Global warming worries Utah Gov

[Marc]

I would put the burden on the polluters to prove that it is okay to continue polluting. If they can't, then take away their licenses to drill for more oil and dig more coal, and phase out the use of their damaging product. When traces of pharmaceuticals turn up in drinking water, then tell the manufacturers if you can't figure out a way to prevent that, then you can't sell the drug anymore. When rivers are found to be dumping pesticides and fertilizer and cow dung into the oceans, tell the farmers and if you can't control your runoff, then you have to stop what you are doing. People and industries can adapt, but the people and government need to have the will to put the rules in place.

When the industrial revolution started, it was just assumed that man is so insignificant, he could never do serious damage to the environment. Now I think it is clear that this was a wrong assumption. We were born in a strange era of extravagant waste and pollution, rampant consumerism, population rising out of control, and it's not sustainable.

you <----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> RC's point

 

[speden]

you <----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------> RC's point

Huh? Are you saying we're on opposite ends of the spectrum? For the most part I thought RC was saying we should be concerned about climate change and do something about it, which is the same as what I'm saying.

 

[Glenn]

This thread does not deliver.

Ebayesque thread feedback:
Not sure if I'll read again, no minds will be changed, slow shipping, box was damaged, item doesn't exactly work...but then again, I didn't expect it to. C-.

 

[Marc]

Huh? Are you saying we're on opposite ends of the spectrum? For the most part I thought RC was saying we should be concerned about climate change and do something about it, which is the same as what I'm saying.

I'm saying you missed his point.

 

[Marc]

This thread does not deliver.

Ebayesque thread feedback:
Not sure if I'll read again, no minds will be changed, slow shipping, box was damaged, item doesn't exactly work...but then again, I didn't expect it to. C-.

Ok, so who in this thread has a damaged box? And just who did the damaging?

 

[speden]

I'm saying you missed his point.

You mean about proving a negative? You don't need to prove a negative to show that a product is safe. If you produce coal and want to prove that burning it doesn't harm the climate, you can do what RC is asking the climatologists to do. You build a computer model of the climate, show that when you burn the coal it produces x amount of carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, arsenic, etc., and then you show where that crap ends up. You show with the model and field measurements that it is harmlessly being incorporated into the rain forests, the sea floor, and that little of it will remain in the atmosphere. But they don't do that because the model wouldn't show that. Instead they put their money into conservative propaganda operations and lobbyists to confuse the issue.

 

[HowieT2]

Your backup plan if you are wrong is to migrate to other planets? Mars is a terrible environment for human life, and it's probably the most hospitable of the other planets. We should be stewards of the earth, not consumers of it.

If you are willing to write off climate change as normal, do you also think the acidification of the oceans due to the uptake of co2 is normal? Coal and oil don't just disappear when you burn them; they go to other places.

Is there skiing on Mars?

Bottom line is whether the earth is warming or not, and whether it is related to human activity or not, fossil fuel consumption is bad for our country. The more we can reduce the use of fossil fuels, the better from an economic and national security perspective. Those who oppose efforts to reduce consumption at a time when 200,000 of our soldiers are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, are seriously misguided.

 

[billski]

Is there skiing on Mars?.

I don't know, but the property values are depressed and the school systems are not very good. Not the best family neighborhood to pick. :-o

 

[mondeo]

Those who oppose efforts to reduce consumption at a time when 200,000 of our soldiers are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, are seriously misguided.

Ah, Afghanistan. That bastion of massive natural resource reserves.

 

[mondeo]

You're painting this issue as if both sides have equivalent good points, but I think it's actually quite lopsided. There is a political calculation on the right wing to say everything is fine because they think that is the pro business position (misguided as that is). On the left they are trying to change policy because things are so obviously going in the wrong direction, even though this is not politically popular. If people don't take sides on this, nothing is going to improve. Major shifts likes the rapid industrialization of China are going to accelerate the environmental problems.

How can people see coral reefs dying around the world and say, well, that's probably no big deal. Giant jellyfish have suddenly showed up in the oceans around Japan, threatening their fishing industry. Doesn't that seem like a hint something is amiss? The southwest U.S. is having one drought after another. No worries. I'm sure not having enough water will be great for business out there. Northern forests are being attacked by insects that would normally be unable to survive there. The signs that something is wrong are everywhere.

Just because scientists haven't come up with models accurate enough to explain what is happening, doesn't mean bad things aren't happening. Champions of ignorance like the Utah governor should be voted out of office.

This is terrible logic, and even worse science. What do any of these things have to do with climate change? Was the change in dominant color of the peppered moth the first sign of climate change, then? Thinning of predatory bird egg shells? Extinction of the Tasmanian Tiger? Though climate change can be good for some species - the California Condor's numbers have increased dramatically through the greatest increase in CO2 concentration.

That's what your logic says. All the things I listed can be correlated with increased CO2 production, and were caused by humans. But not because of the increased CO2.

People like you always talk about how the ones arguing against action are the only ones with an agenda. Do you realize how much Al Gore and his ilk have profited from the commercialization of the green movement? How many climatologists would be out of jobs if there wasn't great concern over the climate?

