global warmongering

[flaja]

I know that this board has a science section and some may prefer that a thread on global warming be put there. But, considering the fact that so many people are willing to base political policy on what they believe about global warming, so I will put this here in the politics section.

Would any of these things help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus work towards reversing global warming?

1. Adoption of organic farming on a commercial scale by having the government at all levels mandate that a certain percentage of the foodstuffs and fiber purchased for the military, prisons and school lunch programs be produced without using petroleum-based fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, feed additives etcetera.

2. Widespread use of biodiesel fuel in government and commercial vehicles.

3. Eliminating urban sprawl and the corporate power that fosters it in order to reduce the need for and use of personal automobiles: New Urbanism, reduce business hours and maybe implement Blue Laws so large stores like Super Wal-Mart and Home Depot won’t be as profitable as they can be operating 24-7.

4. Adoption of waste disposal technologies that generate biogas/biomethane so the carbon that biomass and organic waste materials would put into the air anyway as they decay could be cycled through energy extraction processes.

5. Nationwide semi-public mass transportation system using trains and buses to provide transportation between and within urban centers that have populations of at least 5,000 people.


If any of these things would work to reverse global warming, why is it I have never encountered any environmentalist on any internet forum that is willing to accept them when they learn that I do not believe that global warming is a bona fide scientific fact?

I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from Emory University, so I know something about the scientific method. I am aware that for any hypothesis to be scientifically valid it must be tested through a controlled experiment. Since we do not have a duplicate of the earth to serve as a control group in an experiment, we cannot test the hypothesis that global warming is caused by manmade greenhouse gases. We don’t have an earth that is without manmade greenhouse gases, so we have no way of knowing what effect manmade greenhouse gases have on the earth we do have.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that the earth is truly getting any warmer as a whole. It is true that the air over urban centers has gotten warmer over the past 20 years or so, but there is some indication that the air over non-urban centers has shown no change in temperature over the past 50 years or so. Any increase in temperature measurements likely is due to the fact over the past 40, and especially the past 20, years, land-based weather monitoring stations have been overtaken by urban sprawl. Since urban surfaces (roads, buildings, parking lots) trap more heat than woodland or farmland or water does, it is only natural that recorded temperatures have gone up. But, since this stored heat has not traveled to non-urban areas, it does not add up to global warming.

I support the 5 options I have outlined here, but I do so to achieve goals other than combating global warming. I support these things in order to promote national security by reducing our dependence on oil imports from hostile countries, save money by harnessing nature to do what we now have petroleum and manmade chemicals do, promote local economic self-reliance and improve societal cohesion by promoting neighborhoods and communities rather than suburbs. But, because I don’t accept the left’s global warming dogma, I get nothing but hostility from left-leaning environmentalists. This tells me that the true goal of left-leaning environmentalists is not the saving of the environment, but rather the destruction of America through the worshipping of nature.

 

[glockmail]

Your ideas are typical liberal stupidity:

1. That would simply raise the cost of these government operations with no proven benefit.
2. There’s not enough of that stuff to go around now, and right now its used where its made. Your plan would have it shipped thousands of miles, probably costing more in fuel than would be used.
3. Urban sprawl is cause by the flight from America’s cities by people who no longer want high taxes and crime that these Democrat controlled areas have become.
4. Every time one of these plants is proposed it gets blasted by liberal NIMBY’s. Hence we have huge landfills far from urban areas. Most waste is packaging material which is best burned- but liberal hate to do that. You can’t compost plastic.
5. We have trains and busses now: Amtrak and Greyhound. They suck because of the unions that control them.

I don’t see any advocating of nuclear power here. 500 nuke plants would take the place off all imported oil, and reduce CO2 emissions drastically.

 

[flaja]

Your ideas are typical liberal stupidity:

In your typical fashion you issue knee jerk insults because you cannot comprehend complex issues.

If you wish to discuss this matter, the least you owe me is civility.

 

[dilloduck]

If any of these things would work to reverse global warming, why is it I have never encountered any environmentalist on any internet forum that is willing to accept them when they learn that I do not believe that global warming is a bona fide scientific fact?

Maybe you can sell your ideas to the environmentalists if you don't tell them you are not a true believer in global warming.

 

[CockySOB]

Would any of these things help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus work towards reversing global warming?

1. Adoption of organic farming on a commercial scale by having the government at all levels mandate that a certain percentage of the foodstuffs and fiber purchased for the military, prisons and school lunch programs be produced without using petroleum-based fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, feed additives etcetera.

Nope. All it would do is force a tax increase to subsidize such a mandate.

