Environment

[Traveler]

1)

.....

The polar ice caps are melting? Hmmm...another false claim. Here's the data to show what I mean:

Are the ice caps melting? ? The Register

So again, there is no global climate issue caused by mankind.

I think you ought to provide a link to a "real" Climate Scientist – like this one: Jules' klimaatblog: Steven Goddard & The Register

I would also suggest that you consider research outside of political publications.

The Traveler

[JohnBirchSociety]

I think you ought to provide a link to a "real" Climate Scientist – like this one: Jules' klimaatblog: Steven Goddard & The Register

I would also suggest that you consider research outside of political publications.

The Traveler

So that I clearly understand you. Are you stating that polar (North and South) ice-caps are melting at a rate that is outside of the normative cyclical rate (summer / winter)? Furthermore, are you attributing that melting (which you've yet to demonstrate is outside the realm of the normative cyclical rate) is caused by the activity of man?

A yes answer to either question is wrong.

We are not warming globally. Since 2000, the global temperature has decreased to the levels seen in 1979. Since it is a fact that we are cooling as a planet (which is going to accelerate if the dirth of SUN activity continues) how can ice be melting at a higher rate than occurs in the normal melting / aggregation cycle?

Polar ice has remained quite constant since 1979 (when measurements began). There is some melting in the summer, and aggregation in the winter. Because the amount of ice (average) has been level since 1979, even with the 1979-2000 temperature increase, followed by the 2000-2005 decrease, how can you maintain you assertion that the ice-caps are melting at an abnormal rate?

My data is freely available from NASA.

[Guest HEthePrimate]

1) Our climate is effected by the activities of man.

If you light a cigarette in your house, does it affect the atmosphere of your house? If you light a fire in your fireplace, does it warm the air?

It takes a lot more activity on our part to noticeably affect the earth's climate, but affect it we do.

2) Nuclear power is unsafe.

It is unsafe, if not done properly. And so is coal-produced power, if we don't control it properly. That's not to say we can't take appropriate safety measures and use these kinds of power. However, nuclear waste is a lot trickier to deal with than the waste from coal power plants.

3) Oil spills like the Exxon Valdez pose grave environmental disasters.

No duh. Of course they do.

4) We make too much green-house gases.

Most likely, yes. In any case I prefer erring on the side of caution.

5) We're polluting the oceans of the world.

How could anything possibly be more obvious?

6) The polar ice-caps are melting at an alarming rate.

You are clearly not alarmed, but I am.

7) The ozone layer is depleting / depleted by man.

Yes, it is.

Merely saying there is no problem won't make it go away.

[JohnBirchSociety]

1) Our climate is effected by the activities of man.

If you light a cigarette in your house, does it affect the atmosphere of your house? If you light a fire in your fireplace, does it warm the air?

It takes a lot more activity on our part to noticeably affect the earth's climate, but affect it we do.

2) Nuclear power is unsafe.

It is unsafe, if not done properly. And so is coal-produced power, if we don't control it properly. That's not to say we can't take appropriate safety measures and use these kinds of power. However, nuclear waste is a lot trickier to deal with than the waste from coal power plants.

3) Oil spills like the Exxon Valdez pose grave environmental disasters.

No duh. Of course they do.

4) We make too much green-house gases.

Most likely, yes. In any case I prefer erring on the side of caution.

5) We're polluting the oceans of the world.

How could anything possibly be more obvious?

6) The polar ice-caps are melting at an alarming rate.

You are clearly not alarmed, but I am.

7) The ozone layer is depleting / depleted by man.

Yes, it is.

Merely saying there is no problem won't make it go away.

1) This thread is about global problems. Back to the message. If the largest volcanic eruptions in recorded human history don't change the global environment for but a brief period (even though they spew hundreds of millions of tons of debris into the upper atmosphere), how can we say man does?

2) Commercial, electrical generating Nuclear Power Plants are the safest form of energy ever used in the United States. No person has ever died from a nuclear accident at such a plant.

3) Oil spills like the Valdez pose and do damage on a large scale to the local area where they occur. That damage does not linger for a long time, and has no global impact.

4) The amount of green-house gas we emit is minute in quantity to the natural environments emmissions, such as volcanoes and methane ocean release and animal / insect activity.

5) In totality we are not destroying our oceans. They are so massive we hardly show up on the scale. There are local issues. Some are locally devastating. There are no global issues.

6) Why are you alarmed? For instance, the South Pole Cap has more ice on it than in recent history.

7) The Ozone layer is cyclical in nature based upon Sunlight exposure. Ozone is created by the interaction of UV radiation from the Sun and Oxygen in our atmosphere. Nothing man does interferes with this process. Again, it is cyclical.

