# Play with fire - save the planet.



## warmhearth (May 3, 2007)

Back in the 70's the old Wood Heat Alliance (Now HPBA) provided us dealers with bumper stickers that said "Wood guys are Good guys!"  and "Have you hugged your woodstove today?" This had to do with saving oil consumption  during the oil crisis.
Now we need some that say -"Play with fire - save the planet" or "Wood heat is Green heat" or maybe "Wood heat is carbon neutral and home grown".
Whether or not you like Al Gore, his movie "An Inconveniant Truth" is a nationwide buzz.  Our industry needs to get this message out.  Wood and pellets are biofuels that do not add any carbon to the atmosphere that wouldn't occur anyway when trees decay in the forests naturally.  Coal and oil and any electricity generated by fossil fuels takes carbon locked in the earth and releases into the atmosphere causing the greenhouse effect.
This is a fairly simple concept that most consumers now understand.  The wood heat industry needs to promote our products as a big part of the solution to global warming.  Burning wood for heat means less carbon released into the atmosphere because you use less fossil fuels in your daily life.  Perhaps we can give our customers a free sapling to plant with each stove purchased to further remove carbon as the tree grows. Share ads with a local nursery somehow.  
I've just started some newspaper ads that say "A CONVENIANT truth - wood heat is GREEN heat."
We'll see what happens.
Kerry Duggan
The Wood Stove Inc.
Gainesville, Florida


----------



## TruePatriot (May 3, 2007)

*Kerry:*

Re: 





> Back in the 70’s the old Wood Heat Alliance (Now HPBA) provided us dealers with bumper stickers that said *“Wood guys are Good guys!”* and *“Have you hugged your woodstove today?” *This had to do with saving oil consumption during the oil crisis.
> 
> Now we need some that say -"*Play with fire - save the planet*” or *“Wood heat is Green heat”* or maybe “Wood heat is carbon neutral and home grown”.
> 
> ...



All great slogans!

I think this one is my favorite:

*"Wood heat is carbon neutral and home grown."*

This addresses the fiction that wood heat is bad for the atmosphere.

It also points out that its processing cannot be outsourced.

Lastly, it (to the thoughtful, at least) indirectly makes the statement that we needn't be fighting foreign oil wars.

Also, your use of the word "grown" denotes the fact that it is a renewable, as opposed to something that has to be drug out of the ground, or processed, using massive amounts of energy to do so.

I see no reason not to like Al Gore.  If he's not "the kind 'o guy you wanna have a beer with," well, that's okay, IMO.  I mean, we've already had a retarded fratboy for "prez-nit," *and we'll be paying for it for decades, in treasure, blood and a loss of international stature.*

I spoke with one of "The Goracle's Oracles," recently, as she was presenting the slide show companion-show to "An Inconvenient Truth."  She was at a local library.  I brought up woodstoves, when she asked what we (the audience) could do.  She agreed, and stated that she has two woodstoves herself (though she might be burning corn cobs--can't remember.)  The point is, she's one of 1,000 such "Oracles" who Gore approved to carry his message forth, and therefore, *she speaks for Al Gore, when she supports responsible wood heat.  *Gore is not a problem, though *he may just be part of the solution.*  Whether one wants him for "prez-nit" or not, no one can deny he's made a HUGE contribution to humanity, in pushing the Global Warming issue to the forefront of American (semi)consciousness.

Your slogan is environmental poetry, IMO--renewable haiku!

*Who among us can get such a bumpersticker produced, and at what cost?*


----------



## PAJerry (May 3, 2007)

If you go to makestickers.com, you can get them fairly cheap.  I'm going to put one on the tree label in the environmental section that reads 'Wood heat is 'green' heat - carbon-neutral and grown in the USA'.  Plan to put one on my Prius and one on the wife's RAV4.  You might have started a movement here, Kerry.   This is something everyone here believes in, so why not display it proudly?  Sure beats one for some crooked politician.


----------



## NewtownPA (May 3, 2007)

How about :

- "I burn my carbon credits in my woodstove"

- "My woodstove eats carbon credits for breakfast"

- "Trees burn better in a woodstove"

- "Fuel really does grow on trees"


----------



## warmhearth (May 3, 2007)

Run with it!  After 33 years in this business I have to keep reminding myself that our customers really just enjoy playing with fire.  If we can show them the caveman thing can help save the planet, what a bonus!
The new status symbols in my hood are hybrid cars and trucks.  The SUV's are going the way of the dinosaur.  Soccer mom's feel better rushing the kids to practice while polluting less.  What if wood stoves and high efficiency fireplaces become home status symbols?
Warmhearth


----------



## BrotherBart (May 3, 2007)

"Wood Heat - Veggies keeping you warmer and the planet cooler."


----------



## webbie (May 3, 2007)

Maybe Hogwilz will let us use his pic - the one with the AXE....
(inside joke).

If anyone wants to run with this to any extent, I'll throw in some $$ to get the printing done. Someone has to be able to distribute and mail, etc.


----------



## MrGriz (May 4, 2007)

I love it!  I have to disagree about Al being a 'good' guy, but I love the sticker idea.  The inconvenient truth about Al is that global warming is BS.  I'm certainly not against acting more responsibly though.

"Got Wood...Heat?"

"Burn clean, it's Green"


----------



## webbie (May 4, 2007)

Wow, I didn't know we had a bear here that is smarter than 2,000 scientists from 150 nations - I think we are talking Yogi here - "Smarter than the Average Bear!"

I understand that reading and comprehension can be harder than watching the TV, and it is good to be skeptical of ANYTHING before it is proven using accepted methods - BUT, the recent reports of the world wide consortium is quite thorough.

Griz, it seems plain silly to dismiss literally MILLIONS of hours of work and data which is beyond our comprehension as BS. Maybe you are not convinced, and that is fine - but no reason not to continue your and our education on the matter.

Please take at least a minute to look at this:
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/005.htm

and page through that drop-down menu at the top of that page - you will see REAL scientific methods and collaboration of top researchers and scientists from all over the earth. These people are not stupid. Given the choice between their data and Glenn Beck, I would say it is about 1000+ to 1 that they are correct!

Politics have so divided this country that we like to shoot the messenger - and although I am certainly no Al Gore fan, I do appreciate the continuing work that the International Panel on Climate Change has done....it's quite important if we care about our children and the future.

So put the brew down, push those legs down so the barco-lounger ejects you - and read up. Then, when you finish (a couple years if you really read it all), let me know what is BS and what is not. :coolsmile:


----------



## TruePatriot (May 4, 2007)

Craig,

Thank you very much for what you just wrote.  I occasionally host (and research and produce) an environmental radio show, and the data about wildly-shrinking polar ice caps alone is simply stunning.  I almost wouldn't even know where to begin, when confronted with such a "flat earth" mentality (with all due respect to Mr. Griz, and I leave it to better minds than mine to decide how much is "due...") and I am very grateful that you took a stab at it.  You cited a very good source--I truly hope he reads it.

Mr. Griz, I want to give you just one example of *why you should not be lulled into a false sense of security by that old saw that "global warming is really just the normal climactic cycling of the planet."*

To do this, we have to discuss two concepts, briefly--the "albido effect," and "tipping points."  They become relevant to the fact that a HUGE AMOUNT OF POLAR ICE IS DISAPPEARING.

"Tipping points" are easy to understand--imagine rocking a canoe back and forth, harder and harder.  *Eventually, you get to a point of no return, and a new equilibrium point is reached--upside down.*  The canoe is stable again--just not in a way that's comfortable or practical, for humans.
*
The "albido effect" is a little more complicated, but basically, it is the ability of a white ground cover, like snow and ice, to reflect the sun's light energy back into space.*  A white ground cover reflects (from memory here, so don't quote me) I believe 90% of the sun's energy back into space (less what gets trapped under the atmosphere/ozone layer, which isn't a huge amount).

(Because water is "dark," compared to ice, it absorbs the sun's heat, rather than bouncing back into space.  A dark jacket is warmer in direct sunlight, all other things being equal, than a white jacket.) 

A dark "ground" cover, like the oceans, ABSORBS most of the sun's energy.  Different ground covers are assigned different "albido" values.

The albido values are actually measured in terms of fractions of a whole number, I believe.  I don't have the actual albido values, but we can understand them easier by using percentages here, anyway.  In other words, water only bounces 10% of the sun's energy back into space.  The other 90% is absorbed into our environment, thereby raising global temps.  Ice, on the other hand, bounces 90% of the sun's heat back into space (in rough terms).  

So...Ice = Good (prevents global warming) and Water = Bad (contributes to global warming).

*The "albido effect" works like this, re: tipping points:* 

In the past, with a healthy amount of polar ice cover, 90% of the sun's energy that hit those caps was bounced harmlessly back into space.

Now, however, we have MUCH less polar ice cover.  Three years ago, a chunk the size of Rhode Island just  broke off, broke up, and melted away.  Go-n-e.  

Since then, we've lost even bigger chunks.

