The Official Global Warming/Climate Change Thread

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: SimFox Well I think he is sort of face of the issue particularly in the US so in some way he if not deserve it but at least is somehow justified.

an illustration for the topic point: (pic snipped)quote>

Okay, sorry, but you're asking for this:

"Een Russia, globe warms you!"

...now that we have that out of the way, on the issue of Al Gore and the Nobel prize:

Congratulations, Nobel committee, you've just made your prizes meaningless.

Seriously, how does what Al Gore is doing count as "peace" work. Sure, no violence is involved, but if that's all you need, then I could think of several reasons why I deserve a Nobel peace prize. Besides, for all the fuss he's causes, Al Gore hasn't really accomplished much as of yet. And when he was Vice President of the US, in a position to potentially get a lot of regulations and laws passed on this issue, how many did he get passed? Ugatz, that's how many. He routinely criticizes both Bush administrations for their failures, but never mentions the Clinton Administration's failures. Hmm...

I appreciate Mr. Gore's efforts, but I don't think he deserves any prizes of any sort.. at least not at this point in time.

He got the prize not because he actually deserved it, but for purely political reasons. After all, if you have a Nobel prize, you can show it off and say "see? I won a prize for this!", and it makes people take you more seriously. Of course, that potentially backfires when they get the award expressly for that purpose, not for what the award is actually supposed to be given for....

[Micah 16]

Originally posted by: Micah

I personally don't think the Nobel Peace Prize should be taken seriously. Hitler, Castro, and Stalin have all won the award. After all, the founder of the Nobel Peace Prize, Alfred Nobel, is the inventor of dynamite.quote>

Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, and Joseph Stalin never won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I checked.

quote>

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: SimFox Well I think he is sort of face of the issue particularly in the US so in some way he if not deserve it but at least is somehow justified.

an illustration for the topic point: (pic snipped)quote>

Okay, sorry, but you're asking for this:

"Een Russia, globe warms you!"quote>

I'm insulted, and I'm not even from Russia.

...now that we have that out of the way, on the issue of Al Gore and the Nobel prize:

Congratulations, Nobel committee, you've just made your prizes meaningless.

Seriously, how does what Al Gore is doing count as "peace" work.(?)quote>

From the Nobel website (and my earlier posts, in case you skipped them):

"By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control."

Sure, no violence is involved, but if that's all you need, then I could think of several reasons why I deserve a Nobel peace prize. Besides, for all the fuss he's causes, Al Gore hasn't really accomplished much as of yet. And when he was Vice President...quote>

Yeah, I was about to make the same point. He should have been President. That would have counted as something. Seriously, what does someone have to do to claim to be accomplished? Furthermore, what do you consider "fuss?"

...of the US, in a position to potentially get a lot of regulations and laws passed on this issue, how many did he get passed?quote>

With a Republican Congress, very little is ever done to help the country.

Ugatz, that's how many. He routinely criticizes both Bush administrations for their failures, but never mentions the Clinton Administration's failures. Hmm...quote>

You're not seriously going to compare the failures of both Presidents, are you? (New thread, perhaps?)

I appreciate Mr. Gore's efforts, but I don't think he deserves any prizes of any sort.. at least not at this point in time. He got the prize not because he actually deserved it, but for purely political reasons. After all, if you have a Nobel prize, you can show it off and say "see? I won a prize for this!", and it makes people take you more seriously. Of course, that potentially backfires when they get the award expressly for that purpose, not for what the award is actually supposed to be given for....quote>

I'm sure that's what Mother Theresa wanted: a nice, shiny medal.

It really is a shame to see not only diminish one of the most significant honors that can be bestowed upon a human being, but to call that person "unaccomplished" and that he didn't deserve it. Perhaps these types of posts were what I was asking for when I posed my question to the thread. *sigh*

I would also like to point out, once again, that Al Gore shares his award with the thousands of scientists that made up the IPCC.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: schm0

I'm insulted, and I'm not even from Russia.quote>

Oh, give me a break. That's gotta be about the zillionth "een Russia" joke ever. They're all over the place. They might not exactly be politically correct, but they're common as dirt and if they offend you... well, you're just going to have to learn to deal. This isn't just me, here. A lot of people say things like that. In no way is it intended to be insulting to Russians or their country. It's a freaking joke. Unbunch your pantyhose and go find a sense of humor.

