I'm all for conservation, as long as it's cheap and saves me money.
See my friends below..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONd-Yk48R8E
See my friends below..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONd-Yk48R8E
Finally.
- Thread starter Dave_1
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
I watched a documentry not too long ago. I believe it was on the little Ice age. They basically said, that the warming and cooling cycle has, and continues to happen. Alot of it come from the ocean currents.
I'm not very smart on this stuff, but they said the gulf stream carries warm ocean water north which interns melts the ice in the arctic. when enough ice melts, the ocean temp cools and the current stops. which causes northern climates to cool causing ice to build again. When enough ice is formed the cooler water starts to flow south which cause the warmer southern water to move north which warms the northern climate again.
As said, I'm not that smart on this stuff, but it seems like elementary school to me.
PS. I also learned on one of those shows that rotting trees and debris from forest contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than man ever could, which is why before the modern evelution there were high levels. I thought they said the levels where higher then than now.
But quite honestly in my opinion Gore is a pompas jerk. So I'm likely to find fault, and an excuse to disagree with anything he says.
I'm not very smart on this stuff, but they said the gulf stream carries warm ocean water north which interns melts the ice in the arctic. when enough ice melts, the ocean temp cools and the current stops. which causes northern climates to cool causing ice to build again. When enough ice is formed the cooler water starts to flow south which cause the warmer southern water to move north which warms the northern climate again.
As said, I'm not that smart on this stuff, but it seems like elementary school to me.
PS. I also learned on one of those shows that rotting trees and debris from forest contribute more CO2 to the atmosphere than man ever could, which is why before the modern evelution there were high levels. I thought they said the levels where higher then than now.
But quite honestly in my opinion Gore is a pompas jerk. So I'm likely to find fault, and an excuse to disagree with anything he says.
murph said:
The planet's climate changes. It always has. That is not the problem. The problem is the rate of change. Right now the climate is changing relatively quickly. Some of that change can be attributed to natural causes, but not all of it. Humans are contributing to that change--this is the big problem for the anti-global warming side, they cannot point clearly to a natural cause that would account for the all the change (all they have is it might be this or that, but have no data to show it).
Does it matter where the CO2 comes from? Trees decay and release CO2. New trees grow and absorb CO2. This cycle can produce a zero gain in CO2. Burn a coal or oil deposit. How long before that carbon is returned into the ground? The problem is more complex than simply CO2, there are other gasses in this equation. There are also problems of the acidification of the oceans as these gases are absorbed into the water.
So it gets hotter faster. What's the big deal? Since we are wood nuts, how fast does a forest travel? (They do travel as climate changes.) It the change in climate happens faster than forests can move north, they can be in real trouble. Insect populations are controlled by frosts and winters. If the winters do not kill enough of the population, the larger population can go from a annoyance to a threat to the forest (this is happening in the US right now). Slight changes in water temperature can radically change fish and amphibian populations in rivers. Unlike humans who can go to L. L. Bean, many other species can be inhibited or promoted with small change to their environment. The Green CO2 group will tell you planet benefit for more CO2 and so it is good, what they don't tell you those plants tend to be weeds and can overrun an environment. They also forget to mention that increased CO2 levels only increase plant growth in the short term.
I guess the question is whether we have any responsibility when we pollute our planet. I think we do. And if you don't think humans can have a global impact, come to Maine and live on fish caught in our beautiful lakes and rivers. It will not be long before you will have mercury poisoning. And this is after we have "cleaned" things up.
Al Gore is not a scientist. He is not doing the research. Do you hate/love opera music because Alec Baldwin introduces it on the radio?
- Jul 19, 2006
- 306
US Chamber Challenges EPA CO2 Endangerment In Federal Court
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-ma...llenges-epa-co2-endangerment-in-federal-court
http://www.nasdaq.com/aspx/stock-ma...llenges-epa-co2-endangerment-in-federal-court
kenny chaos said:
Thanks Kenny.
Somewhat less creative response than I would havce expected from you though.
It's funny, I've never seen this before at this level - if you disagree with global warming you are ignorant, or stupid, or uninformed or .... whatever, pick your word. Just by saying "the debates over," that makes it over? There are 2 sides to this, AND NOT EVERY PHD OR EXPERT THAT SAYS GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT TRUE IS EMPLOYED BY EXXON, that's just a way to not have to debate about it ("your experts are bought, mine aren't"). In fact, if global warming is proven untrue, how many experts do you think will loose billions in research money? Al Gore's whole reason to live goes away if it is untrue (ok a little overboard, not live, but to be on TV, to make money). And NOT EVERY PHD OR EXPERT WHO SAYS GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS IS EMPLOYED BY THE UN.