*So--ice reflects 90% of the sun's heat.  Water absorbs 90% of the sun's heat.*

Therefore, the less ice you have, the more of the sun's energy is absorbed into the environment, as opposed to bouncing harmlessly back into space.

Therefore, melting polar ice RAISES the Earth's temperature, by raising ocean temps.

Higher ocean temps then lead to MORE MELTING POLAR ICE.

*THIS IS ACTUALLY A FEEDBACK LOOP,* just like when the electric guitarist stands too close to the speakers.  The screeching coming from the speaker is picked up by the guitar's electronic "pickups," and fed back through the amp, albeit at a louder volume than before.  And the noise comes back out of the loudspeaker (even louder) and gets picked up, and AMPED UP in the same manner, until it comes out of the speaker EVEN LOUDER, until SCREEECH! and somebody pulls the jack out of the amp, or guitar.

Except it's with temperatures, not decibles.

*And Al Gore's trying to pull the effing jack out of the amp, even as people laugh at him and say they can't hear anything.*

Maybe they can't hear anything because they're already D-E-A-F?

ANYWAY....

More melted polar ice = Less Snow Cover, which = MORE SQUARE MILES OF OCEANS.

More square miles of oceans = MORE HEAT ABSORBED FROM THE SUN.  

*More heat in ocean water MELTS EVEN MORE ICE.*

You see where this is going, right?  *It's a FEEDBACK LOOP, headed for a "tipping point."*

Less ice = more heat-absorbing ocean acreage, and on and on.  (Here, the "canoe is rocking ever more violently, and becoming unstable, approaching it's "tipping point.")

*Eventually, A TIPPING POINT IS REACHED, after which, THERE IS NO RETURNING TO THE ORIGINAL EQUILIBRIUM POINT.*

In other words, THE CANOE GETS CAPSIZED.

Putting this in thermal terms, just like a "runaway" wood stove, the Earth will continue to warm up, beyond what is acceptable to the species currently residing here.  There is no more "brake" on the increasing temperatures, in the form of snow and ice, to bounce the sun's heat back into space.  

Thus this warming cycle ACCELERATES.

*
I could link you to pictures of glaciers taken in the 1970's, that are NOW ENTIRELY TURNED INTO LAKES.*

Thousands of square miles of what was glacier 30 years ago are now either black rock, dirt or water--all of which absorb WAY more heat than snow and ice.

Now, about the nonbelievers saying "this is all just part of a natural cycle"?

*Well, ice core samples taken from this melting ice show that it hasn't been unfrozen in hundreds of thousands of years.*

In other words--it didn't melt from some "normal cycle."  

*It melted because we are approaching a tipping point.*  Fast.

I hope this helped, a little.

Craig's way was much more efficient, and informative--I apologize to any who found this unwelcome.

*Thank you, again, Craig, for having the courage of your convictions.  *

Peter


----------



## kellog (May 4, 2007)

It never ceases to amaze me how much collective intelligence there is in this site. It is in all areas.  Just in this thread you see scientific, marketing, political and general knowledge displayed that is far beyond the general population. 

Not only that but also a remarkable amount of emotional intelligence (see post 8 by Craig).  

Now I know why I read this forum.

“None of us are as smart as all of us”


----------



## webbie (May 4, 2007)

I am a skeptic - and a cynic, as anyone who has been here for awhile can attest to. BUT, I like to think that at least some of my opinions are at least partially based on digesting the science which is out there...

Even a quick look at the IPCC work will show that there are very serious about their methods, and also that they are the first to admit that drawing simple conclusions from complex data is impossible......

I understand that it is daunting to consider Global Warming. Just a generation or two ago, we thought the world was too big to pollute. But now we have had it proven 100% over and over again that we are EASILY capable of polluting large percentages of the worlds land, water and air. The evidence of human activity is in the environment in even the most remote areas of the planet. We can cut off mountaintops, re-route rivers and even hold back the sea. We can split the atom and send machines to celestial bodies which are millions of miles away. We can fly around the world in record time in metal machines which can hold hundreds of thousands of pounds and yet lift off the ground with grace. These machines and processes are designed, tested and built by the same type of disciplined minds that research Global Warming.

So why do people still have a hard time accepting the fact that we can warm the atmosphere by a few degrees?

TruePatriot took a good stab at explaining the tipping point and similar effects. Most of us are NOT scientists and I think we have what could be termed "brute minds", meaning that we have a hard time understanding how little changes can cause big ones. But they do. Examples include that small splinter that we might have gotten in our foot, but since we did not treat it properly and also have other diseases (diabetes, for example), we end up both blind and without a leg. I once almost had my foot amputated from the infection of a small cut!

The earth has a LOT of "conditions" from both natural and man-made causes. It therefore makes sense that relatively small changes can cause major domino effects. One example of this is hurricanes, which our weather experts here can hopefully confirm are subject to vast changes based on just a few degrees of water or air temperature. The topography and watershed of Florida has been shaped by such storms. So what happens if Hurricanes are steered just a couple hundred miles north to where they virtually never hit before? 

On the other hand, Climate Change does not in almost any case threaten our existence as a species. As per the reports, the poor will suffer most (as usual) and we can adapt. However, adaption will cost vastly more than the alternative - which is the reduction of CO2 output.

Which gets back to the Wood is Good thing!


----------



## carpniels (May 4, 2007)

I like all I am hearing.

Here is what I do to help save the planet for my kids:

-Use wood heat.
-Bicycle to work when I can.
-drive a 1995 Geo Prizm that gets 35 mpg.
-replaced most lightbulbs with CF lightbulbs.
-turn the lights off when I leave the room
- do all errands in one trip a week.
- don't buy anything unless I really need it.
- recycle everything I can.

I hope a good example makes for good followers. I promote my less consumption message as much as possible.

Carpniels


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 4, 2007)

> *loss of international prestige*



How about a bumper sticker that says: *Cut Carbon Because Europe Says So* .


----------



## keyman512us (May 4, 2007)

NewtownPA said:
			
		

> How about :
> 
> - "I burn my carbon credits in my woodstove"
> 
> ...



NICE! I like em'

How about along the lines of "Heat your house...Let Arabs pay for their own AC" lol


----------



## keyman512us (May 4, 2007)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Wow, I didn't know we had a bear here that is smarter than 2,000 scientists from 150 nations - I think we are talking Yogi here - "Smarter than the Average Bear!"
> 
> I understand that reading and comprehension can be harder than watching the TV, and it is good to be skeptical of ANYTHING before it is proven using accepted methods - BUT, the recent reports of the world wide consortium is quite thorough.
> 
> ...



Web...I'm "on the fence"...and prefer to stay Neutral on the GW/climate change issue.

Has anyone figured into the equation that there haven't been any "Major" volcanic eruptions???

The reason I point this out is "maybe" just "maybe" mother nature or "the man upstairs" might still "hold a trump card".

Look back into history to like 1815-1825 how the climate changed after (Krakotowa?) blew in 1815? I remember seeing some info along the lines of "1816...the year without a summer".

The numbers might show an upward trend...but how accurate are they???

Either way...nobody can argue against the fact the world needs to change it's views and opinions about energy consumption.

"I'm sure mother nature didn't put coal and oil (i.e. carbon) into the ground...just for us to have a 'treasure hunt'..."


----------



## titan (May 4, 2007)

How about: "Wood-the other white heat!"
                  "Woodheat-not just for the Amish!"
                  "Burn wood-STICK it to the Saudis!"
                  "Wood-the quicker-heater-upper!"


----------



## Bill (May 4, 2007)

Burn wood the renewable energy source

Think Green Burn Green Wood (ODWB)

Wood Made in the USA

Have Woody will burn

Recycle wood, burn it


----------



## begreen (May 4, 2007)

Make fires, not War!
Keep US independent, burn wood.


----------



## MrGriz (May 4, 2007)

I really don't want to get into the whole global warming debate. I will just say that I think many of the points used to tout global warming are as accurate and well founded as much of the dribble on burning issues. Even Al's scientists can't agree completely and many denounced the conclusions presented in his movie. By the way, didn't they change the term 'global warming' to 'global climate change', since they can't quite agree on things?

Look, the average temperature of the planet may in fact be increasing. I certainly don't doubt that earth's climate is constantly cycling. I just think that to say man is the cause and beyond that to say that we can now suddenly reverse it is preposterous. In my mind, saying we are in control of the planet's climate is extremely arrogant. There were temperature cycles (warming and cooling) long before man's insignificant amount of time on this planet began and I'm sure they will continue long after we are gone.

I agree that we should do things to be more ecologically responsible. We should make efforts to conserve resources, recycle, live more responsibly and consider the effects of our actions. I think that we also need to look at how we can be more adaptive to what we cannot control. It makes more sense to me to say; 'earth's climate is changing, how can we adapt to this;' rather than 'earth's climate is changing, how can we reverse this.' I believe that the rotation of the earth is also slowing. What can we do to speed it back up and what is the ideal speed of rotation?