"By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control."quote>

This confirms exactly what I just said. The award wasn't given to honor anyone's actions, it was given to "contribute to a shaper focus". Read: it's political.

Furthermore, what do you consider "fuss?"quote>

What I mean is that he's turned it into a huge debate full of headbutting between people who believe in global warming and people who don't. All that arguing is what I consider "fuss".

I'm sure that's what Mother Theresa wanted: a nice, shiny medal.quote>

Of course not. But see, Mother Teresa actually deserved her Nobel Peace prize.

It really is a shame to see not only diminish one of the most significant honors that can be bestowed upon a human being, but to call that person "unaccomplished" and that he didn't deserve it.quote>

None of us are doing the diminishing. The Nobel committee did it to themselves.

I would also like to point out, once again, that Al Gore shares his award with the thousands of scientists that made up the IPCC.quote>

yes, but they singled out Al Gore. And the IPCC is no more deserving of it anyway, so the point is moot.

Originally posted by: Micah

Adolf Hitler, Fidel Castro, and Joseph Stalin never won the Nobel Peace Prize.

I checked.

quote>

 

Then my source was wrong. Perhaps they were nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. quote>

Bingo. They were all nominated. None won. Also, Hitler was nominated before WWII started, obviously.

[coolotter88 2]

actually, the joke would be

In soviet russia, globe warms YOU!!

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Oh, give me a break. That's gotta be about the zillionth "een Russia" joke ever. They're all over the place.quote>

Middle school bathroom wall graffiti does not count as "all over the place." To be completely honest, I don't recall hearing any "een Russia" jokes, ever. (I even took the time to google it, and nothing came up.)

They might not exactly be politically correct, but they're common as dirt and if they offend you... well, you're just going to have to learn to deal. This isn't just me, here. A lot of people say things like that. In no way is it intended to be insulting to Russians or their country. It's a freaking joke. Unbunch your pantyhose and go find a sense of humor.quote>

The only reason I replied was that you said that he was "asking" for it. All I'm asking for comments to remain civil and on-topic. This has nothing to do with my sense of humor, but more along the lines of your sophomoric humor and outright dismissal of forum guidelines.

"By awarding the Nobel Peace Prize for 2007 to the IPCC and Al Gore, the Norwegian Nobel Committee is seeking to contribute to a sharper focus on the processes and decisions that appear to be necessary to protect the world’s future climate, and thereby to reduce the threat to the security of mankind. Action is necessary now, before climate change moves beyond man’s control."quote>

This confirms exactly what I just said. The award wasn't given to honor anyone's actions, it was given to "contribute to a shaper focus". Read: it's political.quote>

It seems you are the one that needs to be reading. Again, from my earlier transcription from the Nobel website:

"Al Gore has for a long time been one of the world’s leading environmentalist politicians. He became aware at an early stage of the climatic challenges the world is facing. His strong commitment, reflected in political activity, lectures, films and books, has strengthened the struggle against climate change. He is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted."

The IPCC and Al Gore were in fact awarded for their actions, whether they be political or not. The acts of waging war and maintaining peace have always been political in nature. Furthermore, if you look at the past Nobel Peace Prize winners, a large portion of them are men or women in positions of government. Politics and the Nobel Prize have been together since the very beginning. Why make such a big deal now?

The Nobel Peace Prize is given out, according to Nobel's will, "to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between the nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."

On top of that, the Nobel Prize Organization does not shy away from criticism. In fact, they document it in fine detail on their very own website. The history of the award has always had it's detractors and controversy.

Furthermore, what do you consider "fuss?"quote>

What I mean is that he's turned it into a huge debate full of headbutting between people who believe in global warming and people who don't. All that arguing is what I consider "fuss".quote>

Again

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[xxbydesign 1]

Duke87:  Congratulations, Nobel committee, you've just made your prizes meaningless.  Seriously, how does what Al Gore is doing count as "peace" work?quote>

For your consideration:

The Coming Anarchy

by Robert D. Kaplan

Please keep in mind that this article was first published in The Atlantic Monthly back in 1994; thirteen years and it continues to be not only a relevent answer to the question above, but a springboard to a variety of other interesting and worthwhile debate.  For the sake of the message board, focus primarily on what Kaplan is saying about enviormental issues as they affect diplomacy and civil order/disorder. ("The Enviornment as a Hostile Power")

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Schm0 Middle school bathroom wall graffiti does not count as "all over the place."quote>

HEY! You leave my uber-graffitied, Russian-slandering bathroom alone! Don't make me get my polonium...

