Are we skiers helping global climate change?

BenedictGomez said:

The only thing that is "not debatable" is that there are scientists all over the globe currently working on other hypotheses for the earth's warming and cooling, either because they're not convinced in AGM or because they believe the AGM hypothesis is wrong.

Click to expand...

Oh wait, I though you said population dynamics wasn't debatable? "The spread cannot narrow due a statistical forecast of population dynamics. This is not debatable." Keep up Bene, you're slipping.

BenedictGomez said:

there are scientists all over the globe currently working on other hypotheses for the earth's warming and cooling, either because they're not convinced in AGM or because they believe the AGM hypothesis is wrong.

Click to expand...

Or, there are non-biased scientists ( suppose to be the norm ), working on other hypotheses for the earth's warming to either disprove the AGW CO2 theory, or add evidence in support of the theory; or they are working on a multiple competing theories to explain why the earth has warmed so quickly in the last 100 years.
That's what good science is about. Science is all about testing hypotheses and recording the evidence.

Scruffy said:

Oh wait, I though you said population dynamics wasn't debatable? "The spread cannot narrow due a statistical forecast of population dynamics. This is not debatable." Keep up Bene, you're slipping.

Click to expand...

Oh, hey look, the guy who only posts in political threads on a snow skiing board is back. Hi.

Population dynamic trends are mathematically predicable and not based on hypotheses.

A hypothesis, by it's very definition, is not mathematically predictable.

So unless you are somehow 100% certain a localized virus will kill off 1/2 of China's population in the very near future, then yes, the fact that China's population will continue to increase is not a debatable point.

BenedictGomez said:

Oh, hey look, the guy who only posts in political threads on a snow skiing board is back. Hi.

Population dynamic trends are mathematically predicable and not based on hypotheses.

A hypothesis, by it's very definition, is not mathematically predictable.

So unless you are somehow 100% certain a localized virus will kill off 1/2 of China's population in the very near future, then yes, the fact that China's population will continue to increase is not a debatable point.

Click to expand...

Hi Bene,

I am familiar with China's population issues, I've worked there and still work with many there remotely, you missed my point of poking fun at your "only thing not debateable". But thanks for posting :lol: Oh BTW China's pop is expected to start tailing off 2030.

BenedictGomez said:

That's exactly what I did. And "global production" is the sum of all the countries production added together. It has nothing to do with per capita rate.

Click to expand...

No, "global production" is the sum of all the PEOPLE production added together. That's right, the sum of per capita rate!

And the US is producing more PER PERSON on average than any other country! The more relevant question is, are YOU producing more YOURSELF? And is skiing a significant portion of that disproportional contribution of yours?

I am just curious....what are all of your professions (if you care to share)? There is a lot of data being thrown around from both sides and I am just wondering...

I'm starting to enjoy this thread.

abc said:

The more relevant question is, are YOU producing more YOURSELF?

Click to expand...

In relation to whom or what?

Either way I frankly dont care, because I dont believe in AGM. To me, CO2 is merely plant food. An indispensable naturally-occurring gas for without which we'd all die.

And there are a lot of people like me who don't care.
And there are plenty of COUNTRIES that don't care.
And there are a lot of people who claim they care, but are total hypocrites with huge carbon footprints (frankly, that group probably encompasses most people who claim to "care" if we're really being honest about this subject) which demonstrates they don't care, but they want to be perceived as someone who does care.

abc said:

And is skiing a significant portion of that disproportional contribution of yours?

Click to expand...

Absolutely not.

I eat meat, and that is the biggest contributor to my carbon footprint.

I've owned pets and that is the 2nd biggest contributor to my carbon footprint.

I drive an SUV, and that is the 3rd biggest contributor to my carbon footprint.

Since we're apparently asking personal questions about our carbon footprints now:
Do you eat meat?
Do you own a dog(s), cat(s), chicken(s), horse(s) or other mammalian or avian critters?
Do you drive a car or walk to work?

BenedictGomez said:

Since we're apparently asking personal questions about our carbon footprints now:
Do you eat meat? YES, about once a week. I prefer fish and vege instead.
Do you own a dog(s), cat(s), chicken(s), horse(s) or other mammalian or avian critters? NO! Zilch!
Do you drive a car or walk to work? Drive to work no more than twice a week (and that's mostly because I need to do errands)! The rest of the week, I WALK TO WORK at least once a week, take public transport once or twice a week, or work from home

Click to expand...

Hahaha!

Yes, I can afford to "care", even though I don't care all that much. The environment, that is. My life style is so for my own health. It happens to be relatively "green" is mostly coincidental.

What I care a lot more, is people throwing around a lot of pseudo-science, to justify their behavior, or who said he doesn't care but still blame others for contributing to what he doesn't care!

abc said:

'
What I care a lot more, is people throwing around a lot of pseudo-science, to justify their behavior, or who said he doesn't care but still blame others for contributing to what he doesn't care!

Click to expand...

No, you misunderstood; I honestly couldn't care less if you create a larger carbon footprint than 473 Chinese, or 126 Americans. Have at it I say! Drive to the slopes in a GMC Yukon with a new pair of boots and skis each season and enjoy yourself.

