Are we skiers helping global climate change?

ctenidae said:

cut down trees

Click to expand...

In most places on the planet? Sure, as long as it's responsibly done (i.e. dont do what England did in the 17th and 18th centuries).

ctenidae said:

over fish the oceans

Click to expand...

Again, fish as much as you like as long as individual species aren't overfished.

ctenidae said:

pump more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere

Click to expand...

Until proven otherwise, CO2 is merely plant food to me. There have been previous times the earth has sustained life in which CO2 was higher than today.

ctenidae said:

increase factory farming

Click to expand...

Well, it's either that or we legalize homicide. How about real life Hunger Games? If case you haven't noticed, the global population is increasing, someone needs to feed them. I've seen some real extremist eco-crazy talk by some so concerned about the growth of the human race that they desire a plague of some sort to substantially cull back our numbers. Nuts.

ctenidae said:

I get it that you think the government is always out to take every penny they can from you.

Click to expand...

I'd say that's figuratively accurate.

ctenidae said:

I get it that you think folks who are concerned about anthropogenic impacts on the climate are alarmist nutjobs.

Click to expand...

That's incorrect. I don't fault anyone for believing AGM is true. I fault those who believe it with blind faith, which in my suspicion is some number > 50%. I also fault anyone who ostensibly claims to be talking about a scientific THEORY (all caps and bolded for emphasis) and in the same breath uses some form of "there's no debate it's not true" or "all the scientists agree" or some similar, which is frankly the intellectual equivalent of simply stating loudly that you have no idea what you're talking about. I also fault those who dont realize that various global governments couldnt care less about whether AGM is true or not either way, but use it to extract $$$$ from both individual citizens and corporations, in addition to enacting increased controls and regulations over the populace and various sectors of the economy (and it's getting worse).

ctenidae said:

What I don't know is whether you think diversifying our energy sources makes sense.

Click to expand...

Yes, as long as it's economically sensible. Natural gas, for instance, is the future in this country, and a no brainer. But then you have something like solar - in many places in America, solar is a complete and total scam that makes no financial sense, and is enabled completely by government waste/kickbacks.

ctenidae said:

I don't know if you think that protecting wild spaces is important.

Click to expand...

Depends. The way PA has done it is great I think. The way NJ has done it is horrendous. And I think the way NY did it with the Cats and Dax is a good example of extremism. When Hunter cant even put a few ski trails on its' own property which happens to be joined to one of the biggest natural expanses in all of Continental America? Houston, we have an eco-extremist problem.

ctenidae said:

I don't know if you think that saving species from extinction by human actions is worthwhile.

Click to expand...

Almost always. The few exceptions are when it's used in fraud by eco-extremists (which is on the increase sadly), and when it's dumb. A "dumb" example is, for instance, when they rescue the 1 or 2 manatees each year that swim to Connecticut etc.... All they did is waste $$$, and potentially harmed the future of the manatee species. Lastly, and this one is real tough for people to hear, but sometimes nature ***** up. Some species should probably be left to peacefully go extinct, because they were "evolutionarily dumb". Specialists are the best examples, the hognose snake will probably go extinct someday with or without us. Those cute Panda bears? Yeah, they were probably doomed with or without mans' incursions as well.

ctenidae said:

calling scientists liars, and espousing conspiracy theorists isn't at all helpful.

Click to expand...

Especially if you have zero interest in the truth given some of the top UN scientists have in fact been caught in lies and coverups.

ctenidae said:

All I ask is that you get the fuck out of the way as others try to make some progress and leave behind some sort of liveable planet for our grandkids. If you're not going to help, that's fine. Just don't be a hinderance.

Click to expand...

And here comes the self-righteous, egregiously pious, over-the-top self-esteem boost language that's so customary. Often from the same people that tell you 38 times per month they own a Prius. Luckily, I live on the UWS, it's no sweat, I'm used to it.