2. Widespread use of biodiesel fuel in government and commercial vehicles.

When production of biodiesel becomes cost-effective, that'd be a decent option. A better option would be the adoption of hybrid combustion/electric vehicles for state/federal passenger vehicle fleets. However as in any situation where you are addressing large numbers of vehicles, you would have to re-train and re-tool the service personnel employed by the state/federal agencies, which adds to the cost of ownership.

3. Eliminating urban sprawl and the corporate power that fosters it in order to reduce the need for and use of personal automobiles: New Urbanism, reduce business hours and maybe implement Blue Laws so large stores like Super Wal-Mart and Home Depot won’t be as profitable as they can be operating 24-7.

Sorry, but you need to revisit your logic here. Either you capitalize on urban lifestyles by implementing public transit systems to reduce emission; or, you destroy the urban sprawl and force MORE travel. (BTW, I like your paragraph regarding localized warming trends around urban areas possibly due to the heat capture/transfer properties of concrete and asphalt.) But implementing legislation which would be detrimental to superstores like Wal-Mart, Lowe's and the like wouldn't help with global warming.

4. Adoption of waste disposal technologies that generate biogas/biomethane so the carbon that biomass and organic waste materials would put into the air anyway as they decay could be cycled through energy extraction processes.

Trust me, most waste disposal agencies are looking into this one. Currently there are no cost-effective methods of mining such byproducts on any reasonable scale - but it is coming. The market is driving behind this advance....

5. Nationwide semi-public mass transportation system using trains and buses to provide transportation between and within urban centers that have populations of at least 5,000 people.

Google up "Amtrak" and then research its financing problems over the years.

If any of these things would work to reverse global warming, why is it I have never encountered any environmentalist on any internet forum that is willing to accept them when they learn that I do not believe that global warming is a bona fide scientific fact?

Most of the global-warming activists are more intent on nurturing the hype than exploring real, practical solutions. They also tend to be the NIMBY crowd (not in my back yard). In short, they want to tell everyone else how to live, yet they cannot show valid cause why their desires should be forced on the public at-large.

I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from Emory University, so I know something about the scientific method. I am aware that for any hypothesis to be scientifically valid it must be tested through a controlled experiment. Since we do not have a duplicate of the earth to serve as a control group in an experiment, we cannot test the hypothesis that global warming is caused by manmade greenhouse gases. We don’t have an earth that is without manmade greenhouse gases, so we have no way of knowing what effect manmade greenhouse gases have on the earth we do have.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that the earth is truly getting any warmer as a whole. It is true that the air over urban centers has gotten warmer over the past 20 years or so, but there is some indication that the air over non-urban centers has shown no change in temperature over the past 50 years or so. Any increase in temperature measurements likely is due to the fact over the past 40, and especially the past 20, years, land-based weather monitoring stations have been overtaken by urban sprawl. Since urban surfaces (roads, buildings, parking lots) trap more heat than woodland or farmland or water does, it is only natural that recorded temperatures have gone up. But, since this stored heat has not traveled to non-urban areas, it does not add up to global warming.

That'd be my big argument against the global-warming/"Chicken Little" crowd.

I support the 5 options I have outlined here, but I do so to achieve goals other than combating global warming. I support these things in order to promote national security by reducing our dependence on oil imports from hostile countries, save money by harnessing nature to do what we now have petroleum and manmade chemicals do, promote local economic self-reliance and improve societal cohesion by promoting neighborhoods and communities rather than suburbs. But, because I don’t accept the left’s global warming dogma, I get nothing but hostility from left-leaning environmentalists. This tells me that the true goal of left-leaning environmentalists is not the saving of the environment, but rather the destruction of America through the worshipping of nature.

The market will drive both financing for research and market acceptance of higher price points related to new technologies.

 

[glockmail]

In your typical fashion you issue knee jerk insults because you cannot comprehend complex issues.

If you wish to discuss this matter, the least you owe me is civility.

I insulted your idiotic ideas. That's in response to, though not on the same level as, the direct insult you gave me along with your zero neg rep a few days ago. Then, Mr. biologist, you insulted me again by claiming that I "cannot comprehend complex issues". I guarantee you that I have more education and experience in these environmental issues than you do, friend. :happy2:

How typical LIBERAL to ignore direct responses to your issues by proclaiming yourself to be a victim.

 

[flaja]

Maybe you can sell your ideas to the environmentalists if you don't tell them you are not a true believer in global warming.

I refuse to sell-out my commitment to legitimate science.

 

[CharlestonChad]

Flaja, I'm a global warming believer and I support your ideas. They won't solve global warming, but they are a progressive step toward slowing down the destruction of the earth.