Barbarossaquote>

I almost peed my pants.

[coolotter88 2]

from fear or laughing?

[Micah 16]

So about that Global Warming...

[schm0 27]

An interesting quote from the aforementioned piece by Robert Kaplan, in the very beginning of his segment on the environment:

It is time to understand The Environment for what it is: the national-security issue of the early twenty-first century. The political and strategic impact of surging populations, spreading disease, deforestation and soil erosion, water depletion, air pollution, and, possibly, rising sea levels in critical, overcrowded regions like the Nile Delta and Bangladesh--developments that will prompt mass migrations and, in turn, incite group conflicts--will be the core foreign-policy challenge from which most others will ultimately emanate, arousing the public and uniting assorted interests left over from the Cold War. In the twenty-first century water will be in dangerously short supply in such diverse locales as Saudi Arabia, Central Asia, and the southwestern United States. A war could erupt between Egypt and Ethiopia over Nile River water. Even in Europe tensions have arisen between Hungary and Slovakia over the damming of the Danube, a classic case of how environmental disputes fuse with ethnic and historical ones. The political scientist and erstwhile Clinton adviser Michael Mandelbaum has said, "We have a foreign policy today in the shape of a doughnut--lots of peripheral interests but nothing at the center." The environment, I will argue, is part of a terrifying array of problems that will define a new threat to our security, filling the hole in Mandelbaum's doughnut and allowing a post- Cold War foreign policy to emerge inexorably by need rather than by design.quote>

Hmm, environmental issues as a security issue. Discuss.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Possible scenarios:  terrorist strikes at desal plants in the Middle East, intensified squabbling over fresh water between states here in the US, major cities in the East destroyed by tsunamis, a war over arctic resources...chaos rears its head. People with new reasons to be at each other's throats? It's a no-brainer, especially with the fear-mongering that seems to be part-and-parcel of any enviro discussion. 

---

Some people wonder why the "Religious Right" is reluctant to get on board. I can speak for some of us and say, it's how this issue has been hijacked by the Left, at least in the US. Green is the new Red, so to speak. And it has been since the salad days of Paul Erlich and Dennis Hayes. We've been hearing as much false prophecy from their ilk as we have from Benny Hinn and Donald Rumsfeld combined! 

But don't lump us all together; I have been an avid gardener since 14, always compost, never use chemicals and the wife insists on organic foods. I also agree that Americans are terribly wasteful, and the whole fossil fuel paradigm is ripe for obsolescence.  The use of lawn care chemicals alone in this country is a complete environmental disaster that's totally avoidable.  As the political aspect further distances from the common sense aspect, I expect more fundamentalists to get on board. There are some of us who have been waiting for them for a while....My own mother, as fundamental a Baptist as there ever was, has always practiced 'green living', recycling every scrap, etc. due to frugality. 

I know we've kinda moved off of the Algore event, but I did some checking after reading a comparison of Bush's Crawford Ranch and Algore's mansion. Who knew it was such a model of efficiency? 
[source]

Published on Sunday, April 29, 2001 in the Chicago Tribune Bush Loves Ecology -- At Home by Rob Sullivan   The 4,000-square-foot house is a model of environmental rectitude. Geothermal heat pumps located in a central closet circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet deep in the ground where the temperature is a constant 67 degrees; the water heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer. Systems such as the one in this "eco-friendly" dwelling use about 25% of the electricity tha

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: manticorefan major cities in the East destroyed by tsunamis,quote>

Problem with that one. Tsunamis are caused by earthquakes, which are geological, not meteorological. Global warming should have very little, if any, effect on the frequency and intensity of tsunamis.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

You're right. Was thinking of flooding, but typed tsunami. Oops. 