I would think all of you wood burners would understand this. It's easy to make this kind of argument: OWB's pollute, they smoke, they are dirty. So all of you Tarm owners, all of your Garn owners, all of you woodstove owners your stoves are dirty, they pollute. You can't tell me they don't, I've seen that OWB down the street, I've smelled it, I've gotten the calls from neighbors, I've read the posts on this forum. The debate is over, we are banning your tarm, your garn, and your woodstove.
The only ignorant ones are the ones who won't do any more research, who say it's over, on either side.
And I love running for a Mod because someone disagrees with you, that is too cute. Mod = Mom?? :coolgrin:
I would think all of you wood burners would understand this. It's easy to make this kind of argument: OWB's pollute, they smoke, they are dirty. So all of you Tarm owners, all of your Garn owners, all of you woodstove owners your stoves are dirty, they pollute. You can't tell me they don't, I've seen that OWB down the street, I've smelled it, I've gotten the calls from neighbors, I've read the posts on this forum. The debate is over, we are banning your tarm, your garn, and your woodstove.
The only ignorant ones are the ones who won't do any more research, who say it's over, on either side.
And I love running for a Mod because someone disagrees with you, that is too cute. Mod = Mom?? :coolgrin:
Dune said:
Thanks Kenny.
Somewhat less creative response than I would havce expected from you though.[/quote]
I did have a diddy workin' but gave up on a loss for a rhyme to "pie-hole." :lol:
mike1234 said:
Your response implies that you read the entire thread.
If you had, you would have noticed that the moderator asked the O.P., Dave1 for details as to the when and where of the suit.
Dave1 never bothered to reply, and in fact months and months later, posted another link about another weak and frivilous suit by an organization so rabid that many legitimate businesses have quit in protest of their neoconistic policies.
Meanwhile, if you had read the thread you would have seen other requests for moderation. This thread belongs in the ashcan, from whence it will eventualy be excised into nonexistance.
The really funny thing is that you and others still beleive that there is a debate at all. There is not.
It is like the japanese soilders found on deserted islands that didn't beleive the war was over.
By the way, your analogy compairing global climate change to a neiborhood debate about outdoor boilers holds no water whatsoever.
Yes, read the whole thing. Yes saw that the lawsuit stuff was not responded to. Saw that those who don't like the debate, afraid it is starting to look like common sense is starting to prevail want to stop the debate. To the ash can with it.
Sure my argument holds water, try and argue it. You'll say you can prove with science that it's not true. I'll say, sorry the debate is over. You'll say, but there are those who disagree, I'll say, sorry the debate is over. You'll say there are other explanations for the so called facts I present, I'll say the debate is over. You'll say wait, the polar bears are growing in number and the seas have not risen at all, and there is no proof whatsoever that climate change really exists, and I'll say, damn your right.
You really aren't worth arguing with Dune, you'll never be open minded enough to think it though totally. You might be a smart guy, but for whatever reason you are blind to at least 1/2 the facts on this. You may be right though, for me and you at least, the debate is over.
Sure my argument holds water, try and argue it. You'll say you can prove with science that it's not true. I'll say, sorry the debate is over. You'll say, but there are those who disagree, I'll say, sorry the debate is over. You'll say there are other explanations for the so called facts I present, I'll say the debate is over. You'll say wait, the polar bears are growing in number and the seas have not risen at all, and there is no proof whatsoever that climate change really exists, and I'll say, damn your right.
You really aren't worth arguing with Dune, you'll never be open minded enough to think it though totally. You might be a smart guy, but for whatever reason you are blind to at least 1/2 the facts on this. You may be right though, for me and you at least, the debate is over.
Dune said:
Great semi-polite insult. I really like that. So much more class than Kenny's response. Too bad you don't want to debate this, I may have enjoyed that. Thanks.mike1234 said:
- Jul 19, 2006
- 306
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490
Dave_1 said:
O.K., that link proves you read british tabloid journalism. Thanks, that does answer some questions.
- Jul 19, 2006
- 306
World may not be warming, say scientists
snip
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC."
snip
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
snip
"Meanwhile colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers." [Hmmmm]
snip
(broken link removed)
snip
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC."
snip
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece
Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
snip
"Meanwhile colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers." [Hmmmm]
snip
(broken link removed)
- Jul 19, 2006
- 306
Now climate-change scientists say ozone hole stops global warming
"IT WAS once regarded as one of the biggest environmental threats to the planet. Now there is mounting evidence that the ozone hole above the Antarctic has been protecting the southern hemisphere against global warming.
The bizarre side-effect of ozone depletion has been studied by scientists at the University of Leeds.
The ozone hole, caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) released into the atmosphere, is now steadily closing, but the research has suggested this could actually increase warming.
Scientists discovered brighter summertime clouds had formed over the area below the hole, which reflect more of the sun's powerful rays.