 

[flaja]

Originally Posted by flaja
Would any of these things help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus work towards reversing global warming?

1. Adoption of organic farming on a commercial scale by having the government at all levels mandate that a certain percentage of the foodstuffs and fiber purchased for the military, prisons and school lunch programs be produced without using petroleum-based fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, feed additives etcetera.

Nope. All it would do is force a tax increase to subsidize such a mandate.

The laws of supply and demand would be in effect. By demanding more organic products the government will encourage more farmers to enter the organic market. These extra producers will increase the supply of organic products which will reduce the consumer price of these products which will make them affordable for more and more Americans which will spark even more demand. It would not be a subsidy as such because it would not be supporting an industry that is on the decline.

2. Widespread use of biodiesel fuel in government and commercial vehicles.

When production of biodiesel becomes cost-effective, that'd be a decent option.

Production of biodiesel from waste vegetable oil is not complicated, and I doubt that it is all that expensive. All you do is strain the waste oil to remove solid matter and then you treat it with two chemicals, lye and methanol (although I cannot remember the order) and you get biodiesel fuel, water (I think) and glycerin (which can be used to make soap and cosmetics, and I think explosives). Alternatively you can use fresh vegetable oil in a diesel engine without any modifications to the oil or the engine.

Biodiesel, unlike fossil petroleum, is not a finite commodity. If demand for biodiesel goes up, more farmers will grow more plants that can be used to produce biodiesel. Farmers could produce vegetable oil for the exclusive use of the biodiesel market. And when biodiesel is made from things like soybeans the meal that is left after the vegetable oil is extracted can be used for animal feed, so extra biodiesel demand won’t necessarily reduce our food supply as some people claim- it could possibly make meat products cheaper because animal feed would be more abundant.

A better option would be the adoption of hybrid combustion/electric vehicles for state/federal passenger vehicle fleets.

I have heard so much conflicting information about hybrids that I don’t know what to believe. People claim the fuel efficiency is not what the auto industry claims and you do have the problem of not having enough service techs. From what I gather you won’t save enough in gas to make up the higher cost for a hybrid by the time the hybrid is worn out.

3. Eliminating urban sprawl and the corporate power that fosters it in order to reduce the need for and use of personal automobiles: New Urbanism, reduce business hours and maybe implement Blue Laws so large stores like Super Wal-Mart and Home Depot won’t be as profitable as they can be operating 24-7.

Sorry, but you need to revisit your logic here. Either you capitalize on urban lifestyles by implementing public transit systems to reduce emission; or, you destroy the urban sprawl and force MORE travel.

How would discouraging sprawl lead to more travel? If people could live work and do their basic shopping in a confined space (such as a community based on the principles of New Urbanism) people would need to travel less, not more. The further you live from work, school, shopping et cetera, the more time you must spend in transit.

(BTW, I like your paragraph regarding localized warming trends around urban areas possibly due to the heat capture/transfer properties of concrete and asphalt.)

The urban heat island effect is something the environmental left doesn’t want to hear about. The official weather records for where I live are made at the local international airport. When that airport was built 40 years ago it was surrounding by woodland and swampland. Now it is surrounded by roads, highways, office parks, shopping centers and parking lots. All of this extra heat being stored around the weather station naturally means recorded temperatures have gone up. As Harry Hilaker, climatologist for the state of Iowa, has claimed we have urban warming, not global warming. Cities have gotten warmer, but the surrounding countryside has stayed the same.

But implementing legislation which would be detrimental to superstores like Wal-Mart, Lowe's and the like wouldn't help with global warming.

If you could do your basic shopping in your neighborhood, within walking distance of your home, you wouldn’t have to drive so much. This would reduce emissions which, according to the left, would help stop global warming. Since the first Wal-Mart opened here in 1987 about 15 other retail stores (all much smaller than Wal-Mart) have either left the local market or gone out of business altogether.

4. Adoption of waste disposal technologies that generate biogas/biomethane so the carbon that biomass and organic waste materials would put into the air anyway as they decay could be cycled through energy extraction processes.

Trust me, most waste disposal agencies are looking into this one. Currently there are no cost-effective methods of mining such byproducts on any reasonable scale - but it is coming. The market is driving behind this advance....

Technology for turning MSW (municipal solid waste) into liquid fuel (similar to butane) and solid fuel (similar to soft coal) has been around since the late 1970s. I would worry about the emissions that would be produced by burning these types of fuels. When I say waste to energy I am thinking mainly in terms of using biological methods to treat sewage and wastewater. This technology is readily available and has been used commercially (most notably at Walt Disney’s Florida attractions) for over 30 years now. You can treat sewage/wastewater with bacteria and aquatic plants (water hyacinth and duckweed) as well as algae and end up with water that is cleaner than the water that comes out of conventional sewage plants. And you could also produce fish (such as tilapia), animal feed and garden fertilizer.