Unless you subscribe to 'Gaia' theory, which relates the two in terms of 'angry Mother Earth striking back at the terrible humans'.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

(original post edited -- schm0)

Some people wonder why the "Religious Right" is reluctant to get on board. I can speak for some of us and say, it's how this issue has been hijacked by the Left, at least in the US. Green is the new Red, so to speak. And it has been since the salad days of Paul Erlich and Dennis Hayes. We've been hearing as much false prophecy from their ilk as we have from Benny Hinn and Donald Rumsfeld combined!quote>

I would agree that many Republicans are environmentally conscious, and even some of those practice what they preach. Ask any hunter or fisherman if they want more forests cut down, more lakes to dry up, or more lead in their fish. Most would say no. There are conservatives with actual conservation included in their agenda!

Sadly, it is the Republican Party's very political morality that prevents them from garnering any support on environmental issues. While conservatives might promote conservation for hunting and fishing, these constituents also want unlimited second amendment rights for gun owners and less regulation concerning the registration of firearms.

Conservatives also oppose a gas mileage requirement for cars and trucks sold in the US, which would reduce the amount of carbon we put into the atmosphere and save the American consumer billions of dollars every year. Instead, they'd rather start drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Government action will be needed to combat climate change, but most conservatives would say they are against "big" government. These changes in attitude require money from the federal budget to fund environmental efforts, which in turn, will come from the taxpayer. (And we all know where Republicans stand on taxes.)

It's not that there aren't some Republicans that have environmental concerns, or even that some actually practice conservation in some way. Instead, they oppose the very building blocks that could fundamentally alter the growing change in climate.

But don't lump us all together; I have been an avid gardener since 14, always compost, never use chemicals and the wife insists on organic foods. I also agree that Americans are terribly wasteful, and the whole fossil fuel paradigm is ripe for obsolescence.  The use of lawn care chemicals alone in this country is a complete environmental disaster that's totally avoidable.  As the political aspect further distances from the common sense aspect, I expect more fundamentalists to get on board. There are some of us who have been waiting for them for a while....My own mother, as fundamental a Baptist as there ever was, has always practiced 'green living', recycling every scrap, etc. due to frugality.quote>

These concepts have been lost, along with our sense of practicality, a long time ago. Poverty, urbanization and consumerism have all contributed to the lack of "common sense" to which you refer.

I know we've kinda moved off of the Algore event, but I did some checking after reading a comparison of Bush's Crawford Ranch and Algore's mansion. Who knew it was such a model of efficiency?

(Article deleted for brevity)

quote>

Check out these websites to explain some of the differences:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/gorehome.asp

Some facts about both:

* George W. Bush didn't design or build the Crawford, TX ranch. It was designed by a professional architect in such a way as to reduce costs because of the extremely hot and d

[Kusajika Yachiru 9]

Um... I think Global Warming makes things to hot so we should stay inside and use a AC!! Yay! Sure we will be making the outside even hotter by doing so.. but inside... will be nice a cold!

Alright but seriously... well, I think we will never be able to "cure" it or even "repair" it. al lwe can do is reduce future damage and make big changes before we get hit with a big change and it's too late. The day after tomarrow could be the last!! They should make a movie on it...

[coolotter88 2]

we COULD bow down to "mother earth" OR, we could, as the dominating species of the globe, make mother earth bow to us so we humans can hold indomitable rule over all.

[millsmed 0]

Re: the Nobel Peace Prize - congrats to Gore. Do I put a lot of stake in it? Well Al Gore was awarded one, and Gandhi who was nominated 5 times never received the award. Kofi Annan, and Jimmy Carter are also both recipients - under Kofi the UN was its most corrupt since its creation; and Jimmy Carter hardly deserves an award for furthering peace.

Gore's presentation was highly sensationalized, and even real climate scientists view many of his predictions and points he presents in the film and say "well I wouldn't go so far as to say that." A further problem is his hypocrisy - the whole concept of "carbon credits" is a damnable joke. To think that an individual can "pay a little extra" and offset their use or misuse of the world's energy resources by putting money into a fund seems great at first glance, but when you consider that people the developing world A) do not have the financial resources to invest in clean energy, and B) don't have the financial resources to pay into similar funds; then if you expect them to be energy clean, you're basically telling them to stick with the squalor in which they live and never develop. It also places the burden of conservation on everyone else - I don't care that he lives in a big mansion. If he really believes in conservation he should lead by example - take some of that carbon credit money and insulate his house properly. Al Gore's a polarizing figure to be leading the campaign of anthropogenic climate change awareness - the world could find a better man to champion the cause; someone who isn't so easily attacked and dismissed as being someone who doesn't practice that which he expects the rest of us to.