BenedictGomez said:

And here comes the self-righteous, egregiously pious, over-the-top self-esteem boost language that's so customary. Often from the same people that tell you 38 times per month they own a Prius.Luckily, Ilive on the UWS, it's no sweat, I'm used to it.

Click to expand...

I don't really have the energy to continue the debate point by point, and don't want to bump this thread yet again to the top of the page. So, sorry to everyone for doing that.

My sole point is that denial, particularly loudly proclaimed, is more dangerous than blind acceptance. There are no positive outcomes if you deny and are wrong. There are positive outcomes if you accept and are wrong. Pure and simple. Blind devotion to any one belief is dangerous, overall- people who thin we should stop using all fossil fuels and go 100% solar immediately are more dangerous than people who think solar is a useful addition to the mix, but realize that fossil fuels are the reality for the medium term.

People who stand on their soapbox and loudly proclaim that scientists are liars and governments are crooks, and therfore we shouldn't be concerned about or try to do anything about the impacts we have on our environment are, in my opinion, dangerous.

For the record, I work in the energy industry- we've lost our shirts on renewables, and made a boatload of money on coal. Gas and oil are going to be the fuels of choice for a long time. I also drive a twin turbo V8 engined car that gets about 14 miles to the gallon when I'm in traffic. I like to drive, and the electric options suck, except for the Tesla, and I can't get one yet, or I'd have one because I like to support diversification.

I don't think my opinions are infallible, I don't think everyone should believe the same things I do. I do, however, think a simple 2x2 logic square will steer you right more often than it will steer you wrong.

Did the OP ever even check back in to this one?

ctenidae said:

My sole point is that denial, particularly loudly proclaimed, is more dangerous than blind acceptance. There are no positive outcomes if you deny and are wrong. There are positive outcomes if you accept and are wrong.

Click to expand...

No quite true. The consequences of denying and being wrong will be imposed primarily on people who do not now exist - people whose very existence will most likely depend on our denying and being wrong. Because the policy changes that believers advocate would likely result in different people being born in the future. So it looks like everyone wins if we deny and are wrong. We win, because we don't have to change our current behavior. And future generations win because they wouldn't exist if we changed our current behavior. So unless global warming will at some point make like not worth living, we seem to have no reason to change our current behavior.

Not sure what's wrong with the above argument, except the absurd conclusion that we should do nothing about global warming even if it's man-made. I guess we could challenge the premise that the effects of our contributions to global warming would not be experienced in our own lifetimes. Or the premise that the people who exist in the future will depend on what policies we adopt now. Or maybe the implicit premise that it's not wrong to adopt a policy that will make life worse in the future if no one in the future could complain (because they would not have existed if we had adopted difference policies today).

steamboat1 said:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...y-prices-soaring-in-top-10-wind-power-states/

Click to expand...

Anti wind farm protesters will have a field day with this type of article. Any articles written about solar energy like this would greatly cripple non fossil fuel industry.

All you have to do is google this guy and you can see where his paycheck comes from. Scan down and see the list of "articles" he has written.
There is no evidence of cause and effect in the article. Only a correlation. You could also say that states that grow the most corn have had the highest energy cost increases.

http://heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd

Abubob said:

Anti wind farm protesters will have a field day with this type of article. Any articles written about solar energy like this would greatly cripple non fossil fuel industry.

Click to expand...

Solar is bad too, but it's not even remotely as bad as wind energy. Wind is in a league of its' own in terms of being a complete waste of money and government boondoggle. Might as well create energy by burning $100 bills.

Abubob said:

Anti wind farm protesters will have a field day with this type of article. Any articles written about solar energy like this would greatly cripple non fossil fuel industry.

Click to expand...

Your comment states that an article(?) would cripple an industry? Did you mean something else?

trackbiker said:

All you have to do is google this guy and you can see where his paycheck comes from. Scan down and see the list of "articles" he has written.
There is no evidence of cause and effect in the article. Only a correlation. You could also say that states that grow the most corn have had the highest energy cost increases.

http://heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd

Click to expand...

That does not surprise me. Politics and industrial espionage/disinformation always clouds issues like this. We will never get a clear picture on this issue.