5. Nationwide semi-public mass transportation system using trains and buses to provide transportation between and within urban centers that have populations of at least 5,000 people.

Google up "Amtrak" and then research its financing problems over the years.

I know that Amtrak has problems, but if a public transportation system is inherently bad, how can Europe and Japan have such effective train systems?

If any of these things would work to reverse global warming, why is it I have never encountered any environmentalist on any internet forum that is willing to accept them when they learn that I do not believe that global warming is a bona fide scientific fact?

Most of the global-warming activists are more intent on nurturing the hype than exploring real, practical solutions. They also tend to be the NIMBY crowd (not in my back yard). In short, they want to tell everyone else how to live, yet they cannot show valid cause why their desires should be forced on the public at-large.

The impression I have gotten from the internet tells me that global warmongers really want to destroy our economy with things like Kyoto.

I support the 5 options I have outlined here, but I do so to achieve goals other than combating global warming. I support these things in order to promote national security by reducing our dependence on oil imports from hostile countries, save money by harnessing nature to do what we now have petroleum and manmade chemicals do, promote local economic self-reliance and improve societal cohesion by promoting neighborhoods and communities rather than suburbs. But, because I don’t accept the left’s global warming dogma, I get nothing but hostility from left-leaning environmentalists. This tells me that the true goal of left-leaning environmentalists is not the saving of the environment, but rather the destruction of America through the worshipping of nature.

The market will drive both financing for research and market acceptance of higher price points related to new technologies.

But, couldn’t the government spur the development of the new technology the way the space program spurred things like photovoltaic cells?

 

[flaja]

Flaja, I'm a global warming believer and I support your ideas. They won't solve global warming, but they are a progressive step toward slowing down the destruction of the earth.

If my ideas won't stop global warming, what will?

 

[Annie]

The laws of supply and demand would be in effect. By demanding more organic products the government will encourage more farmers to enter the organic market. These extra producers will increase the supply of organic products which will reduce the consumer price of these products which will make them affordable for more and more Americans which will spark even more demand. It would not be a subsidy as such because it would not be supporting an industry that is on the decline.



Production of biodiesel from waste vegetable oil is not complicated, and I doubt that it is all that expensive. All you do is strain the waste oil to remove solid matter and then you treat it with two chemicals, lye and methanol (although I cannot remember the order) and you get biodiesel fuel, water (I think) and glycerin (which can be used to make soap and cosmetics, and I think explosives). Alternatively you can use fresh vegetable oil in a diesel engine without any modifications to the oil or the engine.

Biodiesel, unlike fossil petroleum, is not a finite commodity. If demand for biodiesel goes up, more farmers will grow more plants that can be used to produce biodiesel. Farmers could produce vegetable oil for the exclusive use of the biodiesel market. And when biodiesel is made from things like soybeans the meal that is left after the vegetable oil is extracted can be used for animal feed, so extra biodiesel demand won’t necessarily reduce our food supply as some people claim- it could possibly make meat products cheaper because animal feed would be more abundant.



I have heard so much conflicting information about hybrids that I don’t know what to believe. People claim the fuel efficiency is not what the auto industry claims and you do have the problem of not having enough service techs. From what I gather you won’t save enough in gas to make up the higher cost for a hybrid by the time the hybrid is worn out.



How would discouraging sprawl lead to more travel? If people could live work and do their basic shopping in a confined space (such as a community based on the principles of New Urbanism) people would need to travel less, not more. The further you live from work, school, shopping et cetera, the more time you must spend in transit.



The urban heat island effect is something the environmental left doesn’t want to hear about. The official weather records for where I live are made at the local international airport. When that airport was built 40 years ago it was surrounding by woodland and swampland. Now it is surrounded by roads, highways, office parks, shopping centers and parking lots. All of this extra heat being stored around the weather station naturally means recorded temperatures have gone up. As Harry Hilaker, climatologist for the state of Iowa, has claimed we have urban warming, not global warming. Cities have gotten warmer, but the surrounding countryside has stayed the same.



If you could do your basic shopping in your neighborhood, within walking distance of your home, you wouldn’t have to drive so much. This would reduce emissions which, according to the left, would help stop global warming. Since the first Wal-Mart opened here in 1987 about 15 other retail stores (all much smaller than Wal-Mart) have either left the local market or gone out of business altogether.