If you want a thesis paper in a forum like this, good luck. I've already given references for what I've stated. I've not declared things moot just by saying so.

[a-train]

I have high hopes for the power source that was touted so often in my youth.

MIT opens new 'window' on solar energy - MIT News Office

'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution - MIT News Office

SOLAR! I imagine a future free of power lines and power plants. Buildings will be self powered. Transportation will be electric. I think petrol was only a brief interruption in the electrical revolution.

-a-train

Edited November 4, 2008 by a-train

[JohnBirchSociety]

I have high hopes for the power source that was touted so often in my youth.

MIT opens new 'window' on solar energy - MIT News Office

'Major discovery' from MIT primed to unleash solar revolution - MIT News Office

SOLAR! I imagine a future free of power lines and power plants. Buildings will be self powered. Transportation will be electric. I think petrol was only a brief interruption in the electrical revolution.

-a-train

I'm very hopeful that petrol was an "interruption" as you put it.

As Solar Power advances, it should have great impact on us as a society.

We do have the answer, right now, for electric generation. Nuclear Power.

Just one pellet of uranium (2cm, squared) has the same power generation capacity as 100 Railroad-Cars of Coal! With no emission, other than water vapor from the cooling towers. With safe waste storage (in salt mines), with a nearly unlimited supply, domestically of fuel. It is the answer.

There's enough uranium, just in the ocean waters to fuel all of man's electrical needs for thousands of years!

[Traveler]

1) This thread is about global problems. Back to the message. If the largest volcanic eruptions in recorded human history don't change the global environment for but a brief period (even though they spew hundreds of millions of tons of debris into the upper atmosphere), how can we say man does?

2) Commercial, electrical generating Nuclear Power Plants are the safest form of energy ever used in the United States. No person has ever died from a nuclear accident at such a plant.

3) Oil spills like the Valdez pose and do damage on a large scale to the local area where they occur. That damage does not linger for a long time, and has no global impact.

4) The amount of green-house gas we emit is minute in quantity to the natural environments emmissions, such as volcanoes and methane ocean release and animal / insect activity.

5) In totality we are not destroying our oceans. They are so massive we hardly show up on the scale. There are local issues. Some are locally devastating. There are no global issues.

6) Why are you alarmed? For instance, the South Pole Cap has more ice on it than in recent history.

7) The Ozone layer is cyclical in nature based upon Sunlight exposure. Ozone is created by the interaction of UV radiation from the Sun and Oxygen in our atmosphere. Nothing man does interferes with this process. Again, it is cyclical.

If you want a thesis paper in a forum like this, good luck. I've already given references for what I've stated. I've not declared things moot just by saying so.

Your thinking is very linear. Here is a link to help you in thinking outside the “box”. It is a little introduction to Chaos theory and fractals:

World of Fractals - Fractals and Chaos Theory in the Real World

The Traveler

[JohnBirchSociety]

Your thinking is very linear. Here is a link to help you in thinking outside the “box”. It is a little introduction to Chaos theory and fractals:

World of Fractals - Fractals and Chaos Theory in the Real World

The Traveler

Ah yes, the ignorance of obvious cause and effect.

And, of course I'm in the "box" and you're outside of it. Don't we all think that way? Well, actually, not. To think that way is arrogance.

All I can do is look at the data (like increased ice in the South Pole) and reach conclusions.

All I can do is look at how ozone in the upper atmosphere is created and realize that we have no means at our disposal of affecting that creation or lack thereof. I look at that data and realize the increase / decrease in ozone is a cyclical matter that has solely to do with the orbital patter of the Earth around the Sun.

All I can do is look at Commercial Electrical Generation via Nuclear Power in the United States and see that it is factually the safest, most environmentally responsible form of energy generation ever used in American History. All I can do is see that no person has ever died as the result of a nuclear accident at a commercial electrical generation nuclear power plant in the United States.

I don't fool myself or attempt to fool others by claiming that I'm outside the "box" in my thinking.

Its' plain scientific method. The opposition is making claims that man is destroying the global environment and global action is absolutely required. Such action involves the largest decrease in human productivity and freedom in mans' history on this planet. Yet, when I ask for examples that rebut the obvious science involving the SUN / Earth, for instance, I get that I'm not outside the 'box'?

Nonsense. It is clear that as to the global environment, the interaction of the Earth with the Sun in their respective orbits / activities has a nearly infinitely overwhelming effect on the global climate / environment. In fact, it is so overwhelming (for example, just the energy we receive from the Sun per second) that nothing man can do even shows up on the scale, unless you expand the scale to non-sensical absurdity.

You can gift-wrap that 'box' of yours...