Craig, I will read the information in the link you provided. I'm not against hearing both sides of the argument. I may just do it with a beer in the barco-lounger though. The only thing that has a negative effect on seems to be my waste line. I'm not out to shoot the messenger either. If it wasn't Al up there, I would have the same opinion. Sometimes so called science needs to be challenged by plain old common sense. If it stands up, it stands up, if not we can just move on.


----------



## Corie (May 4, 2007)

Yeah I don't really feel the need to jump on either side, but I do feel the need to conserve energy and natural resources and do our part to take care of this little planet of ours.



To me, it shouldn't matter whether global warming is occurring because of us, or not.  Reducing what we consume and making environmentally friendly choices should be done just for the sake of doing them (categorical imperative).  So what if our awful habits haven't hurt the earth yet?  So what if they never will?  Lets just all do our part irrespective of global warming.


----------



## Bill (May 4, 2007)

Just smell the air in a big city and then go out to the country and take a deep breath, big difference. I am going to do my part and have a fire tonight.


----------



## WarmGuy (May 4, 2007)

Unfortunately, I think the concepts of the slow oxidation of rotting wood and of carbon absorption by growing trees is beyond the understanding level of most of the people who will be reading the bumper stickers.


----------



## Jabberwocky (May 4, 2007)

We should focus on the issue of energy independence, this can unify liberals, conservatives and the apolitical.  We need to not burn oil for heat strictly on patriotic/geopolitical grounds.  I think a bit of natural gas gets produced domestically but I don't care, New England Wood Pellets in Jaffrey, NH is getting my heating $$$.

This debate about global warming gets too emotional, like a religion debate.


----------



## BrotherBart (May 4, 2007)

"Wood Heat - No refinery required"

"Wood Heat - Energy doesn't have to come from a desert"

"Heat With Wood - Make a Sheikh miss an SUV payment"


----------



## wg_bent (May 5, 2007)

Come on folks, no one has used my sig line.  I'm feeling a little hurt.  :long: 

I'm about 1/2 way through Al's movie, and there are a couple debatable "facts" in there so far that I'd say are suspect, but also  some interesting things he presents.   Like the shrinking lake.    He doesn't present any alternative explanations.   I could do with out the "Woah is me for loosing the election... pooooooorrrr little Al"


----------



## EatenByLimestone (May 5, 2007)

Heating with wood is a nice way to "be green", but it's also the cheapest way to heat the home.

Matt


----------



## Vic99 (May 6, 2007)

Bumper sticker idea . . .

"Woodstove Heat . . . so easy, even a caveman could do it"


----------



## jqgs214 (May 7, 2007)

True Patriot,

You hit on a # of good points in your albido affect post but I think you simplified it just a little to much.  Ice and water are unfortunatley not the only players hear.  As the earth warms more moisture is evaporated into the atmosphere creating more cloud cover.  Clouds like ice have a very low albido relecting most the the heat back out into space, hence its usally colder on a cloudy day, but the models dont handle this well in global warming because clouds also hold heat in at night.  To just say that the ice caps melts is gonna cause a runaway is just simplifiying the matter too much.  I think we all agree (except griz) the earht as a whole is getting warmer.  Why is the biggest unsolved answer, multiple factors are at play, humans overall affect is also questionable


----------



## MrGriz (May 7, 2007)

Woah, I didn't say the earth may not be getting warmer.  My point is that we are not responsible for, or able to stop the warming cycle that the earth is in.  

I also think it's pretty suspect to quote temperature changes over the past 140 or so years to within a tenth of a degree.  Were our measurements as accurate 100+ years ago?  Were as detailed records kept 100+ years ago?  If so, I am wrong on this point (and many others I'm sure; just ask Mrs. Griz).


----------



## Andre B. (May 7, 2007)

MrGriz said:
			
		

> Woah, I didn't say the earth may not be getting warmer.  My point is that we are not responsible for, or able to stop the warming cycle that the earth is in.




All we have to do to cool things off is switch back to dirtier burning practices, and/or set off a volcano or two every year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming


----------



## jpl1nh (May 8, 2007)

I think a point very few of us dispute is that the earth is getting warmer.  We also can, without question, show that warming correlates directly with a dramatic increase in CO2 which in turn corresponds to the use of fossil fuels.  Griz, I agree with your point about using common sense and watching to see what happens.  That is the basis of scientific method; hypothesis and observation.  Our best efforts to predict what happens to our planet when we introduce increasing amounts of greenhouse gases such as CO2 to our atmosphere, predicts there will be a significant increase in temperature.  Indeed that is what we happen to be observing.  These greenhouse gasses may possibly not be the cause of our global warming because this planetary system is undeniably of a complexity none of us can claim to truly understand.  Among other things, ice ages seem inevitably to come and go at relatively regular intervals, valcanoes provide their momentary disruptions to global systems, and as Wyxman points out, some theorize that increasing warmth causes more cloud cover and a corresponding albido effect that may mitigate other factors.  We all necessarily must keep an open mind to the possibilities.  Our passions for our strongly held beliefs can stop us from living Griz's wise advice about observation.  For me though, for thousands of the world's foremost scientists steeped in the importance of common sense and observation, the CO2 - warming correlation is so striking, the observation so strongly matching the hypothesis, they, and I, cannot in good conscience walk away from the idea that this is indeed of our doing.   Fossil fuel has revealed it's ugly side, it's hidden cost.  Know thine enemy, for then you can defeat them.  And that I believe we can do.  So for sure you know my opinion.  If I'm wrong, great... I don't really care, but I sure do care that we get this right as soon as possible so if necessary we still have a chance to do something.  I must admit I do not burn wood only because of it's CO2 benefits.  I happen to love the whole process; collecting, cutting, splitting, (not stacking though..) the smell, the excersise, and especially the art of knowing the wood, the weather, and my stove to burn cleanly and efficiently to produce comforatable heat.  For me that's really what wood burning is all about.  Fortunately for us, in our own small and enjoyable way, wood heat is also a part of the CO2 solution.  But due to it's importance and urgency, I urge you all to continue this debate, to observe, to learn all you can.  Our world may hang in the balance.


----------



## Gooserider (May 8, 2007)

One of the things that is interesting to point out is that of that "thousands of scientists" the warming people keep pointing at, is the ommitted fact that very few of them are climatologists - IOW they may be scientists, but they don't have more specific expertise on the topic than any other reasonably informed layperson...  Both of my GF's parents are Oxford PhD's in physics, both have retired from department head positions at their respective universitys (one was Yale) but they don't claim expertise in climatology.  

Another is the fact that the way research gets funded in this day and age makes it very difficult for a researcher to get funding for topics that don't match the prevailing orthodoxy - a researcher that wants to get funding next year had better produce data that the funders want to hear this year...  This sometimes leads to studies where the abstract doesn't closely match the actual research in the paper, but it's what's in the abstract that makes the headlines.

This doesn't mean that energy conservation is a bad thing, just that when it is being used as an excuse to implement gov't policies that take away freedoms and restrict choices, I start to wonder if that isn't a driving force behind the research funding...  OTOH, you want me to cut back voluntarily, show me a personal BENEFIT!  I don't burn wood to "save the planet" - I burn wood because it "saves my wallet!"

Gooserider


----------



## TruePatriot (May 16, 2007)

Mr. Griz:

I spent a decent amount of time responding to this statement of yours:  





> The inconvenient truth about Al is that global warming is BS.



In fact, I wrote a page about "tipping points" and the "albido effect," i.e., the explanation of the thermal phenomenon whereby ice reflects approx. 90% of the sun's heat, and water absorbs roughly 90% of that heat.  (This effect plays a large role in why huge portions of glaciers that have been frozen for _hundreds of thousands of years _are now melting.) *And you failed to even acknowledge that you saw it. * I was kind of hoping you'd even comment on what I wrote, like you did in response to what Craig wrote to you.  

Know why?  Because I find that, oftentimes, when I put up some facts that are "inconveniently" in contradiction of a person's stated position, they somehow seem to get missed.  If I didn't know better, I'd think that such a person might just find those facts too "inconvenient," and might be _deliberately _ignoring them.  I'm not saying that's you, because I too am tardy in responding to certain queries--for example, I'm still researching some info for the solar power discussion going elsewhere on these boards.  So I'm not saying you deliberately ignored what I wrote.)  But I am saying that it's been my experience, all too often, when trying to have a meaningful discussion with, for example, Bush supporters, that they'll just choose to pretend I haven't said something, when I've raised facts they found (inconveniently) at odds with their _preferred perception _of reality.

I'd also be interested in your response to this particular bit 'o news: http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience...ce/californiasizedareaoficemeltsinantarctica?

Thanks,

Peter


----------



## DavidV (May 17, 2007)

Junk Science.


----------



## MrGriz (May 18, 2007)

TP, 
Take a deep breath and count to ten. I did read your response. Thank you for taking the time to make those points. Unfortunately, this is a great topic for discussion and debate with no clear right answer or "winner". Let me try to explain what I mean by that and what I believe. I'm no expert (by coincidence I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) so these are just my beliefs and observations.

