An Inconvenient Truth

spike said:
I was replying to your discussion on testing with a description of the ice core analysis. Do think because ice core analysis was discussed in the guardian they must do it a different way?
Click to expand...

No more than I think that the accuracy of forensic science is in any way effected by the Enquirer's reporting of alien autopsies.
 
Professur said:
No more than I think that the accuracy of forensic science is in any way effected by the Enquirer's reporting of alien autopsies.
Click to expand...
:D

Spike, it seems clear that you are bent on accepting the "experts" view of the problem. There are three things I would suggest you ask yourself about this:
1. What are the "experts'" qualifications? Are they verifiable?
2. Are there other, equally (dare I say more) qualified "experts" who hold differing views?
3. How much were said "experts" paid to make their dire predictions?

If you see it in the popular media you should assume it's either a lie or only part of the truth until you see independent verification. Maybe even then...
 
Luis G said:
Gonz, I'd like to see nature vanishing some tires, batteries, diapers and nuclear waste.
Click to expand...

It's happening. Not on your timescale, which is part of the problem. 75000 years is, on the scale of eons, nothing.

We recycle whenever possible. I'm not for dirtying the planet. I just wish we'd see what pimples humanity is on the ass of time.
 
Luis G said:
Gonz, I'd like to see nature vanishing some tires, batteries, diapers and nuclear waste.
Click to expand...


Jsut FYI. I spent some time researching diapers. Found out something interesting. Disposable diapers are in fact better for the environment than cloth.

It was a study done by a 'parent group' but when I looked into it, it seemed legit.

Disposable diapers have an initial polution cost of production. That's production of the plastic, rubber, cloth and 'absorbing agent'.

Cloth diapers have an initial polution cost of production. Cloth and sewing. Initial laundering


But then.

Modern disposables have a much reduced polution impact due to ... technology. the absorbing agent is biodegradable ... usually within weeks. The plastic has a biodegradable period of less than a month. The remenants are non-toxic, engineered that way. Both are usually digested by landfill organisms and are usually almost undetectable within a year from the background composition of the soil. (this refers to name brand, high quality disposables. Dollar store brands vary between low quality from those same plants, to older manufacturing plants using old tech.)

Cloth, on the other hand, triples it's polution impact each time it's laundered, from bleach, high phospher detergents and electricity usage. Not to mention the additional chemicals added to the waste water at the sewage treatment plant.

Suprised the hell outta me.
 
Professur said:
Jsut FYI. I spent some time researching diapers. Found out something interesting. Disposable diapers are in fact better for the environment than cloth.

It was a study done by a 'parent group' but when I looked into it, it seemed legit.

Disposable diapers have an initial polution cost of production. That's production of the plastic, rubber, cloth and 'absorbing agent'.

Cloth diapers have an initial polution cost of production. Cloth and sewing. Initial laundering


But then.

Modern disposables have a much reduced polution impact due to ... technology. the absorbing agent is biodegradable ... usually within weeks. The plastic has a biodegradable period of less than a month. The remenants are non-toxic, engineered that way. Both are usually digested by landfill organisms and are usually almost undetectable within a year from the background composition of the soil. (this refers to name brand, high quality disposables. Dollar store brands vary between low quality from those same plants, to older manufacturing plants using old tech.)

Cloth, on the other hand, triples it's polution impact each time it's laundered, from bleach, high phospher detergents and electricity usage. Not to mention the additional chemicals added to the waste water at the sewage treatment plant.

Suprised the hell outta me.
Click to expand...


Learn something new everyday!
 
spike said:
How did you come to that conclusion? Looking around?
Click to expand...

Actually, yeah. I look around. I base a lot of my decisions on what I see, not what Dan Rather/Rush Limbaugh/Tipper Gore/Dr. Phil/whoever tells me. Ever tried it? Didn't think so.
 
chcr said:
:D

Spike, it seems clear that you are bent on accepting the "experts" view of the problem. There are three things I would suggest you ask yourself about this:
1. What are the "experts'" qualifications? Are they verifiable?
2. Are there other, equally (dare I say more) qualified "experts" who hold differing views?
3. How much were said "experts" paid to make their dire predictions?
Click to expand...

Assuming the opposite of what scientists say is true without getting these answers for yourself seems an odd way of approaching things.

It's like if the experts told me there was a tornado warning and my first assumption was that there must be no tornadoes.
 
SouthernN'Proud said:
Actually, yeah. I look around. I base a lot of my decisions on what I see, not what Dan Rather/Rush Limbaugh/Tipper Gore/Dr. Phil/whoever tells me. Ever tried it? Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Sure, do it all the time. Some assumptions require certain facts though, like in this case where you were completely wrong.
 
spike said:
Sure, do it all the time. Some assumptions require certain facts though, like in this case where you were completely wrong.
Click to expand...

I have learned that facts are conveniently ignored all too often. Wouldn't you agree, Gonz? :p
 
spike said:
Assuming the opposite of what scientists say is true without getting these answers for yourself seems an odd way of approaching things.

It's like if the experts told me there was a tornado warning and my first assumption was that there must be no tornadoes.
Click to expand...
The opposite? Clearly this is some definition of the word opposite of which I am unaware. :lol:
*Sigh* You know what. Never mind. You're right, we're all going to die (actually we are).
The end is neer!!!!
 