"These clouds have acted like a mirror to the sun's rays, reflecting the sun's heat away from the surface to the extent that warming from rising carbon emissions has effectively been cancelled out in this region during the summertime," said Professor Ken Carslaw, who co-authored the research.
Furore over other global -warming 'truths' that have turned out to be less than scientific
When the ozone hole seals, he expects an acceleration in warming in that region, he added...."
snip
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Now-climatechange-scientists-say-ozone.6012558.jp
"IT WAS once regarded as one of the biggest environmental threats to the planet. Now there is mounting evidence that the ozone hole above the Antarctic has been protecting the southern hemisphere against global warming.
The bizarre side-effect of ozone depletion has been studied by scientists at the University of Leeds.
The ozone hole, caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) released into the atmosphere, is now steadily closing, but the research has suggested this could actually increase warming.
Scientists discovered brighter summertime clouds had formed over the area below the hole, which reflect more of the sun's powerful rays.
"These clouds have acted like a mirror to the sun's rays, reflecting the sun's heat away from the surface to the extent that warming from rising carbon emissions has effectively been cancelled out in this region during the summertime," said Professor Ken Carslaw, who co-authored the research.
Furore over other global -warming 'truths' that have turned out to be less than scientific
When the ozone hole seals, he expects an acceleration in warming in that region, he added...."
snip
http://news.scotsman.com/uk/Now-climatechange-scientists-say-ozone.6012558.jp
- Jul 19, 2006
- 306
Daily Mail: SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Climate change emails row deepens as Russians admit they DID come from their Siberian server
snip
"In the words of one, David Rind from the US space agency Nasa, it ‘looks like there were years around 1000AD that could have been just as warm’."
snip
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ns-admit-DID-send-them.html?printingPage=true.
Hmmm, 1,000 A.D.. that would be about the time that Eric the Red discovered "Greenland"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_the_Red
snip
"In the words of one, David Rind from the US space agency Nasa, it ‘looks like there were years around 1000AD that could have been just as warm’."
snip
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ns-admit-DID-send-them.html?printingPage=true.
Hmmm, 1,000 A.D.. that would be about the time that Eric the Red discovered "Greenland"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_the_Red
What is really odd is the number of people who think they are qualified
to discuss or even to have an opinion on such a matter.
Most of us are still burning wood to try and warm the cave.
Go fix a door knob or something.
to discuss or even to have an opinion on such a matter.
Most of us are still burning wood to try and warm the cave.
Go fix a door knob or something.
- Jul 19, 2006
- 306
The world’s largest private sector coal business, the Peabody Energy Company (PEC) has filed a mammoth 240-page “Petition for Reconsideration,” a full-blown legal challenge against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
"The petition must be answered and covers the entire body of leaked emails from ‘Climategate’ as well as those other ‘gate’ revelations including the frauds allegedly perpetrated under such sub-headings as ‘Himalayan Glaciers,’ ‘African Agricultural Production,’ ‘Amazon Rain Forests,’ ‘Melting Mountain Ice,’ ‘Netherlands Below Sea Level’ as well as those much-publicized abuses of the peer-review literature and so called ‘gray literature.’ These powerful litigants also draw attention to the proven criminal conduct by climate scientists in refusing to honor Freedom of Information law (FOIA) requests.... "
snip
http://www.climategate.com/worlds-b...rings-us-government-to-court-in-climate-fraud
"The petition must be answered and covers the entire body of leaked emails from ‘Climategate’ as well as those other ‘gate’ revelations including the frauds allegedly perpetrated under such sub-headings as ‘Himalayan Glaciers,’ ‘African Agricultural Production,’ ‘Amazon Rain Forests,’ ‘Melting Mountain Ice,’ ‘Netherlands Below Sea Level’ as well as those much-publicized abuses of the peer-review literature and so called ‘gray literature.’ These powerful litigants also draw attention to the proven criminal conduct by climate scientists in refusing to honor Freedom of Information law (FOIA) requests.... "
snip
http://www.climategate.com/worlds-b...rings-us-government-to-court-in-climate-fraud
Sorry Dune, the "you'll never be open minded enough to think it through totally" was not meant as an insult, I just think it's true that there is no chance of you looking at both sides of this issue. I didn't intend it as a semi-polite insult, although it does kind of come off that way. Sorry about that.
Dune said:
Eastern Sierra Wood Burner said:
There are many Scien-tists that would debate you on that stance.
Its really important too debate the economics not the science because over 95% of the experts have been convinced for a long time. There will always be a very small percentage that will never see the light. All measures too address global warming are an effort to clean up our planet. The important debate should be the economic impact and what most people are willing to sacrifice in the short term to help in the long run.
- Status
Similar threads