To start, the "science" behind _each side _of the global warming debate seems incomplete. There is not even agreement among the scientific community as to whether the earth is warming and if so to what degree (maybe to what extent is a better way to word it). There is also much disagreement as to the effects of the global climate change that may or may not be occurring. Each side picks their best talking points and most compelling argument and runs with it.

We've seen it in numerous areas, not just the global warming debate. Remember when real butter was no good for you and margarine was the answer. All of a sudden a natural product was better on your toast than a product that is a molecule away from being plastic. I also seem to remember that years ago there was a hole in the ozone layer that was going to wipe us all out in no time. Let's not forget that second hand smoke can escape your neighbor's basement and give you cancer overnight while you sleep. It's the scare tactic or alarmist crisis of the day.

I see your reference to the albido effect and the fact that this cycle is pushing us toward a tipping point. That does make some sense. What it fails to address is the root cause of the polar ice melting; the what started the ball rolling factor if you will. As wxman pointed out, there are multiple factors at work here. Some are undoubtedly under our control and some are well beyond it. I'm sure there are other factors we still have not identified. That leads us to what percentage each factor plays in the overall effect and to what extent we can control those factors.

Maybe I'm just a simple man, but what I tend to believe is what makes sense to me. Earth's climate has been cycling since the beginning of time (let's not go there). I am sure that at a localized level (how localized I'm not sure) our actions have a controllable effect on things. However, as the scale gets bigger and bigger our effect lessens. I'm just not convinced that we are the major contributor to global climate change or that we have the power to reverse it.

I also believe that we should be responsible with our use of this planet while we are here. After all, we did not inherit this land from our fathers, we are borrowing it from our children (I stole that quote, but I agree). We should look for ways to better conserve and manage our natural resources. There's nothing wrong with recycling, re-using and being responsible. Hell, we would all benefit from just being nicer to one another. We just need to keep things in perspective while we try to accomplish these things.


----------



## jqgs214 (May 18, 2007)

Griz


BRAVO!


----------



## Todd (May 20, 2007)

Right on Griz!


----------



## PAJerry (May 20, 2007)

MrGriz - you are a wise and patient man.  A voice of reason, even.  The only real thing we can do with the 'global warming' that may or may not be happening is learn to live with it.  Be kind to the Earth, be kind to each other.


----------



## VT-Woodburner (May 20, 2007)

I am one person that has taken a step back and looked at the global warming debate and has had a few questions that have never been answered. 

First what caused the massive global cooling and subsequent warming which resulted in the forming and melting of the glaciers that were a mile thick right where I live here in Vermont? Not just once but *three times*? Was it Fred Flintstone's SUV? I really don't think so. 

The earth has warmed and cooled numerous times in it's history. 

What's wrong with global warming? What's wrong with a longer growing season to feed 6 Billion people? Experts are now saying the warmer temperatures are shearing the tops off hurricanes so they will be less destructive, not the other way around as previously thought.

What happened to the "land bridge" that many thought was the path people took from Asia to north America 10,000 years ago. It's still there, but it's underwater, Which means the oceans are higher today than at that time.

But my biggest question is this: How come NASA has discovered that not only is the Earth warming, but so is *Mars* and now indications are that *Jupiter's moons *are also warming. How is that America's fault???

The Earth IS warming. Nobody can dispute that. But I don't think it's the calamity that some with an agenda are claiming. And that agenda is to control people and limit freedom. These people want to tell us what kind of car to drive, how to heat our home, and what lifestyle we should live. And some are politicians who live in 28,000 square foot homes and tell US to conserve!


----------



## MrGriz (May 20, 2007)

Those are great points VT-W.  It seems to me that if the global climate change debate were less one sided, you would hear those points rebutted from the global warming proponents.  Instead, they are not addressed at all in the main stream.


----------



## elkimmeg (May 20, 2007)

VT  I'll throw anothe log on for you. Maybe its not the gobal warning issue ,but rather as Mr griz said, we occupy this turf for a limited time.

 Its about limited resourses and using them wisely That why MPGS should dictate the car you drive or the car I drive AI also believe it is our responsibility to  make as little a foot print in the ecological balance as possible. That's being responsible ans sensitive  and respectful  But that my way of thinking many other thing it is their god given right to drive Hummers ect and don't give a chit about the foot print. There are too side to this you either give a chit or you don't.  At this point I can't make you make the right or best decision ,that has to come from within.

You bet I recycle drive fuel effecient cars heat as much possible with wood setup my home to take advantage of passive solar radiation Insulateed the crap out of it having R 28 side walls

 I'm not giving you lip service I walk the talk.m Unlike 28,000 sq ft home pols that will tell me how they conserve Make movies get all the credit and jetset around to be patted on the back


----------



## begreen (May 20, 2007)

VT-Woodburner said:
			
		

> I am one person that has taken a step back and looked at the global warming debate and has had a few questions that have never been answered.
> 
> What's wrong with global warming? What's wrong with a longer growing season to feed 6 Billion people? Experts are now saying the warmer temperatures are shearing the tops off hurricanes so they will be less destructive, not the other way around as previously thought.
> 
> ...



Good questions VTW. I'm not a climatologist, but I'll give a stab at answering from what I know. 

The first question is asked often. At issue are negative feedback systems. If we could gently and predictably raise the global temp a degree over a century and keep it there, then perhaps it might be an interesting experiment. But the rate of increase is now too quick for ecosystems to adapt. Most alarming is how quickly systems are reaching the saturation point. The southern oceans which have historically stored carbon dioxide are now at saturation point and starting to release it. That is bad, especially when combined with melting permafrost which is releasing a lot of methane. The big unknown at this point is where the threshold is that upsets the balance and rapidly accelerates the negative side of global warming. The south seas are considered a really important indicator. The increase in acidity of the seas and higher temps are responsible for some rapid declines in life. If we sterilize the seas, there will be a lot of people starving. 

The land-bridge between Siberia and Alaska showed up when a large portion of the world's water was bound up as ice, thus lowering seas and exposing the shallows between the two continents. 

The how come of NASA, et al "just" discovering is not really true. Scientists started warning about evidence of global warming over 2 decades ago. Other scientists pushed back and said 'prove your hypothesis'. Lots of data collection started as a result. This is expensive and time consuming, especially when one needs to design and then implement satellites to assist data collection. But as more evidence came in, the case kept growing stronger and it continues to. Remember, this is a first time effort. The world has never turned it's collective scientific observations towards the global effects of man. In the south seas example, no one was measuring CO2 concentrations there ten years ago. And unfortunately nations haven't funded this research until they suddenly wonder why something has run amok in their realm. Examples that finally got countries going would be coral reef die offs, massive glacier melts, insect born disease migration, permafrost melting, coastal storm damage, etc. 

http://www.beringia.com/02/02index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/17/climate.ocean.reut/index.html
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/03/the_fate_of_the_ocean.html


----------



## sully442 (Jun 3, 2007)

"Split wood not Atoms"


----------



## milner351 (Jul 14, 2008)

I'm back in the fight with the smoke complaining neighbors and in search of a wood burning advocate bumper sticker -- did anyone have any of these printed up?

Thanks for the informative global warming debate - there are certainly many smart folks on this board.  I tend to agree more with the cyclical theory - there were plenty of books written in the 70's about the threat of global cooling..... that wasn't that long ago - and those scientists were just as convinced about the cooling threat as today's folks are about the warming.  Nearly everything in nature has a cycle - why not the climate.

Bottom line is wood is renewable, new stoves are quite clean burning, they reduce our dependency on foreign oil - while at the same time significantly reduce my heating bills, processing the wood is also a great work out in the fresh air -- for all these reasons I will continue to burn wood - regardless of how much my neighbor complains - this is a free country, and I am violating no laws - if she has breathing problems - she needs to put a make up air system in her house - and stop trying to control the actions of her neighbors over which she has no control - legally or otherwise.


----------



## gibson (Jul 14, 2008)

I beleive that both the climate and the economy are cyclical.  Temperatures have been recorded for the last 150 or so years.  Not enough of a statistical sample size to be of any relevance to either side of the argument.  Manmade global warming is a media creation to propagate fear.  Just like the Avian Flu and SARS epidemic.  Every time the nightly news leads with the environment, do they not show the same clip of the iceberg falling apart in the arctic circle in July?  Fear sells ads on TV and in Newspapers.   What I do believe is that we are in many ways a wasteful society.  I believe that conservation and efficient use of resources is important.  I do not like our reliance on foreign oil.  I believe in protecting our rivers, lakes, and oceans for posterity.  Having Al Gore as the face of environmentalism has done a great disservice to this cause.  He is a fraud.  A typical NIMBY (not-in-my-backyard) liberal, who wants all of the little people to change their ways, although he has no intention of doing so himself.  Do you think he has profited off of global warming?  There are many, both liberal and conservative, who feel this way about Gore.  My prediction is that global warming will be back on the front pages again when gas prices and the economy stabilize and the media has to dust off the clip of the icebergs to get the "fear factor" back up in the american population.


