Who believes in Global Warming?

“Posted by bearmagnet:
there are several farms in the Mid-Atlantic that use Geodesic Dome design for their greenhouses. The designs not only make them highly efficient (almost to no extra energy required) but they are able to grow produce & fruit previously thought impossible to grow in this area. The greenhouses are considered "sustainable". Also, many of the organic farmers use sand in basements to store fruit for out of season selling. no extra energy used for this.

There was an interesting podcast on either Mother Jones or NPR environment about this subject recently, and according to the gentleman being interviewed, it often takes as much energy and as many resources to produce greenhouse produce as produce produced in season in Florida and trucked to an out-of-season area.

I suppose all situations are different. Are these domes using artificial light or heat?
last edited: 5/21/06 2:53:27 PM”

“Posted by Sarge:
karma, I think somebody took over your log-in because in an earlier post somebody with your name told us to make "drastic" changes in our lifestyle, including changing public infrastructure. Maybe you should report the identity theft to the authorities.

I'd suggest we consider drastic reductions in consumption and the adoption of point of use technologies like wind for local consumption. Walk. Ride your bike. Buy locally produced organic foods that are IN SEASON.

I seriously doubt hardly a day goes by when you don't ride in a gas-guzzling vehicle, or use commercial products which were not created and circulated without the same.

Perhaps you're using a recycled typewriter with a morse code setup to communicate with us. Cool!”

___________________

I believe our society, as a whole, needs to make drastic reductions. The numbers support that statement.

But as for you and your life, as an individual, I could care less what you do, Sarge.

I ride a bike to work everyday, Sarge. If I need a car, I drive our company vehicle, a Scion that gets excellent gas mileage. Hardly a "gas guzzler."

I've never implied that I don't use products derived from fossil fuels, but it's obvious that you aren't interested in having a discussion. You're only interested in having arguments spinkled with personal insults.

It's puerile.”

“they use no artificial light and solar panels for heat. The temperature is constant everywhere within the dome. Both Virginia Tech and U MD were very interested in checking them out but were apperently unwilling to cough up an entrance fee.

;)”

“By suggesting our society make infrastructure changes, you are asking to make legislative decisions.

By admitting to driving a vehicle that "gets excellent gas mileage", you admit to follow a relativistic belief system.

We're talking politics. You are trying to legistlate change on people who are unwilling. Nothing inherently wrong with that - but I am one of the unwilling people - so if I am going to call you out on your hypocricy in the meantime. If you think that's insulting, maybe you shouldn't talk politics. People are going to disagree with you, and if you're going to go into the discussion being a hypocrite, expect to be called on it.

Enjoy your "energy-star compliant" monitor. You're killing the environment a little slower than people without one.”

“You Dudes take these problems pretty lightly for a bunch of addictes that are arrogant enough to think the corps. that formed you habit are going to be able to get you out of it. They want you on ethenol,or hydrogen or something else they can supply you so the roller coaster price cycle can keep you in fear that your drug won't be available somehow and you'll give all your money so they go get some other evil ones that caused the shortage. build some nukes for power so they hang that one around your neck. Through away your bibles and just worship Exxon ,or Edison,or Ford, or ethenol R us.
One thing is worse than
big Government and that is Big business.
last edited: 5/21/06 4:13:04 PM”

“Maybe you should invest in a personal secretary?”

“Yuo're right about something there!”

“Sarge opines:

By suggesting our society make infrastructure changes, you are asking to make legislative decisions.

No, governments are not necessary for societies to make changes.
People have to make these decisions as individuals.

By admitting to driving a vehicle that "gets excellent gas mileage", you admit to follow a relativistic belief system.

No, I'm not. Go study relativism and come back and tell me what you learned.

We're talking politics. You are trying to legistlate change on people who are unwilling. Nothing inherently wrong with that - but I am one of the unwilling people - so if I am going to call you out on your hypocricy in the meantime.

No, we're not talking politics. Perhaps you are, but I'm not. I'm an anarchist and have no use for "politics." What I'm talking about are the actions and choices of individuals in their communities.
And there's no hypocrisy (I think that's what you meant), because I never claimed to be a luddite. I'm talking about reductions within the existing system.”

“No, governments are not necessary for societies to make changes. People have to make these decisions as individuals.

How much money have you invested? It takes money. If you don't want mine (taxes), you better be flipping the bill yourself.

Go study relativism and come back and tell me what you learned.

Done.

relativism: truth is not absolute, but values, ideas and beliefs are subjective to the perspectives of the individuals or groups that hold them; reality depends on one's circumstances and perspective; relativity suggests that everything is interdependent; "whatever" expression; believing that the world centers on one's self, is relative to your own thoughts of reality.

No, we're not talking politics. Perhaps you are, but I'm not. I'm an anarchist and have no use for "politics." What I'm talking about are the actions and choices of individuals in their communities.

