1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Former EPA heads blast administration stand on Global Warming

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Cholly, Jan 23, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DonLandis

    DonLandis Hall Of Fame

    3,363
    0
    Dec 17, 2003
    When Bogy says something ignorant, it is a "good lighthearted jab" But when "conservatives" say it it is "a personal attack"

    MY lesson in the Bogy liberal ministries for the week.

    May I too hide behind the skirts of " :D "
     
  2. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    http://www.latimes.com/news/printed...s9jan09,1,7233509.story?track=mostemailedlink

    They're only polar bears, right? So what's the big deal???

    Well, for one thing this is certainly a man-made phenomena and not natural. Its effects are not limited to lakes, streams and soils surrounding some nasty chemical factories or refineries but have reached into some of the most pristine and remote regions of the planet. Furthermore, this is ONLY flame-retardant. Each of us probably burn more petroleum in one week then was necessary to produce all the "flame-retarded" curtains, couches and clothes in our houses and workplaces combined! If we're doing this much damage to polar bears simply from the desire to have our homes not go up in flames, AS FAST, from a stray spark or cigarette, what damage are we doing by spewing the exhaust from hundreds of millions of barrels of oil each day into the air we all breath?

    The conservative response is ALWAYS "Well ya' know, it could all be natural! Let's just wait and see." Or, "Hey, maybe this'll be a good thing!"

    I'll tell you one thing. A sea level rise of just a few feet, or even one foot, will be devastating where I live. And I live at 1500'! But it will be a little more difficult to get to the grocery store for those Canadian oranges and grapefruit as the coastal roads here(about 60% of all roads here) are undermined at high tide. It's even going to be more difficult to get to the Chevron station. And that will eventually hurt oil stocks as more and more SUVs simply float out into the channel!

    And Hawaii's coastline will certainly not be the only one effected. Bogy knows it. But many of the rest of you "high and dry" will be effected too, if not directly, certainly indirectly.

    I agree we should be very careful not to overestimate the human capacity to effect the environment. But that doesn't mean we should underestimate it, or completely ignore it either just for convenience' sake!

    So tell us all, pj or Don, how DID flame-retardant chemicals get into the bloodstreams, bones and reproductive organs of polar bears, NATURALLY??? Certainly you must have some slick and snide explanation. Or isn't it convenient for you to address the matter?

    And here's a heads-up. Sell Coca-Cola now! It won't be long before they're going to have to redesign their packaging and cans and come up with a new advertising strategy.
     
  3. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    Are you on a caffeine high???:lol: my, my my.... You start with a rant about pollution and apply it to Global Warming. I'm impressed!:) Ok, flame retardant chemicals.... you want me to say pollution is bad? Ok, pollution is bad... duh.:p You want to say pollution proves global warming is man-generated? You need more potent drugs than caffeine for that one. :lol:

    First a foot or so rise in the ocean level - of course it would have some impact IF it happens. Remember 1) this is over a hundred years! Are you saying those coastal Hawaii roads are going to go unchanged otherwise for the next century? Then you must have much better road designers/builders than us stuck in the middle of the continent. Plus, that prediction is that of the EXTREME, most put that increase at a much smaller number. I was poking at Bogy's comment about submerging Florida, New York, .... apparently soon and permanently due to global warming. I've lived in Florida. Coastal areas would notice a foot or two rise in sea level, but I don't think it would be catastrophic, particularly if done over a century with time to make some adjustment. Shoot, the Dutch are essentially floating and the Italians have a city in somewhat the same condition - are you saying we cannot adjust to changes in our environment?

    Here's my global warming rant/point: We should not dismiss the possibility that humans can have some impact on the environment, including climate and weather (they are different). We should do (and are doing) what makes sense for the time to reduce emissions, including greenhouse gasses. That does not mean we need to jump on the politically correct bandwagon just because someone else says we should. Kyoto is rubbish. I expect that within a few years, the Kyoto accord will be history as the industrialized nations realize it is nonsense. We have to get over this hysterical ego problem that says man is causing this massive change in global climate when the evidence simply does not support it. These studies that make the claim ignore the largest variable that impacts climate, the sun, ignores the dominant greenhouse gasses, water vapor, ignore the problems with their own data (atmosphere temperature versus surface temperature), ignore the scientific inconsistencies of their model. Ok, maybe ignore is too harsh, but they certainly downplay - for the purpose apparently of political purposes.

    The planet is warming up. It has been doing so for the last many, many, many centuries. Perhaps man, due to his industrialized society, is a part of the problem. That will take more proof. Are increasing temperatures bad? Not necessarily - and no one understands the process well enough to make that kind of god-like observation. What is bad for some is good for others - its called change. For all you know, if we could stop any change in average global temperatures - that very thing might end up catastrophic.
     
  4. ntexasdude

    ntexasdude Hall Of Fame

    2,684
    0
    Jan 23, 2005
    There could be a huge global market for fireproof polar bears.
     