What I was pointing out is that many who claim to deeply care, and/or who get an enormous feeling of smug self-satisfaction by pointing a finger at others, often have huge carbon footprints (there's a great South Park episode about this)

For instance, all things being equal, someone who is not a vegetarian likely has a larger carbon footprint than a vegetarian driving an SUV. Yet many of these proud "Green" folk delight at pointing their finger at the "demonic" SUV owner.

BenedictGomez said:

No, you misunderstood; I honestly couldn't care less if you create a larger carbon footprint than 473 Chinese, or 126 Americans. Have at it I say! Drive to the slopes in a GMC Yukon with a new pair of boots and skis each season and enjoy yourself.

What I was pointing out is that many who claim to deeply care, and/or who get an enormous feeling of smug self-satisfaction by pointing a finger at others, often have huge carbon footprints (there's a great South Park episode about this)

For instance, all things being equal, someone who is not a vegetarian likely has a larger carbon footprint than a vegetarian driving an SUV. Yet many of these proud "Green" folk delight at pointing their finger at the "demonic" SUV owner.

Click to expand...

OMG, "smug self-satisfaction", "demonic" SUV owner. :lol: The guilt just drips off your words, like blood from a sword after a disembowelment. It must be hell living with yourself Gome, seek help my friend, the "greenies" won't take your SUV from you.

BenedictGomez said:

What I was pointing out is that many who claim to deeply care, and/or who get an enormous feeling of smug self-satisfaction by pointing a finger at others, often have huge carbon footprints (there's a great South Park episode about this)

For instance, all things being equal, someone who is not a vegetarian likely has a larger carbon footprint than a vegetarian driving an SUV. Yet many of these proud "Green" folk delight at pointing their finger at the "demonic" SUV owner.

Click to expand...

Just because some "green folks" are smug doesn't negate the science, which is pointing to human as a whole ADDING to the global warming trend that's occurring naturally. The skiing industry in particular, with snow making and all the skiers with their SUV (driving over much longer distance than average commute), is adding ON TOP of whatever else (meat eating and dogs/horses/cats) they're already doing!

People tend to forget, it's not the earth that will suffer from global warming. The earth will be there and be fine. It's human habitability that will suffer from global warming! The lack of natural snow to ski on is indeed the tip of that global iceberg, and we get to see it sooner before the rest of humanity hit the bulk of the berg. Even some "greenies" thought they're saving the earth. No, we're just saving ourselves (or not)!

Edd said:

I'm starting to enjoy this thread.

Click to expand...

yes, these circular debates can be quite entertaining.

In one corner we've got a SUV driving mad man who heats his Manhattan apartment with oil from freshly clubbed baby seals

and in the other corner a group of earth savers who jar their farts to offset their carbon foot print.

It will be a fight to no finish!!!


all joking aside (except for the baby seal oil, which I have credible evidence on), I really don't see anyone persuading others to cross over to their side. It seems to me that everyone is an expert on GW or the lack of GW. By the way, you pros need to get with the times. It's no longer called Global Warming in popular vernacular. The current term would be Climate Change, so please replace your GWs with CCs moving forward.

But, by all means keep firing away as long as you all remain civil and respectful.

FTR, I drive one of the most fuel efficient vehicles on the market and it's freezing rain outside instead of dumping blower pow. Sucks.

deadheadskier said:

yes, these circular debates can be quite entertaining.

In one corner we've got a SUV driving mad man who heats his Manhattan apartment with oil from freshly clubbed baby seals

and in the other corner a group of earth savers who jar their farts to offset their carbon foot print.

It will be a fight to no finish!!!


all joking aside (except for the baby seal oil, which I have credible evidence on), I really don't see anyone persuading others to cross over to their side. It seems to me that everyone is an expert on GW or the lack of GW. By the way, you pros need to get with the times. It's no longer called Global Warming in popular vernacular. The current term would be Climate Change, so please replace your GWs with CCs moving forward.

But, by all means keep firing away as long as you all remain civil and respectful.

FTR, I drive one of the most fuel efficient vehicles on the market and it's freezing rain outside instead of dumping blower pow. Sucks.

Click to expand...

:lol::lol::lol: I'm just here to keep old seal oil gomer from drowning in own self adulation. We need him to keep eating meat and driving his SUV to generate more green house gases, since more GHG seems to be cooling the earth :-o. Hey, it's not snowing, it's f@#&ing raining, the skiing sucks, what else is there to do on a ski forum except dredge up old news and bat it back and forth.

If one really wants to understand how I find the "debate being over" arguement ludicrous,then open your closed minds and read,I mean really read all of this simple Wiki ice age page.How one can possibly believe we are the force that shapes climate changes in the least is beyond me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

deadheadskier said:

In one corner we've got a SUV driving mad man who heats his Manhattan apartment with oil from freshly clubbed baby seals

Click to expand...

Oil from baby seals would be renewable energy with a neutral carbon footprint, so I doubt he'd want to use that.

