's still May...and Canada. Even if the world wasn't heating up we should do something about the air quality. Technology moves fast, why is it that cars seem to be stuck in the past and not evolving to be less harmful to the environment. Pretty stupid situation and I don't feel bad to see the earth using storms etc. to fight this virus spreading on it- humanity.


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 31, 2006)

josejherring @ Wed May 31 said:


> Nick,
> 
> You're always talking about hard empirical evidence and then blame anybody that disagrees with you as being irrational.
> 
> ...



It's CO2. CO would kill us. One interesting display in the movie is where the graphs of changing CO2 content in the atmosphere is seen zigzagging because of the tilt of Earth's axle. When the bulk of the CO2 producing regions are away from the sun (winter) the CO2 levels drop. When the north hemisphere has summer and is tilting towards the sun the CO2 content rises.

(Edit: Oops, I mean the other way around because plants consume CO2 and produce O2.)

Jose, you need to see that movie.


----------



## José Herring (May 31, 2006)

Hans Adamson @ Wed May 31 said:


> josejherring @ Wed May 31 said:
> 
> 
> > Nick,
> ...



Jag vilja. Tack själv!


----------



## Hans Adamson (May 31, 2006)

josejherring @ Wed May 31 said:


> Hans Adamson @ Wed May 31 said:
> 
> 
> > josejherring @ Wed May 31 said:
> ...



:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (May 31, 2006)

[edited - I must have hit the keyboard by accident while part of my sentence was highlighted]

Jose, you're dead wrong to say that this is the #10 problem. It *is* completely irrational to believe that!

You can choose to believe that it's not happening, justifying your point of view by saying that the global temperature has only gone up one degree, but that doesn't change anything. We went through this earlier in the thread, but you didn't hear.

As the other Nick says, the warming effect is greatly exaggerated at the poles. The ice is melting, and that is causing all kinds of problems. Greenland is starting to melt too, and believe me, you don't want that, because the ocean will rise to dangerous levels. 

As Hans says, if you see that movie you will see why this has nothing to do with anyone's opinion. It's not a debate, it's simply that you don't understand.


----------



## fictionmusic (May 31, 2006)

Jack Weaver @ Thu May 25 said:


> This planetary body has gone through continual and unending temperature cycles since its formation. The sun is the largest contributor to this situation.
> 
> Hysterical political comment on either side isn't going to change the climate one iota.




You are right in both facts...the climate has always changed, and hysteria isn't going to change that. But in view of the massive use of cars and other atmosphere altering machines, it is simply perverse not to acknowledge that they would have an effect.

I guess we can blame all the observable global changes to things other than man which is good to know...that means we can keep on consuming, content in the knowledge we are but fleas on this big ol' world and are essentially powerless to affect any thing.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Jun 1, 2006)

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/eibessential/enviro_wackos/algore10yearstodoom.guest.html (Click Here)...ya know...to just lighten up this thread a little. 

:roll:  :razz: :wink: :smile: :roll:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jun 1, 2006)

How dare you make light of my hero Rush Limbaugh! He's one of the greatest minds mankind has ever seen.


----------



## Brian Ralston (Jun 1, 2006)

Nick Batzdorf @ Thu Jun 01 said:


> How dare you make light of my hero Rush Limbaugh! He's one of the greatest minds mankind has ever seen.



:lol: 

It is kind of entertaining though. :lol:


----------



## kid-surf (Jun 1, 2006)

Rush.... my favorite drug addict. :lol: 

Al, came to speak at my wife's work a while back, wish I would've gone. Sounded interesting. I later had dinner with his daughter but somehow the conversation didn't turn towards politics. :razz: (I'm being cheeky).


----------

