deleted thread al gore

[Trim50]

Ah yes, the elusive paradigm shift.

In the big picture and using clear minds, the safe storage of nuclear waste is something very achievable. Even so, I bet a large portion of those people screaming anthropogenic global warming armageddon also reject the nuclear option.

Then again, there are those that believe fusion will one day be a reality.

[Sandero]

I'd bet that the people who don't believe in human caused global warming are driving gas guzzlers and SUVs.

Am I making a bad assumption?

[Trim50]

Originally Posted by defjef

I'd bet that the people who don't believe in human caused global warming are driving gas guzzlers and SUVs.

Am I making a bad assumption?

Hmmm...well I for one that does not believe carbon dioxide can cause atmospheric heating more than it already does, drives a Jeep Grand Cherokee...not really a gas guzzler...but an SUV nonetheless.

However, over the period of the last 10 years, I was chief engineer for a team of engineers building those wonderful hydrogen fuel cell SUVs...so I guess that might make me carbon neutral in the eyes of some

[senormechanico]

defjef,

Before you throw stones, what kind of mileage does your 36 foot boat get when you motor?

Just asking.

If you insist on playing the "I'm better than you" game, I drive a 1.0 liter 5 sp Geo Metro which gets 48 mpg avg. My boat has a 18hp diesel which has less than 300 hours on it in 7 years. The diesel furnace has used more fuel than the engine.

How am I doing vs. your "carbon footprint"? (as if it actually matters imho)

Is this where you want the thread (and the rest of this board) to go?


Steve B. (who cuts down trees to heat his house with WOOD)

[Sandero]

I am not playing tit for tat. I was just wondering if there was a link between those who drive gas guzzlers and those who don't accept that humans are having a impact on global warming.

I don't consume much, and I don't use much fuel in a year in my boat... perhaps 50 gallons at most... over 7 months. Not too bad. Whatever I contribute, I would like to have less impact.

I'm not throwing stones. Are you?

[Benny]

I've said it before on other threads and I'll say it again here - there is no down side to effective reduction of human pollution and atmospheric emissions. Why is there an argument - Gore Schmore - it doesn't matter who the messenger is or if there are flaws to the sermon - the fact remains that because we do not know for sure if we are causing our own demise, we should do the prudent thing and do what we can to curtail it.

There are no valid arguments to refute that philosophy.

[Trim50]

Being a big fan of nuclear power, I'm quickly realizing I should just shut-up and let the AGW craze lead right to the best (and only imho) solution.

[delmarrey]

Originally Posted by defjef

I'd bet that the people who don't believe in human caused global warming are driving gas guzzlers and SUVs.

Am I making a bad assumption?

Yes! Just because someone doesn't believe alarmist, doesn't mean they are not ecology wise.

[senormechanico]

Del. you nailed it.

Steve B.

[Alan Wheeler]

I guess it also depends on where you live. NZ has no Uranium, son it woudl ahve to be imported. That means transport across an ocean. We have no where to dispose of the waste. That would mean transport over an even bigger ocean. With the reality of many containers and cargo and ships being lost at sea each year, I would be more worried about a ship with nuclear fuel or waste on board, than the reactor itself. I realise Reactors are safe these days, but it is the transportation that worries me. We only need one to go down in the South Pacific or Tasman and NZ is stuffed when it comes to it's Clean Green image we use for Tourist promotion.
We have two cars. A small 1.6ltr mitsi 5 door I use for work and carting tools and stuff around. And we have a Commodore SS with the 350chev engine as our good car. Guess which one is the most economical to drive. Nup, it ain't the wee thing. Infact, the wee car is nearly twice the fuel useage of the big one.

[Sandero]

Here in Westchester, SUVs are extremely common and so I am assuming their owners don't consider the "carbon footprint". Safe assumption?

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by defjef

Here in Westchester, SUVs are extremely common and so I am assuming their owners don't consider the "carbon footprint". Safe assumption?

That's probably a safe assumption. The real question is, is the "carbon footprint" even remotely significant in the big scheme of things?

That question hasn't been answered with any proof one way or another.

Steve B.

[delmarrey]

All SUV's do is indicate the wealth in an area. Most people of middle class can not afford SUV's or the fuel they consume let alone the insurance and maintenance costs.

Go to an area where the average income is around 50K yearly. You will not find many SUV's running around. But that just goes to show you how the upper class is shoving this GW crap down the lower income people's throats.

It's guys like Al and his supporters that are pushing the agenda, not the lower income people who have to pay dearly for all the controlls that support the anti-pollution movement. It's just more $$$$ in the pockets of dealers, gov inspections and pollution controll engineers.

Sure there is nothing wrong with keeping the environment clean but to claim man is the result of minor changes in weather that has happen in the past (many times) w/o man's intervention is unfounded.

This is just another ploy by law makers to make new laws at which they are exempt (driving SUV's). "Executive Privilege". But lets not get into politic's.

[Sandero]

I heard an Aussie on the radio and he indicated three things which might cause run away feed forward climate change. Not the causes, but if they got going. One was the gulf stream turning off, cos it would give a royal screwing to europe and cover it with snow and it WOULD change the albedo and initiate an ice age.. or so he said.

Another was the north cap melting which would also effect the albedo and sea level and initiate a warming event I think.

The third was the loss of the amazon to since it is a big weather engine.

He seems to feel anyone one of those could be riight around the corner. Are we helping them or can we stop this?

I think he believes that humans are fouling things up, but that wasn't his main thrust as much as finding free energy without inject inputs into the closed systems.

[delmarrey]

De-forestation, I believe, could be more of an impact then anything else.

Forests and mountains do create their own weather. I'm not a 100% online with the following quote but it does give one something to think about. And it again shows the the worlds weather has changed w/o man's intervention, pending what ever the accuracies are of the scienctists.

It's funny how scientists speak with such confidence about facts, when in fact it's all theory.

It will not be for another 1000 years or so that we can actually say we have some documented weather records. The human life is like a spark flying out of a fire, short lived compaired to the overall event.

About ten million years ago, waters worked through the sandstone to the west and the Amazon began to flow eastward. At this time the Amazon rainforest was born. During the Ice Age, sea levels dropped and the great Amazon lake rapidly drained and became a river. Three million years later, the ocean level receded enough to expose the Central American isthmus and allow mass migration of mammal species between the Americas.

The Ice Ages caused tropical rainforest around the world to retreat. Although debated, it is believed that much of the Amazon reverted to savanna and montane forest (see chapter 3-Ice Ages and Glaciation). Savanna divided patches of rainforest into "islands" and separated existing species for periods long enough to allow genetic differentiation (a similar rainforest retreat took place in Africa. Delta core samples suggest that even the mighty Congo watershed was void of rainforest at this time). When the ice ages ended, the forest was again joined and the species that were once one had diverged significantly enough to be constitute designation as separate species, adding to the tremendous diversity of the region. About 6000 years ago, sea levels rose about 130 meters, once again causing the river to be inundated like a long, giant freshwater lake.

The Amazon Rainforest