----------



## milner351 (Jul 14, 2008)

“One good thing about music.  When it hits you feel no pain.” - Bob Marley 

That's a great quote Gibson - I'd not seen that one before - Marley was spot on with that.

Your reply is full of what could have been my own words -  Gore's utility bills are the only proof I needed to know he's a fraud and a horribly two faced politician.

Now - about those pro wood burning bumper stickers - I've searched the 'net and ebay - and come up with nothing like what's been discussed earlier in this thread 
- only mundaine versions like "GOT WOOD?"


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jul 14, 2008)

Before printing: "A CONVENIANT truth - wood heat is GREEN heat.” ... get the spelling of "convenient" right.  Not trying to be nit-picky- just trying to help out and save a little embarassment for you latah.

A good friend recently had a conversation with a knee-jerk greenie that was "enflamed" that he would burn trees.  Even after explaining the logic of it to her, she only 'sort of' got it.  An education campaign is a good idea- whether you believe in AGW or not- it may help with oil cost, reducing dependence, other pollution,etc.  I don't need to explain it to anyone here.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jul 14, 2008)

Any bumper sticker that starts out with "got" is so horribly cliche and crap that I swear when I see them it almost ticks me off.  It's not clever.  It's not original.  It's lazy and will show up as a retro reference to our stupidity in a movie made 15 years from now.

"Got wood" is marginally better because of the double entendre, Gut Deer is almost acceptable.

Thus goeth my proclamation for the day.  Go forth and spread the word.


----------



## offroadaudio (Jul 14, 2008)

The earth has in the past been both much, much hotter and much, much cooler than it is now.
The "hockey stick" graph has been proven to be a complete farce, concocted of tainted data from temperature reading stations
world-wide - AFTER the collapse of the Soviet Union. It therefore does not contain as many as 10 stations that were online prior to the collapse.
These 10 temperature stations were in one of the coldest places on earth. So any comparison to mean temperature readings prior to them going off-line would show an erroneous spike in global  temperature.  (for anyone interested I can provide several sources for this information)
I love to hear talk about getting the earth back to "normal" temperature. What's that? The Ice Age(s) happened prior to us evil, mean humans being here - that must have been normal then. : )


----------



## JustWood (Jul 14, 2008)

I also have a question about this global warming.

The emissions of how many vehicles on the road does it take to equal the emissions of a 20 ton dinosaur farting all day  :question:    :snake:


----------



## offroadaudio (Jul 14, 2008)

1 volcanic eruption is 100's of times more CO in an hour, than every car on the planet for a  year.
Stop volcanic eruptions now!


----------



## gw2kpro (Jul 15, 2008)

MrGriz said:
			
		

> TP,
> Take a deep breath and count to ten. I did read your response. Thank you for taking the time to make those points. Unfortunately, this is a great topic for discussion and debate with no clear right answer or "winner". Let me try to explain what I mean by that and what I believe. I'm no expert (by coincidence I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night) so these are just my beliefs and observations.
> 
> To start, the "science" behind _each side _of the global warming debate seems incomplete. There is not even agreement among the scientific community as to whether the earth is warming and if so to what degree (maybe to what extent is a better way to word it). There is also much disagreement as to the effects of the global climate change that may or may not be occurring. Each side picks their best talking points and most compelling argument and runs with it.
> ...



Bravo, Griz.

I think extremitism of any cause should be GREATLY FEARED, far more than the "cause" itself -- whether we are talking religion , gun control, or carbon emission.  

I think most clear-minded people definitely believe that we need to conserve what we have and need to take steps to ensure that we are leaving a clean planet for others.  Some people take great care in order to do this, some people are not very far along yet.  I'm somewhere in between these two groups at this point.

The danger with carbon-emission extremitism is that it has the potential to literally control nearly every facet of your and my behavior, if given free reign.  It has the potential to cap large, then small, business activity, and, in the near future, individual consumer activity, all in the name of saving the Earth.  Given the chance, it will tell you what kind of car you drive.  What kind of packaging you consume.  How the beef that you ate for dinner was raised.  What kind of flooring you may put in your house.

In some european countries, it's already illegal to cook on an outdoor grill.  Why?  In a nutshell, It pollutes the air and creates CO2.

I'm not against conservation.  I realize every day that my family is wasteful and we are always getting better at conserving, I don't know that we'll ever be "there" though.

There are many, many well-intentioned individuals in regards to helping the Earth.  My next door neighbor is one of them.  She has been composting for 30 years, we moved in this winter and she taught me how to build one this summer.  Now my wife is learning how to garden using organic techniques from her.  

On the other side of the spectrum, we have people like Al Gore.  Al will use up more of this Earth's resources in a a few months than I will in my entire lifetime.  Sorry, Al, I'm not much into "do as I say, not as I do".  If you want to impress me, quit blowing hot air and lead by example.  I would take my one neighbor, and the impact she is making, over 100 people like you.


----------



## colsmith (Jul 15, 2008)

I am not sure why all these "Bravo, Griz" remarks are so common, when he said



> There is not even agreement among the scientific community as to whether the earth is warming



That shows that he doesn't know what he is talking about.  There is definite "agreement among the scientific community" that the earth is warming.  Some say it isn't the fault of human activity, but there is agreement about the warming for sure.  There might be 137 scientists on the planet who disagree, and they are mostly funded by obscure "research groups" that are are actually funded by Exxon-Mobil.  Google that, easy to find out.  Even George W. has come around to saying the earth is warming, although he claims it isn't the fault of anything to do with oil companies or burning fuel.  Nothing is the fault of oil companies, if you listen to him, but that's another story.  Something like 96-99% of the scientific community agree the earth is warming, how much do you need to be convinced?!?  .


----------



## jebatty (Jul 15, 2008)

> The earth has in the past been both much, much hotter and much, much cooler than it is now.



... and where were the humans then? ... and where will they be when this happens again? ... and if there are any humans, what will be their quality of life? ... and is that the kind of life to which you want to condemn your grandchildren and their children? ... while you fritter away the world's cheap oil energy resources in heaps of waste and destruction to life as we know it. Greed, gluttony and pride weren't named deadly sins as a joke.


----------



## offroadaudio (Jul 15, 2008)

jebatty said:
			
		

> > The earth has in the past been both much, much hotter and much, much cooler than it is now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



and if we keep teaching our children that our mere presence here on earth, or worse being an American Patriot equates to those sins - they'll all grow up to be self loathing, suicidal space cadets.

I'm going to go eat some veggies from my garden............


----------



## glacialhills (Jul 16, 2008)

I Just have a really hard time with all of these scientists predictions of global warming and what the earth is going to be like in 20 or 30 years when they cant even predict with 70% accuracy what the weather is going to be like in 2 or 3 days! When they can predict the weather for a week or two 80% of the time in advance then maybe I will start belivin' the "hype" they are trying to push on me. Greenland wasn't called that for the color of the snow that completely covers it now. The earth is constantly evolving and changing. And it will continue to do so with or without us doing or not doing anything. This man made global warming issue has been so overblown that is almost funny.As was stated in another post one volcano can pump a years worth of co2 that we produce into the atmosphere in a day. I always get a chuckle when they keep moving the date forward another 10 years for the time when our great plains will be desert and the oceans will be dead from our pollution or the sea levels will flood all the coastlines from the ice melting in the Arctic. They said in the 80's it would be dead in the 90"s...then it was 2000 now its 2010. They just said that this summer all the ice will melt at the north pole for the first time ever..EVER??? And they state this as fact...how? Guess New york, LA and Philly is going to be flooded and destroyed. Better start packing. Sheesh! does nobody but me think thats just more than a little "chicken Little syndrome?"The thing that amazes me is that the earth stays as predictable and steady as it does.


----------



## Telco (Jul 16, 2008)

I remember in the 70s that the next ice age was coming and we'd be seeing polar ice pack as far south as Denver.  Nobody cared, nobody was scared, no funding was available.  So, they switched to global warming so they could get research money to waste time with.

So far as Greenland goes, that was original marketing hype.  When the Vikings discovered Greenland and Iceland, they didn't want Greenland to be overrun so they switched the names.  Nobody wanted to go to Iceland, because if it's called Iceland it must be a land of ice, right?  Let's go to Greenland, where it's green, right?  So, the people went to Greenland, found it to be icy, and said "Man, if Greenland is a frozen wasteland, what must Iceland be like?  That place has REALLY gotta be cold if this frozen dump was named Greenland by comparison!"  

I also don't think that those scientists, with research dollars at stake, are being completely honest about global warming's source.  The weather patterns in my area today are no different than they've ever been.   And, the temperature records being broken in my area are being broken in both summer AND winter, on hottest or coldest day on record.  The records being broken are only being broken by 1 degree, AND these records were set in the 1920s and 1930s when almost nobody had cars or even electricity.  