Ironic that someone from Manhattan wouldn't believe in climate change, seeing that rising ocean levels have started to periodically flood Manhattan. I would have thought the sight of water gushing into the subway tunnels would suggest something new was up.

Man, lots of rain the last few days. I keep thinking this should have all been snow. Oh well, I might get out for some slush turns tomorrow anyway.

There are a few immutable facts that can't be argued with:

1) We spew more crap into the environment than we used to. Partially because there are more of us, partially because we keep finding new and creative things to spew into the environment.

2) Spewing crap into the environment is generally a bad thing. Too many fish in a fish tank equals a stinky fish tank. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere can't be better than, say, not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

3) Eventually, all that crap we spew will have an impact of some sort.

Item three is where the argument tends to take off in random directions as people try to convince everyone else that their version of what the impact will be is the right one.

I don't think it matters. Instead, we should assume that bad shit can happen, and so we should do 2 things- try to be prepared (not in some doomsday prepper way) and try to avoid it. The social movement towards eating local is a great thing- reducing the environmental impacts of factory farming and shipping, while bringing farming closer to the users in smaller quantities, which are more adaptable if the shit hits the fan. Fuel efficient cars are kind of pointless, but alternative fueled cars are great- reducing the overall impact and diversifying the energy sources. High efficiency HVAC is pretty good, but better insulation and more efficient living spaces are much better- helps to reduce the impact of severe weather.

I'm not going to stop skiing (well, not for environmental reasons, anyway), I'm not going to stop driving my car, I'm not going to stop using a computer. Those things have little impact. What we can all stop doing, and it will have an impact, is stop complaining when the government spends money on basic research, or provides tax incentives or grants that support the development of new technologies. Stop complaining when bus fare goes up to pay for switching the fleet to gas. Don't bitch and moan when the city wants to install light rail serving more neighborhoods. These things can save our bacon in the long run.

In the end, forget about trying to save the earth. The earth will get by just fine no matter what. Forget the whales- if they can't adapt, well, that sucks for them.

Save the humans. That's what we need to do. (dirty little secret- biodiversity is helpful in that cause, as well).

I was in Home Depot the other day and overheard some lady complaining about not being able to find her usual incandescent light bulbs. As a smug environmentalist, it gives me great pleasure that our corrupt socialist government (with the secret agenda of lining their pockets with money from sham climate science) is slowly banning incandescent light bulbs. I can see people finding fault with hybrid cars since the efficiency gains aren't that huge, but the power consumption difference between incandescent and LED bulbs is massive. Cities that switch their streetlights over to LED's save millions in electricity costs per year, and prevent tons of CO2 (a.k.a. plant food) from being dispersed in the air. Some of the new LED bulbs coming out now are getting to be pretty nice. I think people will complain about them for a few years until the price comes down, but prices are already dropping fast.



Spock: "Admiral, if we were to assume these whales were ours to do with as we pleased, we would be as guilty as those who caused their extinction."

deadheadskier said:

all joking aside (except for the baby seal oil, which I have credible evidence on),

Click to expand...

I believe Benny was a member of Dick Cheney's secret energy task force back in '01.

speden said:

I was in Home Depot the other day and overheard some lady complaining about not being able to find her usual incandescent light bulbs. As a smug environmentalist, it gives me great pleasure that our corrupt socialist government (with the secret agenda of lining their pockets with money from sham climate science) is slowly banning incandescent light bulbs. I can see people finding fault with hybrid cars since the efficiency gains aren't that huge, but the power consumption difference between incandescent and LED bulbs is massive.."

Click to expand...

You did refer to LED and I think those are a good thing.However,you help make my point about showing how decisions are made for politico feel good reasons before sound and final DEBATE and SCUTINY is in.All the rage was to stop incandecent bulbs in favor of CF bulbs which are now looked at as bad guys because of the increase of mercury to the environment.Slow the heck down and read and understand without politcal bias and people might surprize themselves.

SIKSKIER said:

If one really wants to understand how I find the "debate being over" arguement ludicrous,then open your closed minds and read,I mean really read all of this simple Wiki ice age page.How one can possibly believe we are the force that shapes climate changes in the least is beyond me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Click to expand...

Thanks for that . Some good key points taken from that article:

"According to research published in Nature Geoscience, human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next ice age. Researchers used data on the Earth's orbit to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one and from this have predicted that the next ice age would usually begin within 1,500 years. They go on to say that emissions have been so high that it will not.[SUP][38]"
[/SUP]
"There is considerable evidence that over the very recent period of the last 100–1000 years, the sharp increases in human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, has caused the parallel sharp and accelerating increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases which trap the sun's heat. The consensus theory of the scientific community is that the resultinggreenhouse effect is a principal cause of the increase in global warming which has occurred over the same period, and a chief contributor to the accelerated melting of the remainingglaciers and polar ice. A 2012 investigation finds that dinosaurs released methane through digestion in a similar amount to humanity's current methane release, which "could have been a key factor" to the very warm climate 150 million years ago.[SUP][42]"
[/SUP]