Carbon Dioxide is not a toxin. Carbon dioxide in high levels is toxic, of course, the same way you can drink too much water and die. For anyone to be talking about CO2 reaching "toxic levels" that will kill you in the earth's atmosphere is amusing but not realistic.

Bio-Diesel and Ethanol are an enormous waste of time and money. They're a ridiculously inefficient source of fuel, and rather than investing billions of dollars into developing the infrastructure for an inefficient stop-gap solution, the world needs to find a true "next step" beyond fossil fuel consumption as a source of energy. Something along the lines of the hydrogen fuel-cell cars being developed by Honda (which will still give off CO2, but they'll save a bundle on what used to be gasoline prices). While I don't believe humans are causing climate change, I think most people in North America today actually do believe in the same things. None of us like pollution. No one stands on their lawn and sees a smoke stack spewing out black smoke and things "it's so pretty." None of us like paying insane prices at the gas pumps, and most people I believe want to see the world move away from fossil fuel use. From the stand-point of a conservative non-believer in "AGW" I can say I absolutely believe we need to find new fuels for things like transportation because of the looming threat of a possible conflict with Iran, and because I think it's in our best interest not to line the pockets of middle-eastern dictators or theocratic governments.

I resent very much the notion put forward by many of you that conservatives and republicans in general are just ignorant people who sh*t all over the environment and don't give a damn. Rather than spewing this kind of nonsense where we call each other names, we could work toward finding common ground to move forward (i.e. new fuels and conservation/recycling that is in the best interests of both sides of the argument) rather than bashing those of differing opinions. Also, aside from schm0 who lives and breathes this stuff (not attacking you just saying - you read a lot about it I can tell so you never sound stupid) and one or two others I don't think most of you have read more than an article or two, or maybe watched a tv show or d

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: millsmed ....the world needs to find a true "next step" beyond fossil fuel consumption as a source of energy. Something along the lines of the hydrogen fuel-cell cars....quote>

You completely discredit yourself with this statement. Hydrogen can never be the answer to the world's energy problems because it doesn't occur naturally, you have to expend energy to separate it from other things. And thermodynamics dictates that the energy you get from burning it will always be less than the energy you put into making it.

Your mistake is a common one, though. A lot of people look at the fact that companies are proposing hydrogen powered cars and automatically assume that that means it's a viable alternate energy source. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand the basic physics that proves that it's not. Math and science are uncool, after all.

That's not to say that hydrogen powered cars are a stupid idea, though. After all, you can't exactly power a car with a nuclear reactor, a wind turbine, or a hydroelectric dam. You can use solar panels but it's impractical since then you can't drive your car at night or when it's cloudy.

Also, biodiesel may not be as energy efficient as fossil fuels, but it does have the advantage that it's a renewable resource and it can come from stuff that would otherwise be garbage. There are people with diesel cars that have a supplementary tank for such fuel, and you know where they get it? They pull up behind Chinese restaurants, McDonalds' and such and ask for some of their used oil from frying stuff. More often than not, the places are willing to let them just take it for free, since it would otherwise cost them money to have it carted away and disposed of.

Though, the thing that makes it unappealing to a lot of people is that if you use that stuff as fuel, your car will forever smell of greasy fried food, which isn't necessarily something people want to be continually smelling while they're driving around. Especially since if you spend enough time in a car like that, your clothes will start to perpetually smell of greasy fried food, too.

[millsmed 0]

The long-term plans for the hydrogen production unit the Japanese are working on (which I'm sure will take quite some time to perfect) will be a unit that will run on the hydrogen it produces and the hopes for the unit will be that after it's been plugged in to give it its starting charge, it can basically supplement your house's electricity needs running on the stored hydrogen in the unit. I'll find the link for it, but the one article on it got into a very brief description of the way it would work. I'm not a physicist so I can't speak to whether things would function the way they said or not, but if we're gonna put a few billion into something, it may as well be something that's a leap forward.

 

Re: the biodiesel, it would depend on which fast food restaurant I got the oil from - if you get your oil from McDonald's the smell will make people crave McDonald's so they can work an exclusivity deal where you'll ONLY use McDonald's fryer oil and pay you to drive around town smelling like a Super Sized happy meal!