The real problem is, if you give someone a degree you give them credibility whether they deserve it or not.  And when they start shouting the same thing over and over, well he's a scientist, he must know what he's talking about and has NO ulterior motives at all unless he's employed by the oil companies.  Then, he's a shill that can only have one interest, and that's in destroying the planet for a buck.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 16, 2008)

> The real problem is, if you give someone a degree you give them credibility whether they deserve it or not.



I hope you're not implying that those without degrees deserve to be listened to. Even assuming some with degrees may be a few watts short of 100, most without degrees are blithering idiots when it comes to real knowledge, as opposed to rank opinion.


----------



## offroadaudio (Jul 16, 2008)

jebatty said:
			
		

> > The real problem is, if you give someone a degree you give them credibility whether they deserve it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you're not implying that those without degrees deserve to be listened to. Even assuming some with degrees may be a few watts short of 100, most without degrees are blithering idiots when it comes to real knowledge, as opposed to rank opinion.



There you have it folks - if you don't have a degree from one of our mostly liberal, biased and money-chasing Universities - you're an idiot.
My father helped to design and build batteries that flew on 3 Apollo missions - no college education.
I'll be sure to tell him at dinner tonight that Jim said he's an idiot. : )


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jul 16, 2008)

At my last job we called everyone "doctor".  My boss and I were the only "Piled Higher and Deeper"'s for a long time, but we recognized that the paper didn't mean squat because so many great ideas came from individuals throughout the company.  I still do it.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 16, 2008)

I think we're talking apples and oranges, or more pertinent, statements and opinions based on scientific research, study, peer review, and critique, as opposed to statements and opinions made without research, study, peer review, and critique. A great many discoveries, inventions, and ideas may originate from many sources, with or without formal education, but that is a lot different than studying ice cores, measuring radio isotopes, analyzing sediments, and on and on.

I have no credible first hand knowledge of climate change (other than what I might surmise from what is happening around me). So for me to make a statement about whether or not climate change is occurring, caused or not caused by humans, and how rapidly that climate change may or may not be taking place, is a statement made out of first hand ignorance -- which could as well be made by a blithering idiot with equal credibility. 



> There you have it folks - if you don’t have a degree from one of our mostly liberal, biased and money-chasing Universities - you’re an idiot.



If this statement is made regarding only US universities, it is a clear example of rank opinion, not fact. And if this statement is about the university/education system world-wide, it is silly at best.

The bottom line for me, regardless of climate change, is that the US ranks at the top of the most energy and resource wasting societies which ever has existed. There is no good, short or long term, which comes from wasting scarce natural resources.


----------



## glacialhills (Jul 17, 2008)

Telco, I think your info on the subject of Greenland has been influence by the global warming crowd. This is an article I looked up give it a read http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=b9182c6b-2d08-44f0-bcae-7ee6edb43bd5&k=91767 But hey what about where I live here in sw michigan. I am surrounded by glacial moraine's and hills that mile high glacier's pushed up. What caused that to happen? and then why were palm tree like plants growing in this area at one time? we were not even little rodent like animals (or biting into apples in the garden) yet. so those changes were caused by the earths own controls or lack there of. Like I said I just wonder how the earth has stayed as stable as it has for so long.


----------



## gw2kpro (Jul 17, 2008)

Telco said:
			
		

> I also don't think that those scientists, with research dollars at stake, are being completely honest about global warming's source.



Here's a story, not that interesting but I'm going to bore you anyway - first hand experience.

When I was in college (place shall remain nameless), I took an after-class job with a professor (who shall also remain nameless) that I had in a biology class the previous semester.  It paid squat but I was looking for experience.  Looking back, I got a WHOLE lot of experience, I just didn't realize it at the time.

In short, the professor was studying the plight of a certain species of fox found in one part of our state, its numbers had been declining for a long while.  He had all these dead foxes that had been trapped, my theory was that the fox numbers must have been declining because they had trapped so many of them.  But I digress........

Anyway, there was some evidence that these foxes were getting sick from some type of intestinal roundworm.  What us lucky students got to do was to cut open the intestines of these dead, frozen, and re-thawed foxes, empty them out through a series of filters, rinse and plate the residue off of the smallest filter, examine the residue under the microscope, and count the number of roundworm eggs that we saw.  He took us through a couple of hours of training and turned us loose.  It was a very yummy assignment.  Foxes like to eat lots of things that smell good when they are partway digested, frozen for 6 months, then thawed out and rinsed.

After the first two days of my after-class worm-egg counting, he called me into his office.  We talked about how many eggs I wasn't finding compared to previous studies; he wanted to make sure that I was counting as many as possible, did I know what I was looking for, and if I wasn't sure about what I was seeing, to count whatever as an egg.  I pointed out that I had taken a lot of microbiology, was no stranger to a microscope, and was following his SOP and training as closely as I could, and that I'd do my best not to miss any.

Another two days of after-class worm-egg counting go by.  I went slower.  Tried to make sure I was counting everything.  I was doing it right -- the numbers weren't really that much different than the first two days.  Another request to come to his office.  This time, he didn't ask me anything about counting eggs.  He gave me a speech on how "interesting it was" how a department like his was funded.  He pointed out that his fox-roundworm-egg study was up for review in about a year, a lot of projects weren't going to be renewed and this was one that he really wanted to see through.  We then talked a little bit about what I was studying and how important good people were to his program, microbiology majors should do really well with this kind of study.  We closed with how he was really looking to get the "maximum impact" from this study in order to support the declining fox numbers.

I'm not kidding, I really had that conversation.  You always think that kind of conversation happens over some cutting edge technology or to cover something up, etc. but freaking fox roundworm eggs?

I didn't come back to count any more worm eggs, sure it would have been easy to give him the numbers he wanted (can you believe that someone would want inflated worm-egg numbers to try to get State money?).  Ultimately, I ended up transferring schools the next semester for family reasons; but I was in a bad spot in his department if I had wanted to continue on there.

There is plenty of good science out there, There is just as much bad science out there.  It's almost impossible to filter through who has what agenda.  Ultimately, people have to use common sense and -- as my Dad always says -- moderation in everything is the key.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 17, 2008)

Isn't it a relevant question to inquire and pursue whether the climate change now taking place (no one disputes that material climate change has taken place in the distant past) signals a change not characteristic of the relatively stable climate the earth has enjoyed for the last approximate 10,000 years? And it seems that the last 10,000 or so years have been relatively favorable for civilization as we now know it. If we are heading into an uncharacteristic climatic change, the consequences are? That is the big question. A relatively stable climate means a relatively stable civilization as we know it, at least from a climatic impact, and I find that to be a positive outcome.

And isn't it also a relevant question to inquire and pursue whether the change in CO2 which is now occurring signals a change which will result in? That also is the big questions. I don't see seriously disputed in the literature that CO2 levels now are higher than they have been in the last 800,000 years or so. What does that mean? 

Many of us may live long enough to know whether the "good" and the "bad" scientists and researchers are tooting their own political and economic horns or are being a bit more objective.

I vote for responsible conservation of all resources all the time -- there is no down side to that. And just maybe 50 years from now my grandchildren will say, "at least grandpa tried to do something about it," instead of saying, "why did grandpa do this to us?"


----------



## termv (Jul 17, 2008)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> On the other hand, Climate Change does not in almost any case threaten our existence as a species. As per the reports, the poor will suffer most (as usual) and we can adapt. However, adaption will cost vastly more than the alternative - which is the reduction of CO2 output.



"The poor" which will be most of middle America if things continue down this path, while the rich totally disregard what they preach.  Need I remind anyone of the ABC News story "Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- A $30,000 Utility Bill"? The article states "Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours." "Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it.""

You can read the entire article here. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/GlobalWarming/story?id=2906888

I'm all for cleaning our act up but if you aren't helping, don't preach to me.


----------



## Telco (Jul 17, 2008)

jebatty said:
			
		

> > The real problem is, if you give someone a degree you give them credibility whether they deserve it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope you're not implying that those without degrees deserve to be listened to. Even assuming some with degrees may be a few watts short of 100, most without degrees are blithering idiots when it comes to real knowledge, as opposed to rank opinion.



Yep, that's EXACTLY what I'm stating.  Going to college does not magically bestow intelligence upon a person.  College is more like painting a wall with dead fish, you keep throwing dead fish at the wall and hope something will stick.  They don't pop a college grad's head open and install a more powerful processor or a common sense module.  Getting a degree also does not suddenly change a person's mental makeup or make them ethical.  If the person has no ethics, the only thing college will show that person is how best to apply their moral shortcomings to their own betterment.  

Let's consider the following about the American college grad:

1.  Most begin life at least 50 grand in the hole, if not more.
2.  College grads brought us Enron, and are currently either sitting in jail.
3.  College grads brought us the dot.com meltdown.
4.  College grads brought us the current housing meltdown, and will soon be sitting in jail.
5.  College grads said in the 1970s that a new ice age was upon us. 
6.  College grads are now saying a new global heat age is upon us.