  5. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    actually the volcanos in the cascades are heating up.... maybe it is a good thing afterall :lol:
     
  6. tomcrown1

    tomcrown1 Hall Of Fame

    1,576
    0
    Jan 16, 2006
    :grin: Does this mean I will become a fish as the left coast will sink no matter what!! earthquake or global warming, I know we will become the whale that ate all wing nuts--HMM WING NUTS FOR LUNCH
     
  7. Cholly

    Cholly Old Guys Rule! DBSTalk Club

    4,837
    45
    Mar 22, 2004
    Indian...
    I'm deeply disappointed in the attitudes of some of the posters here. It appears that Don and pjmrt haven't bothered to read either of the articles I referenced, but have instead had knee jerk reactions to the thread's title.
    If, indeed, the arctic ice cover is retreating at a rate of 8 percent per decade, that is definitely alarming. Why? Please read the second article -- in particular the last few paragraphs.
    If you think global warming is not an important matter, you are living in a dream world. Anything we can do to reduce the human contributions to global warming will help to slow the tide. This should not be a big conservatives vs. liberals argument. We are all in this together.
     
  8. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    No Charlie, I did read the article. Perhaps something you did not pick up on...

    results have not yet been published in a scientific journal. They've talked to the press before they've talked to their colleages. What does that fact alone tell you of their "science".

    also...

    Sea ice records in the Arctic are sketchy before 1978.

    Again, even if the melting is really accelerating and not a short term event, what are you saying we should do about it? Panic? What exactly?

    From your other link

    Johnson said the current administration has spent $20 billion on research and technology to combat climate change . It would seem that this is NOT a conservative or liberal or Dem/Republican issue. Its a matter of how much response is needed. There is a great difference from observing the effect and making a rational response to it while one gathers the data, and making an irrational response to it, being stampeded into taking actions which may be ineffectial w.r.t. the climate while harming real people by loss of jobs or quality of life.

    A parable....
    On a hiking trail, a man was partly buried by a landslide - several small rocks and one big boulder. The first hiker came by and said give me your wallet and I'll get you out. Ok said the man and the hiker removed a couple of the small rocks. He was still stuck. Next hiker came by and said, this is alarming! I will help and he went to get dynamite for the boulder. While waiting for the other hiker, another hiker came by. Before the buried man could speak, the hiker took out his shovel, dug a small hole and pulled the man out. :p
     
  9. durl

    durl Hall Of Fame

    1,743
    0
    Mar 27, 2003
    I just finished Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear. Good read on the global warming theory. While it's a fictional story, he uses data along with graphs and charts that are referenced so we can research them as well. There was one reference, I believe regarding the supposed melting of Greenland's glaciers, that showed that while the glaciers were receding in one area, they were actually growing in another area.

    I remember the scientists saying 30 years ago that we were headed for another ice age because of declining temperatures. But it's hard to bring in money by saying that the earth's getting colder on its own. However, if you can get people to believe that they are doing things that are having catastrophic effects on the earth, you get tons of money to research and you gain political influence. Look at how much money has been spent and how much legislation has been passed.
     
  10. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,002
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I called it first!:D

    Actually, this IS an improvement. Ten years ago you would have denied there was any climate change whatsoever.

    Fine. Could we at least dig a small hole then? Or should we first discuss whether the man is really buried after all? Or if in the end, he is not better off to remain buried?
     
  11. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    you knew me 10 years ago???????:sure:



    $20B would seem to be at least a little hole.
     
  12. DonLandis

    DonLandis Hall Of Fame

    3,363
    0
    Dec 17, 2003
    Cholly- The problem I have with articles like this as well as in another thread, those discounting the use of E85, is that the authors and readers often violate simple science in their process of making a case where none exists. I don't have the time nor the inclination to explain it to you but all I would say is that certain assumptions are being made in these reports that have huge fallacies and the thrust of the article is to appeal to the emotion rather than use logic and scientific facts. This is what happens when a group politicizes a scientific phenomenon such as global warming. I find it simply ignorant for anyone to deny that we have global warming and for that matter global colling as the earth has always been a cyclical cliament. To deny that is either stupid or the accuser just doesn't communicate well. eg. if you believe that I deny global warming. You are not understanding me well. I don't think you are stupid. What I deny are the claims from some politicos the cause of global warming stems from only specific sources. Coincidentally, it's those sources claimed that are the resource for certain political activists and their reason to exist.

    The interpretation of the article is not credible simply because it makes outlandish assumptions that suppose future events will extrapolate according to the writer's supposition. This kind of thinking is fine for science fiction but not for real science. I have to get back to work so I turn the balance of my time to Pjmt. :)
     
  13. Cholly

    Cholly Old Guys Rule! DBSTalk Club

    4,837
    45
    Mar 22, 2004
    Indian...
  14. pjmrt

    pjmrt Hall Of Fame

    3,939
    0
    Jul 17, 2003
    I'm surprised the NASA scientist kept his job - he certainly would not have faired that well under Clinton I suspect. :D Got a government job working for a Republican president and he makes speeches saying...
    adding that he planned to vote for Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry.

    Anyway, the leader of an organization speaks for the organization, not just his opinion. Organiztions as a whole decide what does and does not get released to the public, its not his call - and there is nothing diabolical in reminding the guy of that. If he wants unincumbered freedom, he is free to seek employment elsewhere.

    As the the Washington Post article, I just love the fair and impartial treatment it gives the subject...

    Now that most scientists agree human activity is causing Earth to warm...

    Most scientists agree the global climate is warming slightly. Very few agree on the causes. And as already discussed, the best scientific data is not conclusive about the cause, much less the extent of the problem, or if there is even a problem. The earth has a variety of natural checks and balances and for all you know, playing "god" with our limited understanding could just make matters worse. Its happened every time in the past. The current approach, which is to slow emissions and study the climate is the most reasonable approach for this time.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page