Massive ice shelf on verge of breakup

[RetiredGySgt]

so let me get this straight, you do think that spewing tons of pollutants into the atmosphere is a GOOD thing to do? Is that right?

Are you sure your IQ isn't 80 or lower?

 

[maineman]

Are you sure your IQ isn't 80 or lower?

yeah, I am sure. wanna bet $1000 that mine is higher than yours? I will.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

yeah, I am sure. wanna bet $1000 that mine is higher than yours? I will.

You gonna take a proctored test?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

so let me get this straight, you do think that spewing tons of pollutants into the atmosphere is a GOOD thing to do? Is that right?

You getting that from my previous post would indicate your either stupid or drunk. Since your still typing fine I assumed you might just be stupid. If your drunk that is ok.

That you could type that as an accurate assessment of what you honestly thought my last post meant tells us a lot about you, and it is not good. So the question is, was it an accurate assessment of what you thought I said? Or where you just trying to convey a false impression to those others that might read this thread in the hopes of confusing them or in successfully attacking my character by posting an obviously ignorant assessment of what I said?

 

[Bern80]

so let me get this straight, you do think that spewing tons of pollutants into the atmosphere is a GOOD thing to do? Is that right?

So because he believes man isn't causing global warming means he thinks pollution is good? yeah, that's a perfectly reaonable, rationale, logical conculusion.

 

[maineman]

So because he believes man isn't causing global warming means he thinks pollution is good? yeah, that's a perfectly reaonable, rationale, logical conculusion.

Wouldn't you agree that the people who are denying global warming the loudest are those that object to the measures being suggested to curb it?

Wouldn't you agree that, even if you weren't sure whether global warming COULD in fact be reversed, adopting those measures would be good for the planet?

Wouldn't you agree that someone who was vehemently opposed to taking steps to clean up the planet must not think that spewing tons of pollutants into the finite space of earth's atmosphere is a bad thing?

Although, I suppose they could be mean spirited assholes without children who don't really give a fuck about what sort of world they leave to the next generation.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Wouldn't you agree that the people who are denying global warming the loudest are those that object to the measures being suggested to curb it?

Wouldn't you agree that, even if you weren't sure whether global warming COULD in fact be reversed, adopting those measures would be good for the planet?

Wouldn't you agree that someone who was vehemently opposed to taking steps to clean up the planet must not think that spewing tons of pollutants into the finite space of earth's atmosphere is a bad thing?

Although, I suppose they could be mean spirited assholes without children who don't really give a fuck about what sort of world they leave to the next generation.

None of your statements apply, and they ignore the fact that we are IN FACT reducing emissions ever year and were doing so before the latest scare tactics.

 

[maineman]

None of your statements apply, and they ignore the fact that we are IN FACT reducing emissions ever year and were doing so before the latest scare tactics.

So if I only shit in your front yard five times a week instead of every day, you're fine with that and see no reason to get me to reduce my output even further?

 

[TopGunna]

So if I only shit in your front yard five times a week instead of every day, you're fine with that and see no reason to get me to reduce my output even further?

That's a terrible analogy.

Crap in your front yard almost certainly does cause harm. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere will not certainly lead to runaway temperature increases.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere does retain and reflect infrared energy back to Earth, but it has a diminishing return. That much is known.

What is unknown (and at the center of the debate) is whether increased CO2 is going to lead to a positive feedback loop: where higher temperatures lead to increased atmospheric water vapor, which in turn lead to higher temperatures, which leads to even greater atmospheric water vapor, etc. That part of the science is ALL THEORY with ZERO empirical evidence.

That's the issue I have - that AGW theory relies on positive feedback loops, when the physical world is actually dominated by negative feedback loops.

That doesn't mean I like pollution - it means I don't think we need to stagnate progress based on a theory that doesn't have emperical proof.

 

[maineman]

That's a terrible analogy.

Crap in your front yard almost certainly does cause harm. Increased CO2 in the atmosphere will not certainly lead to runaway temperature increases.

Increased CO2 in the atmosphere does retain and reflect infrared energy back to Earth, but it has a diminishing return. That much is known.

What is unknown (and at the center of the debate) is whether increased CO2 is going to lead to a positive feedback loop: where higher temperatures lead to increased atmospheric water vapor, which in turn lead to higher temperatures, which leads to even greater atmospheric water vapor, etc. That part of the science is ALL THEORY with ZERO empirical evidence.

That's the issue I have - that AGW theory relies on positive feedback loops, when the physical world is actually dominated by negative feedback loops.

That doesn't mean I like pollution - it means I don't think we need to stagnate progress based on a theory that doesn't have emperical proof.

why can we not encourage progress by promoting green alternatives that create jobs and economic activity?

and are you suggesting that all that smoke rising from coal fired power plants in the midwest is just CO2? Is it just CO2 that is causing the pine forests in Maine to turn yellow?

 

[TopGunna]

why can we not encourage progress by promoting green alternatives that create jobs and economic activity?

and are you suggesting that all that smoke rising from coal fired power plants in the midwest is just CO2? Is it just CO2 that is causing the pine forests in Maine to turn yellow?

There's plenty of demand for green alternatives - the problem is most of them are too expensive, especially when compared with fossil fuels. There's plenty of incentive for private industry to research and develop renewable energy sources. This will be especially true as fossil fuels become increasingly scarce.