No you're right. Any scientists that ever warns of danger must be wrong.

Let's find something shiny to stare at and assume all will be well.
 
Enzymes feasting on C02 will combat global warming

Nano Spot We're all saved!

By Mark Wendman: Wednesday 09 August 2006, 13:46
A SIGNIFICANT advance that might have potential to reverse global warming has been developed, but yet to be commercialised on a large scale.

The technology provides a biochemical means to safely scrub CO2 from concentrated sources of the gas, like smokestacks of numerous types. The advance was enabled by isolation of the enzyme in animals that removes Carbon Dioxide from blood to permit exhaling CO2 gas. Application of a spot of gene cloning can make this technology fix commercially practical.

The advance has been achieved in partnership with a research team at the University of Laval in Quebec City. A recent tech startup called CO-2 Solution is planning to clone production of the enzyme for possible commercial scale application to addressing smoke stack CO2 greenhouse gas abatement. The firm is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. And has a web site here.

This mind-boggling technical feat - focused innovation that might defeat the massive accumulation of greenhouse gases, presages a potential avenue for a viable concerted attack on the root cause of global warming - large scale CO2 emissions. The byproducts of the enzymatically assisted scrubbing of CO2 are harmless Carbonate and Hydrogen gas. Simple and elegant, might even yield a viable source of Hydrogen fuel if done on a very large scale.

One can envision that when the stark reality of global warming breaks through the thick skull of some powerful politician's head we might see the implementation of a greenhouse gas abatement tax - or broad adoption of technology based on this enzyme capture of CO2 to remediate many industrial processes, that generate profuse CO2 emissions.

Kyoto redux but with positive substantive results. Forget speculative greenhouse gas fixes and economic scale backs - this CO2 abatement technology maye be applied universally and cost effectively.

The firm CO2 Solution is yet to attract substantial commercialfunding, but if this technology can solve a common universal problem by a truly novel and practical means, that shouldn't be long in following. All respect goes out to the innovative research team at CO2 Solution. µ
Click to expand...

Source
 
scienceticians supported by grant money = reporting what is sympathetic to what cause money granting agency wanna advance.

"if you've ever worked in a restaurant, you never wanna eat in one."
 
2minkey said:
scienceticians supported by grant money = reporting what is sympathetic to what cause money granting agency wanna advance.

"if you've ever worked in a restaurant, you never wanna eat in one."
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting you were once a sciencetician?
 
Luis G said:
Are you suggesting you were once a sciencetician?
Click to expand...

maybe. the "big three" auto companies funded my dissertation research. and a lot of driniking. maybe even some other things.

...former academic to private practice. but i can tell you... whatever bullshit agenda the folks with the money are trying to pitch... you do your best to please the sacks-of-shit. so you can eat the next day. it's ALL perverse.

now, if you'll excuse me, i need to change into my "lil orphan annie" costume and don my knee pads to please my corporate sponsors.
 
Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe

By Peter Schweizer Thu Aug 10, 6:46 AM ET

Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."


Graciously, Gore tells consumers how to change their lives to curb their carbon-gobbling ways: Switch to compact fluorescent light bulbs, use a clothesline, drive a hybrid, use renewable energy, dramatically cut back on consumption. Better still, responsible global citizens can follow Gore's example, because, as he readily points out in his speeches, he lives a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." But if Al Gore is the world's role model for ecology, the planet is doomed.

For someone who says the sky is falling, he does very little. He says he recycles and drives a hybrid. And he claims he uses renewable energy credits to offset the pollution he produces when using a private jet to promote his film. (In reality, Paramount Classics, the film's distributor, pays this.)

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Then there is the troubling matter of his energy use. In the Washington, D.C., area, utility companies offer wind energy as an alternative to traditional energy. In Nashville, similar programs exist. Utility customers must simply pay a few extra pennies per kilowatt hour, and they can continue living their carbon-neutral lifestyles knowing that they are supporting wind energy. Plenty of businesses and institutions have signed up. Even the Bush administration is using green energy for some federal office buildings, as are thousands of area residents.

But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.

Gore is not alone.
Democratic National Committee Chairman
Howard Dean has said, "Global warming is happening, and it threatens our very existence." The DNC website applauds the fact that Gore has "tried to move people to act." Yet, astoundingly, Gore's persuasive powers have failed to convince his own party: The DNC has not signed up to pay an additional two pennies a kilowatt hour to go green. For that matter, neither has the
Republican National Committee.

Maybe our very existence isn't threatened.

Gore has held these apocalyptic views about the environment for some time. So why, then, didn't Gore dump his family's large stock holdings in Occidental (Oxy) Petroleum? As executor of his family's trust, over the years Gore has controlled hundreds of thousands of dollars in Oxy stock. Oxy has been mired in controversy over oil drilling in ecologically sensitive areas.

Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.

Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.

The issue here is not simply Gore's hypocrisy; it's a question of credibility. If he genuinely believes the apocalyptic vision he has put forth and calls for radical changes in the way other people live, why hasn't he made any radical change in his life? Giving up the zinc mine or one of his homes is not asking much, given that he wants the rest of us to radically change our lives.

Peter Schweizer is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Source



Oops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top