Real knowledge comes from experience, NOT book learning.  You can't truly grasp a concept until you are putting it forth in a real life situation, no matter how perfectly you can execute the math.  Most anyone can figure something out when it needs to be done.  Anyone who considers a college degree to be the only measure of intelligence is a person who values appearance over value.  If you'd like to be that way, fine, but I will continue to take a person's measure by how they act and speak, not by what's hanging on their wall.



			
				Glacialhills said:
			
		

> Telco, I think your info on the subject of Greenland has been influence by the global warming crowd.



Heh heh... actually, not unless they were writing history books in the 1970s.  I'm a voracious reader, and really enjoyed reading my history books.  What I was stating about  how Greenland and Iceland got their names came from those history books.  The Vikings discovered those two islands right about 1000 years ago if I remember correctly.  Very interesting read on that, goes along with other news stories I've read where they've found tropical plants from core samples in the Artic.  I guess SUVs were to blame for that one too.  Heh heh...  And here's another reason to blame man for global warming:  underwater volcanoes near Greenland that are melting off the Greenland ice shelf, suspected of causing global warming in previous eras.  Not that any of this means I'm not going to continue to try and cut how much pollution I emit, but I'm certainly not going to take the blame for a climate shift.


----------



## gw2kpro (Jul 17, 2008)

termv said:
			
		

> "Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it.""



Read it carefully.  Al believes that, if you are a rich American, it's OK to consume 20 times the resources of the average american as long as you take steps to reduce and "OFFSET" it.  

Offset logic is EXACTLY like this:  It is OK for me to throw McDonald's trash out the window of my car every day coming home from work as long as I pay somebody to pick up an equivalent amount of trash on the weekend. 

The word "offset" is used by rich people who realize that conservation is, in fact, difficult and requires real, day-to-day personal sacrifice.  They want to "offest" (buy) their way "green" because that sacrifice is often "inconvenient" and bothersome.

The personal, day-to-day activities of people like Al Gore destroy the earth at a rate that is incomprehensible to most of us (certainly he has to be in the top 1% of all resource consumers) yet he has profited a great deal, won awards, and become a mouthpiece for saving the planet? 

The hypocrisy is staggering.  What's next?   The NRA issuing a press release that they believe there are too many guns on the streets and that we should all take steps to reduce our gun ownership?


----------



## Telco (Jul 17, 2008)

Yep, and Al's a college graduate, too.  Look how intelligent his college education made him, and how ethical he is as a result.  :roll:  But since Al's got a college degree, it MUST be OK to throw bags of McDonalds out the window, or zinc mining runoff into the Caney Valley River so long as you throw a few bucks towards providing solar ovens to the poor.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 17, 2008)

> On the other hand, Climate Change does not in almost any case threaten our existence as a species. As per the reports, the poor will suffer most (as usual) and we can adapt.



It seems to me suffering poor may indeed threaten our existence as a species. Mounting numbers of poor around the world spell strife, revolution, terrorism, and the desire to take from those who have. The poor are the breeding ground of a great deal of the world's troubles today. Wealthy people rarely revolt, they wage wars against those who threaten their wealth. We can just wait for the war that spills into the nuclear arena, and then who knows what will happen to the species now known as humans.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 18, 2008)

I was listening to Public Radio today, the topic of the program being whether people are tired of the "green" message and what could be done to make the message more meaningful. One listener said it's time to stop talking and start acting, and then the listener mentioned Al Gore with his green message but actions which are not very green. A similar sentiment has been mentioned in this forum, the implication being that somehow Al Gore's message would have more meaning if his actions appeared to be more in sync with his message.

So, if Al Gore were among the "greenest" of us, would his message have any more power? Are you not accepting his message because his actions aren't green, but you would accept and act on his message if his actions were green? What is the relevance to the message of apparently contrary actions of the message giver?


----------



## offroadaudio (Jul 18, 2008)

jebatty said:
			
		

> I was listening to Public Radio today, the topic of the program being whether people are tired of the "green" message and what could be done to make the message more meaningful. One listener said it's time to stop talking and start acting, and then the listener mentioned Al Gore with his green message but actions which are not very green. A similar sentiment has been mentioned in this forum, the implication being that somehow Al Gore's message would have more meaning if his actions appeared to be more in sync with his message.
> 
> So, if Al Gore were among the "greenest" of us, would his message have any more power? Are you not accepting his message because his actions aren't green, but you would accept and act on his message if his actions were green? What is the relevance to the message of apparently contrary actions of the message giver?



You should run for office with that double talking!


----------



## dlpz (Jul 18, 2008)

I think it would be fantastic if Al Gore were living green, he could afford it.

You want to make an impact, take the bus to work.  I tell that to everyone I know bitchin about gas prices, but the complaints are the bus is far too inconvenient or only scum bags take the bus.


----------



## mbcijim (Jul 18, 2008)

I bought a scooter this summer.  Goes 55 MPH and I just got 70 Miles on .91 Gallon of gas.  I think that makes me green!


----------



## jebatty (Jul 18, 2008)

> You want to make an impact, take the bus to work.  I tell that to everyone I know bitchin about gas prices, but the complaints are the bus is far too inconvenient or only *scum bags *take the bus.



I think you made a really important point. At least in the US, "who we are," or being the "right kind" of person, or at least having the appearance of being "upper class" and "successful" is very important. These thinks for many have become more important than building strong relationships with family and friends, than spending time with your children to read to them or play with them, than keeping up with world events, than participating in community events as leaders and workers (not just spectators). What has become important is things (keep spending "for the economy" while the world goes to hell), not relationships. The price we're paying for that cultural mentality is heavy.


----------



## Telco (Jul 18, 2008)

jebatty said:
			
		

> I was listening to Public Radio today, the topic of the program being whether people are tired of the "green" message and what could be done to make the message more meaningful. One listener said it's time to stop talking and start acting, and then the listener mentioned Al Gore with his green message but actions which are not very green. A similar sentiment has been mentioned in this forum, the implication being that somehow Al Gore's message would have more meaning if his actions appeared to be more in sync with his message.
> 
> So, if Al Gore were among the "greenest" of us, would his message have any more power? Are you not accepting his message because his actions aren't green, but you would accept and act on his message if his actions were green? What is the relevance to the message of apparently contrary actions of the message giver?



Actually, yes.  If Gorey put his money where his mouth is, he'd be more credible.  Well, as credible as anything related to a Clinton can be, anyway.  He does have the money to sell a couple of houses, and put up enough solar panels on the house he lives in to go offgrid.  He's even got the money to go all LED lighting, now.  Plus, he could be pushing to clean up that zinc mine.   He could also be telecommuting to all these places that he now flies to for these enviro-rallies.   It's a lot cheaper and cleaner  to send a local guy out with a 60 inch screen and a microwave shot than it is to fly a private jet out to where the rally is, AND in my opinion would have a lot more impact.  Hell, if I had a tenth of the cash he's got I'd have been there 10 years ago, except instead of a 20,000 sq ft house I'd be in a 1500 to 2000 sq ft place, max.  I'd already be cruising around in an all electric vehicle too.


----------



## sapratt (Jul 18, 2008)

If I told you not to use tooth paste when you brush your teeth cause it will kill you.  But I kept using it would you beleive me?
Or If I'm running around telling people not to plant flowers anymore because it will attract Killer Bees and I have a huge flower garden
would you beleive me?  It's the same thing with Al Gore if he was serious about this and not just in it for the money then he would 
practice what he preaches.


Actualy Al has installed solar panels and replaced all his light builbs with the florencent builbs and put a Geo thermal heating and cooling system in his house.  Now AL Gore is using more electricity then before.


His private jet is the least efficient jet.  If you don't beleive me he has a Gulf Stream 2.  Look it up and see how efficent it is.


----------



## sapratt (Jul 18, 2008)

If you want to believe Al Gore fine but don't just listen to him do some home work
to see if it is true.


----------



## gw2kpro (Jul 18, 2008)

no man said:
			
		

> If I told you not to use tooth paste when you brush your teeth cause it will kill you.  But I kept using it would you beleive me?
> Or If I'm running around telling people not to plant flowers anymore because it will attract Killer Bees and I have a huge flower garden
> would you beleive me?  It's the same thing with Al Gore if he was serious about this and not just in it for the money then he would
> practice what he preaches.
> ...



I hear Willie Nelson has noticed that weed is getting to be in short supply.  He's going to call a press conference tomorrow to plead with everyone else to stop using so there's no danger of running low.  He's got the Nobel prize in the bag.  No pun intended.


----------



## jebatty (Jul 19, 2008)

It seems odd to me that people would be more "green" if Al Gore were more green but not if Al Gore is less green. There certainly are a great many more green message givers than Al Gore, and many of these are very green. So why not act on their message rather than the message of Al Gore?

I think whether one is more or less green is closely related to a person's values and behavior, not to who gives the message.

For example, would an overweight person be more likely to go on a diet based on a message that proper weight would extend life, reduce health issues, and result in better quality of life if the message was delivered by an overweight person or by a thin person? Isn't the credibility of the message contained within the message itself?

Or would a smoker be more likely to quit smoking (similar message) if the message was delivered by a smoker or a non smoker?