People seem pretty fed up with gas prices closing in on $4/gallon. I think most people around the country would welcome a new energy source that can provide more bang for their buck. Green alternatives don't need to be promoted, they need to be identified and produced more efficiently. There's a market just waiting for it.

As far as CO2 - I focused on that because it's the driver in global warming theory. Obviously coal combustion produces methane and sulfur oxides as well, which can have negative externalities as you've described. But at the heart of the AGW debate is carbon emissions - which is why I focused on that in a thread about global warming.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

why can we not encourage progress by promoting green alternatives that create jobs and economic activity?

and are you suggesting that all that smoke rising from coal fired power plants in the midwest is just CO2? Is it just CO2 that is causing the pine forests in Maine to turn yellow?

You do not even know what it is that the whack jobs claim Man is doing to cause global warming.

As for Coal plants talk to the whackos they stopped nuclear power over 20 years ago and kept us using them. And as Gas climbs in cost they will become even more prelavant. You also may want to talk to the developing Nations since they are going to rapidly pass the US in emissions and are in fact consciously chosing to use old style plants with less emission controls because they are CHEAPER to build.

 

[Paulie]

There's plenty of demand for green alternatives - the problem is most of them are too expensive, especially when compared with fossil fuels. There's plenty of incentive for private industry to research and develop renewable energy sources. This will be especially true as fossil fuels become increasingly scarce.

People seem pretty fed up with gas prices closing in on $4/gallon. I think most people around the country would welcome a new energy source that can provide more bang for their buck. Green alternatives don't need to be promoted, they need to be identified and produced more efficiently. There's a market just waiting for it.

There's a market waiting for it as far as consumers go, but the big producers whose entire livelihood as based on fossil fuels, are what is holding things back.

The oil and coal lobbies have enough influence that they can get what they want. Until Americans boycott what's being offered to us, they know they will always have us by the balls.

 

[Bern80]

There's a market waiting for it as far as consumers go, but the big producers whose entire livelihood as based on fossil fuels, are what is holding things back.

The oil and coal lobbies have enough influence that they can get what they want. Until Americans boycott what's being offered to us, they know they will always have us by the balls.

Can you blame all those people who livlihood is dependant on those industries for trying to protect their jobs? What do you want them to do? Take one for the team, so to speak?

 

[jreeves]

So if I only shit in your front yard five times a week instead of every day, you're fine with that and see no reason to get me to reduce my output even further?

If you shit in my front yard, I'll kick your arse....LOL
Seriously though, I think there is a happy medium, you can't restrict industries endlessly. At the same time you can't have companies showing no restraint in their air pollution either.

As a side note, CFC's were banned in use of refrigerants used in air conditioning systems. I think that is the biggest load of shit regulation I have ever heard. CFC's are supposedly ozone depleting chemicals. It seems to me, that CFC's were proven to be ozone depleting in a laboratory and not in the real world. Supposedly, Chloro-Floro Carbons are released when an air conditioning system has a refrigerant leak and these molecules travel thousands of miles in the air and only have chemical reactions with ozone molecules. That to me seems highly unlikely, that CFC's don't interact with any other molecules along the way.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Green" alternatives...such as biofuels?

When are people going to figure this out?

We're in a recession because we refuse to access the oil we have in our own backyards, we won't build refineries, and we're cannibalizing our own food sources for fuel. So we pay exorbitant amounts of money for fuel, procured from Mexico and lovely countries like Iraq, and we diminish our own food supply in order to make fuel which is just as expensive, which damages the environment just as much, and which, in addition, leads to skyrocketing food prices.

We wouldn't be in this fricking mess if the enviro-weirdoes didn't force us to stop using our OWN RESOURCES.

 

[maineman]

"Green" alternatives...such as biofuels?

green alternatives such as solar, biomass, wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal, wave to name a few.

biofuels are not the only green alternative.

 

[JimH52]

No one denies the planet is in a warming trend. Only fools claim it is proven to be caused and fixed by man.

That is the most confusing statement you have made, and that is saying alot.

What the h*ll do you mean? You think fish are causing the planet to warm? You think lions, tigers, and bears can fix the problem/? Please explain...

 

[Angel Heart]

Would a huge piece of the ice shelf the size of Connecticut breaking off cause a problem?

I'm admittedly not very knowledgable in this area. This sounds like the beginning of that movie Day After Tomorrow. I don't base my knowledge on movies, but in the movie that event was part of some pretty bad things to come.

What do we make of this event?

http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/

Every few years another chunk falls off. It's completely normal. This isn't the largest we've ever recorded. And I doubt that the largest recorded wasn't the largest ever.

 

[AllieBaba]

THere isn't enough "biomass" in the whole world to keep us in fuel for a day. Where are you going to get it? And what are you going to do with all the polluted water it takes to process it? And, while we're talking about it, where are you going to GET all that water to process it? I mean, we're not supposed to harness the water in our rivers (salmon, you know) and we can't touch the sea (don't want to intimidate the giant squid)....

And remember, our FORESTS are protected, too...and we're working hard to prevent other countries from "violating" their own forests.

Because we've got to provide those monkeys and owls and squid with a place to shit.

So tell me how using huge tracts of land for wind farms and biomass fuels are going going to solve this little problem you've gotten yourself into if we aren't allowed to harness the vast amounts of biomass it takes, we aren't supposed to use our water, and we can't grow trees around windmills?

Simple solution to the problem. USE THE OIL UNTIL IT'S GONE.
(Which will be never).

Environmentalists are impossibly dim-witted.