[Easy Bakes 253]

But is old fryer oil realy going to be in huge supply?

Sure theres a lot of fast food places but the amount of thier waste oil is nothing compared to the output of an oil refiery.

not that Its not a good idea to recycle it and use it for that rather then flushing downa drain, but wouldnt just using the original clean oil ( i asume they use canolla  and other types) be just as good to make biodisel or just make it from the original vegtable you get it from?

.

[schm0 27]

Originally posted by: millsmed Re: the Nobel Peace Prize - congrats to Gore. Do I put a lot of stake in it? Well Al Gore was awarded one, and Gandhi who was nominated 5 times never received the award. Kofi Annan, and Jimmy Carter are also both recipients - under Kofi the UN was its most corrupt since its creation; and Jimmy Carter hardly deserves an award for furthering peace.quote>

This is off-topic, but I'll run down this list quickly so I can move on. Ghandi, should have been awarded the Prize a long time ago. The U.N. was corrupt, so therefore Kofi Annan was corrupt? I don't recall charges being brought against him, but I do remember his son getting into some serious trouble. And I completely disagree with your statement about Jimmy Carter. Ok, moving on now...

Gore's presentation was highly sensationalized, and even real climate scientists view many of his predictions and points he presents in the film and say "well I wouldn't go so far as to say that."quote>

Hundreds of climatologists do agree with him, however. Sure, there's always those who will voice their opinions, and they'll make their rounds onto CNN and Fox News, but the mainstream scientific community generally support (and provided evidence to) his claims.

A further problem is his hypocrisy - the whole concept of "carbon credits" is a damnable joke. To think that an individual can "pay a little extra" and offset their use or misuse of the world's energy resources by putting money into a fund seems great at first glance, but when you consider that people the developing world A) do not have the financial resources to invest in clean energy, and B) don't have the financial resources to pay into similar funds; then if you expect them to be energy clean, you're basically telling them to stick with the squalor in which they live and never develop. It also places the burden of conservation on everyone else - I don't care that he lives in a big mansion.quote>

I agree. Carbon-credits are for those of a more-than-modest income. However, with most of the energy production coming from fossil fuels, we don't have many options to choose from to begin with. [sOURCE: US Dept. of Energy Annual Energy Review]

If he really believes in conservation he should lead by example - take some of that carbon credit money and insulate his house properly. Al Gore's a polarizing figure to be leading the campaign of anthropogenic climate change awareness - the world could find a better man to champion the cause; someone who isn't so easily attacked and dismissed as being someone who doesn't practice that which he expects the rest of us to.quote>

Polarizing, perhaps. I think anyone that would be in his position would garner the same type of criticism. In that sense, I hardly think there is every going to be a "better man" out there to take on the issues of climate change. Conservatives, pundits and nay-sayers will be there to condemn his/her past, or refute the facts with other, more obscure facts, or dismiss the science outright as "inconclusive."

Carbon Dioxide is not a toxin. Carbon dioxide in high levels is toxic, of course, the same way you can drink too much water and die. For anyone to be talking about CO2 reaching "toxic levels" that will kill you in the earth's atmosphere is amusing but not realistic.quote>

Again, I never claimed that carbon dioxide was toxic.

[autoVino 26]

Originally posted by: schm0

Carbon Dioxide is not a toxin. Carbon dioxide in high levels is toxic, of course, the same way you can drink too much water and die. For anyone to be talking about CO2 reaching "toxic levels" that will kill you in the earth's atmosphere is amusing but not realistic.quote>

Again, I never claimed that carbon dioxide was toxic.

[quote>

 

but it forms an acid when mixed with water, hence acid rain.  This is one of the main reasons it would be nice to cut back on carbon emmisions.

[millsmed 0]

Mmm Grease indeed! lol

I'm trying to find the article, it may be in a magazine or on my desktop computer so it'll probably take a couple of days, but talking about it's peaked my interest so I wanna read it again myself, but i remember thinking to myslef "Wow no electric bill anymore? That would rule & change the world!"

The main causes of acid rain are gases like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, not carbon dioxide.

[millsmed 0]

And I think that "Een soviet Russia..." joke comes from the Simpsons right? I just remember "Een Soviet Russia... Car drives YOU" lol

[ShortStraw 1]

Originally posted by: millsmed And I think that "Een soviet Russia..." joke comes from the Simpsons right? I just remember "Een Soviet Russia... Car drives YOU" lolquote>

Those jokes came from Russian comedian Yakov Smirnoff. Here's a link and excerpt...