Technology for turning MSW (municipal solid waste) into liquid fuel (similar to butane) and solid fuel (similar to soft coal) has been around since the late 1970s. I would worry about the emissions that would be produced by burning these types of fuels. When I say waste to energy I am thinking mainly in terms of using biological methods to treat sewage and wastewater. This technology is readily available and has been used commercially (most notably at Walt Disney’s Florida attractions) for over 30 years now. You can treat sewage/wastewater with bacteria and aquatic plants (water hyacinth and duckweed) as well as algae and end up with water that is cleaner than the water that comes out of conventional sewage plants. And you could also produce fish (such as tilapia), animal feed and garden fertilizer.



I know that Amtrak has problems, but if a public transportation system is inherently bad, how can Europe and Japan have such effective train systems?



The impression I have gotten from the internet tells me that global warmongers really want to destroy our economy with things like Kyoto.



But, couldn’t the government spur the development of the new technology the way the space program spurred things like photovoltaic cells?

What do you hope to gain by posting your own queries and reanswering them?

 

[flaja]

I insulted your idiotic ideas. That's in response to, though not on the same level as, the direct insult you gave me along with your zero neg rep a few days ago. Then, Mr. biologist, you insulted me again by claiming that I "cannot comprehend complex issues". I guarantee you that I have more education and experience in these environmental issues than you do, friend. :happy2:

How typical LIBERAL to ignore direct responses to your issues by proclaiming yourself to be a victim.

My ideas are meant to achieve conservative goals. You do see national security and saving money and natural resources as conservative goals, don’t you?

 

[manu1959]

funny the area i live in already does 2,3,4 and 5

and personally do 1 for my family

what is china and india up to?

 

[flaja]

funny the area i live in already does 2,3,4 and 5

and personally do 1 for my family

what is china and india up to?

Producing more greenhouse gas per unit of world GDP than the U.S. is. The U.S. creates more economic goods and services for the amount of greenhouse gas we produce than either China or India does. China and India produce more pollution per GDP than we do, but the environmental left says we Americans are the bad guys.

 

[Annie]

Producing more greenhouse gas per unit of world GDP than the U.S. is. The U.S. creates more economic goods and services for the amount of greenhouse gas we produce than either China or India does. China and India produce more pollution per GDP than we do, but the environmental left says we Americans are the bad guys.

Gee, been doing some research? Take a look through, you'll see we've been here before.

 

[CockySOB]

What do you hope to gain by posting your own queries and reanswering them?

Actually, he was answering my responses to his original post. He just doesn't seem to have the hang of multi-level quotes though, that's all.

 

[Annie]

Actually, he was answering my responses to his original post. He just doesn't seem to have the hang of multi-level quotes though, that's all.

Oh he gets it, he just wants everyone to think he doesn't.

 

[red states rule]

Bush Ruined My Sex Life
Last night, I swung by the home of my significant other, Ashley "Peaceblossom" Phelps, who may or not be a member of the transgendered community.

"I'm here to pah-tay," I said when she opened the door, "with your boo-taaaay!"

"Pee Ewwww!" she replied, her face scrunching up with disgust. "What's that stench? Is that YOU?"

"I CAN'T HELP IT!" I cried. "THIS DAMNED GLOBAL WARMING'S GOT ME SWEATING LIKE A PIG! I'VE GONE THROUGH 14 JARS OF PATCHOULI IN TWO DAYS!!!"

The past few weeks have been unbelievable hot, indeed. Ever since Bush refused to sign the Kyoto accords, I've noticed a dramatic change in the weather. Starting right around the month of March and April, the mercury slowly rises higher and higher, right through July when the heat is unbearable and my own cats won't even come near me. Then just as mysteriously, the thermometer begins to drop around September, continuing to decline well into January until the whole region is covered in a thick frost. These bizarre fluctuations in temperatures lends credence to the consensus among French scientists that we're just one generation away from either a second ice age or solar incineration unless we sign our economy over to the U.N.

But try to explain that to Ashley. All she wants to do is stand there, holding her nose, screaming: "GET AWAY GET AWAY GET AWAY!"

So thanks, Shrub, for depriving me of yet another one of life's little pleasures.

http://blamebush.typepad.com/blamebush/environment/index.html

 

[flaja]

Actually, he was answering my responses to his original post. He just doesn't seem to have the hang of multi-level quotes though, that's all.

I’ve explained how I use quotes in a previous thread. I don’t use nested quotes for the sake of saving some typing; I have arthritis in my shoulders.

 

[red states rule]

I’ve explained how I use quotes in a previous thread. I don’t use nested quotes for the sake of saving some typing; I have arthritis in my shoulders.

Is that the fault of global warming? (or global cooling depending who you listen to)