Same thing with an alcoholic.

Each one of us makes his/her own choices.


----------



## Telco (Jul 19, 2008)

jebatty said:
			
		

> It seems odd to me that people would be more "green" if Al Gore were more green but not if Al Gore is less green. There certainly are a great many more green message givers than Al Gore, and many of these are very green. So why not act on their message rather than the message of Al Gore?
> 
> I think whether one is more or less green is closely related to a person's values and behavior, not to who gives the message.
> 
> ...



The whole point is, the front man for global warming is Al Gore.  Therefore, Gorey is the one that people associate global warming with.  So, if the global warming hero is burning more juice than 20 other families do, if the global warming front man is jetsetting the world pushing more pollution into the air than ten thousand SUVs do (flying emits its pollution directly into the upper atmosphere, while automobile pollution has time to be broken down before it makes it into the upper atmosphere) to transport ONE MAN, just how big a threat IS global warming?  Can't be a real threat if the front man is able to pollute that much.  Gorey pollutes more per year than my entire family will in a lifetime, and he does this every year.  Now if Gorey cuts way back in his travels and his home energy use, if Gorey suddenly cleans up his act, which will cost him REAL MONEY to do, then perhaps his message won't be blown off like he is.  Since it's his face that people see when global warming is discussed, it's his lifestyle that will set the bar for how clean you need to be.  I can drive a 1960 Suburban, loaded till the framerails are sitting on the axle, with a huge trailer, and a blown carbed 502 big block with bad rings and valve seals, 4.56 gears, in first gear, with jackrabbit starts and stops every 5 seconds, used motor oil added to the gasoline, and still produce less pollution than Gorey does.  Gorey's the standard here.


----------



## sapratt (Jul 19, 2008)

[quote author="Telco" date="1216489854
 used motor oil added to the gasoline[/quote]

Its been a while since I've heard that.


----------



## gw2kpro (Jul 19, 2008)

jebatty said:
			
		

> It seems odd to me that people would be more "green" if Al Gore were more green but not if Al Gore is less green. There certainly are a great many more green message givers than Al Gore, and many of these are very green. So why not act on their message rather than the message of Al Gore?
> 
> I think whether one is more or less green is closely related to a person's values and behavior, not to who gives the message.
> 
> ...



It is obvious that Al Gore doesn't believe that global warming is a threat to the planet, because his personal actions when he is not on camera prove that he is not concerned about the issue.  If he really felt that this was an impending issue, he would not act the way he does. 

So, if Gore is not concerned about global warming, and he is supposed to be the leader of the movement, what does that say about the entire issue?

What else might be his motivation?


----------



## termv (Jul 19, 2008)

Everything comes down to the all mighty dollar!


----------



## jebatty (Jul 20, 2008)

> It is obvious that Al Gore doesn’t believe that global warming is a threat to the planet, because his personal actions when he is not on camera prove that he is not concerned about the issue.



I suppose this means that you also do not believe that global warming is a threat to the planet. Fortunately, at least probably so, you will be 6' under when the chickens come home to roost. Your children and grandchildren will be able to think about their grandma or grandpa and how they dissed the Al Gores of the world and continued to live their eat, drink and be merry lives. 

Now, I'm trying to think of the scientists, geologists, meteorologists, climatologists and other researchers who think continuing to burn fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate is good for the planet. I can't think of one - maybe you can. We have a ca-zillion who say it's bad for the planet, a small number who say it's planet neutral, and 0 who say it is good for the planet.

In addition to the good/bad for the planet, we have ever increasing, in the pocket, cost of fossil fuel energy, food, and everything made from fossil fuel energy. We each experience this, we experience a decline in our life style, we face economic and political uncertainty, we face dependency on non so friendly nations, and we wonder how we can afford to heat our home this winter. 

In this picture I can't see how what Al Gore does is something to emulate or a reason not to hear the merits of what he says. The reasons abound to get off fossil fuel energy addiction. 

Today my wife and I are going for our Sunday walk. Used to be a Sunday drive, but we can't afford that anymore. Time to rediscover what our legs are for.


----------



## begreen (Jul 20, 2008)

This is a bit of a silly tangent from the original subject. It's like saying Bill Gates is not concerned about world health because his kids are not starving. I agree Al could do better at walking the talk, but that doesn't mean he is all wrong or not helping world awareness and action.

If we want to discuss tangible evidence of global climate change let's talk about ocean acidfication, it's connection to carbon emissions and it's implications. This is real, quantifiable and happening right now. 

_“Ocean acidification is the name given to the ongoing decrease in the pH of the Earth's oceans, caused by their uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification


----------



## Telco (Jul 22, 2008)

jebatty said:
			
		

> I suppose this means that you also do not believe that global warming is a threat to the planet. Fortunately, at least probably so, you will be 6' under when the chickens come home to roost. Your children and grandchildren will be able to think about their grandma or grandpa and how they dissed the Al Gores of the world and continued to live their eat, drink and be merry lives.



Either love Gorey, or you are killing the planet?  But Al speak with forked tongue.  He wants us to do as he says and not as he does, does this mean that if we all pay lip service to the environment, but change not a whit, just like Al, that we are doing good?  Al Gore on the environment is like the guy who owns a company that disposes of used tires by burning them in an open field complaining about smelling the smoke from your wood fire that you heat your home with.  This would be an Al Gore.  If you want a positive famous greenie role model, Ed Begley Jr would be a much better choice.  



			
				jebatty said:
			
		

> Now, I'm trying to think of the scientists, geologists, meteorologists, climatologists and other researchers who think continuing to burn fossil fuels at an ever increasing rate is good for the planet. I can't think of one - maybe you can. We have a ca-zillion who say it's bad for the planet, a small number who say it's planet neutral, and 0 who say it is good for the planet.



Nobody's saying that petroleum use is good, especially at the rate it's being used.  The debate is whether man's existence is a major contributor to global warming when the sun and earth themselves put so much more energy into the environment, to the effect that man's effect is akin to a bird hitting the windshield of a car moving 55MPH.  Sure, there's an impact, but will the car slow down?  No.  Then there's the whole listening to Hypocrite Gore.  Not gonna do it.  In my opinion, having Gorey as a spokesman for environmentalism is akin to having Carter as a military advisor.



			
				jebatty said:
			
		

> n addition to the good/bad for the planet, we have ever increasing, in the pocket, cost of fossil fuel energy, food, and everything made from fossil fuel energy. We each experience this, we experience a decline in our life style, we face economic and political uncertainty, we face dependency on non so friendly nations, and we wonder how we can afford to heat our home this winter.



I agree with this statement.  We all need to become more self sufficient.  



			
				jebatty said:
			
		

> In this picture I can't see how what Al Gore does is something to emulate or a reason not to hear the merits of what he says. The reasons abound to get off fossil fuel energy addiction.



Think of it another way.  If you were a slob that leaves half-empty pizza boxes on the floor of your kitchen, is anyone going to care if you whine about having roaches and ants, ESPECIALLY IF YOU WON'T STOP LEAVING HALF-EMPTY PIZZA BOXES LYING AROUND?



			
				jebatty said:
			
		

> Today my wife and I are going for our Sunday walk. Used to be a Sunday drive, but we can't afford that anymore. Time to rediscover what our legs are for.



And here's the real impact, can't afford that drive anymore. 

Don't get me wrong, there's no doubt that there's good reason for cutting and/or eliminating the burning of fossil fuels, but the reasons for doing them should be real, proven ones.  Global warming and peak oil (peak oil comes from only having proven oil reserves for 30 years, which is the most the oil companies will search out; it is not economical for them to search for more than a 30 year supply) simply aren't good reasons.  Air and water pollution are good, proven reasons for cutting use.  So far as global warming, there is a very real debate in the scientific community about whether or not it's real, and just because a scientist says that it isn't real does not mean he's on the payroll of Big Oil any more than a scientist saying that global warming is a fact is on the payroll of the Sierra Club or ELF.  The data the global warming advocates isn't even complete.  Just last year it was announced that a large number of underwater volcanoes were discovered off the coast of Greenland, measurably warming that huge volume of water right where the Gulf Stream passes closest to the Arctic Circle.  The Gulf Stream also has a major impact on the climate of Europe.  Also last year a new underwater current was discovered circling the Antarctic Circle, which scientists say is a major driving force for the climate.  How can any model of global warming be accurate that did not take these two events into account considering they didn't just pop up overnight?  And if scientists missed these gigantic climate drivers, what else are they not taking into account?  And are they even taking astrophysical data into account for any of it?  No, I'd sooner listen to a 5th grader discussing advanced calculus as I would a climatologist discussing global warming.  At least the 5th grader has access to books on calculus, whether he understands it or not.


----------



## begreen (Jul 22, 2008)

And your position on ocean acidification as a result of human contributed CO2 in the atmosphere is?


----------



## Telco (Jul 22, 2008)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> And your position on ocean acidification as a result of human contributed CO2 in the atmosphere is?



No position, never heard of it before today.


----------