BenedictGomez said:

Solar is bad too, but it's not even remotely as bad as wind energy. Wind is in a league of its' own in terms of being a complete waste of money and government boondoggle. Might as well create energy by burning $100 bills.

Click to expand...

Many people feel this way

Edd said:

Your comment states that an article(?) would cripple an industry? Did you mean something else?

Click to expand...

Well maybe not one article but this type of thinking, this type of propaganda, if you will, CAN cripple whole industries. I believe it's meant to.

BenedictGomez said:

Might as well create energy by burning $100 bills.

Click to expand...

Once we finish burning our non-renewable sources, we'll have to get down to burning $100 bills if we haven't developed alternative energy sources.

Well not us specifically, but somebody's kids. Bummer for them.

Cannonball said:

Once we finish burning our non-renewable sources, we'll have to get down to burning $100 bills if we haven't developed alternative energy sources.

Well not us specifically, but somebody's kids. Bummer for them.

Click to expand...

so you are not subscriber to abiotic theory :wink:

I've spent about 600 miles in the car cris-crossing Northern Maine for work the past few days. Despite their being several wind farms in the area, I only caught a glimpse of one briefly. Everything to the east of I95 is essentially a flat evergreen forest/bog with hardly any views to be had. Views beyond 200 yards off the state highways in these areas are practically non-existent except for around blueberry farms. I had never spent much time around Houlton, Lincoln, Calais and Machais before, but it's as barren as it gets.

The State's paper industry has fallen in catastrophic fashion over the past several decades and the poverty you see in Northern Maine is the worst of any rural area in New England; it is pretty bad. If I were local, I'd be pushing for wind and solar projects up the wazoo to at least utilize the land and funnel some cash back into the area.

Abubob said:

Politics and industrial espionage/disinformation always clouds issues like this. We will never get a clear picture on this issue.

Click to expand...

i'm still trying to figure out why co2 is a pollutant, from a scientific pov.

Cannonball said:

Once we finish burning our non-renewable sources, we'll have to get down to burning $100 bills if we haven't developed alternative energy sources.

Well not us specifically, but somebody's kids. Bummer for them.

Click to expand...

Burning up non renewables may save the human race. Yup I said that.

When the Metor hits...no secondary explosion ...LOL

jack97 said:

i'm still trying to figure out why co2 is a pollutant, from a scientific pov.

Click to expand...

Here's some science you can do at home: put a small plastic bag over your head. Seal all the gaps with duct tape. Leave on for several hours. Report back on your CO2 findings. We'll wait.....

Cannonball said:

Once we finish burning our non-renewable sources, we'll have to get down to burning $100 bills if we haven't developed alternative energy sources.

Click to expand...

Oh, you mean like in the year 2010, right?

The predictions of "the end of oil" has been wrong more times than the Jehovah's have predicted the end of the world.

jack97 said:

i'm still trying to figure out why co2 is a pollutant, from a scientific pov.

Click to expand...

It's scientifically moronic, but if it's not a pollutant, they cant regulate it. But make no mistake, it's not "anti-science". It can only be "anti science", when it disagrees with left-wing agenda.

Cannonball said:

Here's some science you can do at home: put a small plastic bag over your head. Seal all the gaps with duct tape. Leave on for several hours. Report back on your CO2 findings. We'll wait.....

Click to expand...

That's pretty sick......

BenedictGomez said:

Oh, you mean like in the year 2010, right?

The predictions of "the end of oil" has been wrong more times than the Jehovah's have predicted the end of the world

Click to expand...

So do you believe that oil is infinite? Or do you believe that humans will cease to exist before oil runs out? Because those are really the only two options that would make it untrue that sombody's kids will have to deal with the end of oil.

Cannonball said:

So do you believe that oil is infinite? Or do you believe that humans will cease to exist before oil runs out? Because those are really the only two options that would make it untrue that sombody's kids will have to deal with the end of oil.

Click to expand...

Two words ..."Solylent Brown " problem solved