Do you realize how many people Rachel Carson killed with malaria? DDT is an extremely effective and cheap tool to fight malaria, with no harm to humans or the environment, but because of the frenzy she caused and the lingering bad name malaria has, people refuse to fund the use of DDT in nations where malaria is the 6th leading cause of death. Crap science is crap science, I don't care if it's in the name of environmentalism or the economy.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

Not that I agree with the overall approach (shouting and being obnoxious), but the point is made:

 

[mondeo]

Not that I agree with the overall approach (shouting and being obnoxious), but the point is made:

The problem with many of the positions I argue is idiots like that that want to back me up.

You have no first amendment right to confront an author in a book store!

 

[BushMogulMaster]

The problem with many of the positions I argue is idiots like that that want to back me up.

You have no first amendment right to confront an author in a book store!

:lol:

That's the problem with extremism in either direction. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[speden]

This is terrible logic, and even worse science. What do any of these things have to do with climate change?

Coral dying = coral is sensitive to increasing water temperature and bleaches out (i.e. dies)
Giant jellyfish in Japan = they may be migrating north due to increased water temperature, and jellyfish in general are the cockroaches of the sea. They thrive when ecosystems are stressed.
Drought in southwest = changing climate possibly due to increased co2, reducing the already limited rainfall there
Insects attacking northern forests = warmer, drier climate in north weakens the tree's defenses and lets the insects survive

How is this bad science? You're suggesting good science would be to ignore these things and not study them? I'm not saying these are proven to be the result of climate change, but strong indicators that something is wrong.

People like you always talk about how the ones arguing against action are the only ones with an agenda. Do you realize how much Al Gore and his ilk have profited from the commercialization of the green movement? How many climatologists would be out of jobs if there wasn't great concern over the climate?

First off I don't think there are a lot of people like me, so I don't think you should stereotype me as belonging to some preconceived group you despise. And second I never said both sides don't have an agenda. My agenda is to help preserve the health of the earth's ecosystems. Some people are profiting from talking about and implementing green technologies. That's a good thing. People making money from faking data about climate change is a bad thing. Do we disagree on that? You think making money from burning coal is somehow more ethical than building wind generators? I certainly don't.

Do you realize how many people Rachel Carson killed with malaria? DDT is an extremely effective and cheap tool to fight malaria, with no harm to humans or the environment, but because of the frenzy she caused and the lingering bad name malaria has, people refuse to fund the use of DDT in nations where malaria is the 6th leading cause of death. Crap science is crap science, I don't care if it's in the name of environmentalism or the economy.

Well DDT was used in the U.S. a long time ago, but I think it was found to not break down in the environment, and just kept on killing things. Some bird species almost got wiped out by it if I remember since it collected in the fat tissues of the fish they eat. I don't think it's harmless to the environment, but if there are some new studies on that, I'd read them with an open mind. Controlling malaria with pesticides has been a losing battle, since they become resistant to the pesticides over time and come back. Meanwhile the pesticides do more harm than just killing mosquitoes. The best natural way to control mosquitoes is to eliminate stagnate water where they breed. Where stagnant water cannot be eliminated, humans should not live nearby.

 

[trtaylor]

Newsflash: This is a ski forum.

Coral dying = coral is sensitive to increasing water temperature and bleaches out (i.e. dies)
Giant jellyfish in Japan = they may be migrating north due to increased water temperature, and jellyfish in general are the cockroaches of the sea. They thrive when ecosystems are stressed.
Drought in southwest = changing climate possibly due to increased co2, reducing the already limited rainfall there
Insects attacking northern forests = warmer, drier climate in north weakens the tree's defenses and lets the insects survive

How is this bad science? You're suggesting good science would be to ignore these things and not study them? I'm not saying these are proven to be the result of climate change, but strong indicators that something is wrong.



First off I don't think there are a lot of people like me, so I don't think you should stereotype me as belonging to some preconceived group you despise. And second I never said both sides don't have an agenda. My agenda is to help preserve the health of the earth's ecosystems. Some people are profiting from talking about and implementing green technologies. That's a good thing. People making money from faking data about climate change is a bad thing. Do we disagree on that? You think making money from burning coal is somehow more ethical than building wind generators? I certainly don't.



Well DDT was used in the U.S. a long time ago, but I think it was found to not break down in the environment, and just kept on killing things. Some bird species almost got wiped out by it if I remember since it collected in the fat tissues of the fish they eat. I don't think it's harmless to the environment, but if there are some new studies on that, I'd read them with an open mind. Controlling malaria with pesticides has been a losing battle, since they become resistant to the pesticides over time and come back. Meanwhile the pesticides do more harm than just killing mosquitoes. The best natural way to control mosquitoes is to eliminate stagnate water where they breed. Where stagnant water cannot be eliminated, humans should not live nearby.

 

[Mapnut]

Newsflash: This is a ski forum.

Right! It should be forbidden to discuss anything more important than skiing!

Oh, wait. The initial post was about an article in which ski area operators in Colorado and Utah say they're extremely worried about climate change. OK, let's discuss that. Maybe even read it.
http://www.timesargus.com/article/20091129/NEWS01/911290314/1002/NEWS01

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Fell bad for these folks. I guess the idea that "the earth is actually cooling" isn't working here.

http://news.aol.com/article/helped-...rticle/helped-by-global-warming-sea-is/801393

Regarding DDT, it is definately poison. When I was a kid the resort just up the lake from our resort on Lake George sprayed DDT every spring to control skeeters. I knew when they were doing it cause we could smell it and see the huge DDT spray cloud eminating from their place over our bay. Every year right after they applied the DDT we saw tons of dead fish wash up on our beach for about a week. To say DDT is not bad is total crazytown.