"Yakov Smirnoff's legacy is the "In Soviet Russia" jokes, which frequently appear in many online communities, in particular Slashdot. The general form of the Soviet Russia joke is that the subject and objects of a statement are reversed, and the preposition: "In Soviet Russia" or something equivalent, is added.

However, the original context of the "In Soviet Russia" jokes have been somewhat lost. The original joke was, "In California, you can always find a party. In Soviet Russia, the Party can always find you!" or "In America, you watch television. In Soviet Russia, television watches you!" The implication is that the latter use of the noun "party" implies the Communist Party, and refers to pervasiveness of the Communist party in Soviet Russia. Thus, for a joke to have the same intent as the original, the latter part should be both different from the former part of the joke and describe a characteristic of Soviet Russia.

It is also worth noting that at the peak of Smirnoff's celebrity in the mid-1980s, he did not say "Soviet Russia" he said "Russia," as the Soviet Union had been around since 1917, was still extant, and showed no signs of going anywhere any time soon. Smirnoff added the "Soviet" qualifier after the fall of the USSR, long after his fame had faded, to specify that he was referring to the communist regime and not the present state."quote>

---

CO2 is a major factor in global warming.  This is something even Meteorologists and Environmental Scientists agree on, regardless of politics, ulterior motives or whatever.  The disagreement over CO2's relevance to global warming is not the toxicity of the compound but how much humans may or may not contribute to it's overabundance in the atmosphere.  I may be wrong but I think most Environmental Scientists believe humans have been a significant factor in excessive CO2 levels in the Atmosphere.  Still, this seems to be a sticking point in the general scientific community.

---

Originally posted by: Duke87

Hydrogen can never be the answer to the world's energy problems because it doesn't occur naturally, you have to expend energy to separate it from other things. And thermodynamics dictates that the energy you get from burning it will always be less than the energy you put into making it.

Your mistake is a common one, though. A lot of people look at the fact that companies are proposing hydrogen powered cars and automatically assume that that means it's a viable alternate energy source. Unfortunately, a lot of people don't understand the basic physics that proves that it's not. Math and science are uncool, after all.

That's not to say that hydrogen powered cars are a stupid idea, though. quote>

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 7, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[autoVino 26]

Originally posted by: millsmed Mmm Grease indeed! lol

I'm trying to find the article, it may be in a magazine or on my desktop computer so it'll probably take a couple of days, but talking about it's peaked my interest so I wanna read it again myself, but i remember thinking to myslef "Wow no electric bill anymore? That would rule & change the world!"

The main causes of acid rain are gases like sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, not carbon dioxide.quote>

 

yeah, but keep in mind that carbond dioxide forms carbonic acid when dissolved in water, along with sulfur dioxide, which dissolved in water forms sufurus acid.  Same with nitrogen...

I won't go into the chemistry behind it... I don't have time right now.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

As I remember, the main culprit of acid rain was indeed sulfur dioxide, reacting for a mild acid solution in the rain. Over time, the cumulative effect would raise ph levels in lakes and rivers as the water could evaporate and be replaced, but the sulfur compounds could not evaporate and would just stack up. 

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

ShortStraw said: But very easy to do, since so many conservative republicans are obvious tools of Big Oil. Still, I agree with Millsmed on this. Big Oil does not limit it's political influence to Republican conservatives, they'll buy any politician that's for sale and most politicians have a price regardless of party affiliation.quote>

I completely agree with this entire statement. It is very evident in the Republican party, but Democrats are just as guilty. That fact is, both parties are only interested in their own welfare. They actually care very little for the common man, and most of what they say is lip-service-for-votes.

quote>

 

The original Big Oil money in the US were the Rockefellers, they were of both parties. FDR was well connected to the oil industry as well. 
   
And I also agree that both parties are beholden to oil, some in ways not immediately obvious. The Democrats service the union vote, who in turn is quite fond of cheap gas for the welfare of its constituency in the auto industry. Cheap fuel is also good for agri-business, influencing the farm vote ( which runs heavily Republican in my home state of Illinois).  

edit: oops, there were Republican Rockefellers. Couldn't tell by the voting record, I think.