If you don't want taxes, again, I better see your hand getting dirty before you go around spreading propoganda that is going to result in me not being able to afford that home theater I've been dreaming of.

And there's no hypocrisy (I think that's what you meant), because I never claimed to be a luddite. I'm talking about reductions within the existing system.

Reductions that you aren't making within your own home, but you want me to subscribe to. Again, how's that "energy-star" monitor you're reading my thoughts on?”

“Sarge types a lot, but says little:

How much money have you invested? It takes money. If you don't want mine (taxes), you better be flipping the bill yourself.


This doesn't make sense. Investments have little to do with turning off lights, turning up the termostat, leaving the car in the garage and planting a garden. In fact, those things could only help investments.

relativism: truth is not absolute, but values, ideas and beliefs are subjective to the perspectives of the individuals or groups that hold them; reality depends on one's circumstances and perspective; relativity suggests that everything is interdependent; "whatever" expression; believing that the world centers on one's self, is relative to your own thoughts of reality.

So, because you can go to Wikipedia, complete a search and successfully carry out a copy and paste command, you've now studied Relativism? I bet you didn't spend a semester in liberal arts, assuming you went to college.

if you don't want taxes, again, I better see your hand getting dirty before you go around spreading propoganda that is going to result in me not being able to afford that home theater I've been dreaming of.

No, I don't want your tax dollars. Remember, I'm a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE. Think Goldwater conservatism (real conservativism, not this whacko crap the GOP is spewing forth these days).

Please explain how people growing gardens (something my grandparents did in the 40's and 50's), riding a bike and spending less (saving more...a nice conservative trait) have to do with you not being able to purchase a home theatre? Inquiring minds want to know.

Reductions that you aren't making within your own home, but you want me to subscribe to. Again, how's that "energy-star" monitor you're reading my thoughts on?

Specifically, what reductions am I NOT making that I want YOU to take?”

“This doesn't make sense. Investments have little to do with turning off lights, turning up the termostat, leaving the car in the garage and planting a garden. In fact, those things could only help investments.

karma, getting sleepy? You talked about more than just conserving household energy. Maybe you should get to sleep?

So, because you can go to Wikipedia, complete a search and successfully carry out a copy and paste command, you've now studied Relativism? I bet you didn't spend a semester in liberal arts, assuming you went to college.

Interesting wrong conclusions. If you want to pretend like relativism is a complex subject, go right ahead. To most people it means (in this context) that just because you use less energy than another person, it doesn't mean you have bragging rights to say you're saving the planet.

No, I don't want your tax dollars. Remember, I'm a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE.

Then don't ask for "radical" change unless you're going to do it yourself. Radical infrastructure change isn't cheap.

Please explain how people growing gardens (something my grandparents did in the 40's and 50's), riding a bike and spending less (saving more...a nice conservative trait) have to do with you not being able to purchase a home theatre? Inquiring minds want to know.

First, please put down the microscope. You're focus is narrow. Second, like I said before, if you want radical changes for us to "save the planet", growing some tomatoes isn't going to help, and when you figure out where you're going to put the windmill, don't send the taxman to my house.

Specifically, what reductions am I NOT making that I want YOU to take?

You are not lowering your carbon footprint.



last edited: 5/21/06 10:21:36 PM”

“Here is something for you to ponder, karma police.

Using BPs liberal calculations, and assuming the scale is not logrithmic in nature... it would take 675 years for the American households to raise the global temperature by 1 degree. (assuming their liberal numbers and non logrithmic nature of the equation, which is wrong)

So you keep riding that bike to work in the rain. You do ride in the rain, right?”

“Sarge, this discussion is getting nowhere. We're not accomplishing anything.

The world is the way it is because of the choices that individuals make. People decide to drive Hummers. Others decide to join the military and become trained killers. Still others become teachers, backcountry rangers, doctors, etc. The sum total of what happens in what we call "society" is comprised of individual choices.

As an individual, I've reached certain conclusions about the natural world, and I've reached those conclusions based on careful research. Obviously, you've done your own research and reached different conclusions. Fair enough.

But my conclusions have lead me to believe the best way I can positively contribute to our society is via preservation and conservation, so I make lifestyle choices that support those goals.


I wish more people shared my view, but in the end, everyone has to make their own choices.

It's really that simple.

Oh, and it's funny how you would mention BP. Their Chairman is one of the most vocal people in the fossil fuel industry about the reality of global warming and the need for alternative energy. (And no, I didn't read your propaganda piece from FOX News.)

Have a nice life.”

“Because you think anything that doesn't support your preconceived views as "propaganda" is why we're not getting anywhere.

This isn't as "simple" as you made your choices, I made mine.

The fact is you asked for, and I quote, "drastic reductions in consumption", yet you live your life relatively no differently than I live mine as it affects the global environment, and even liberally skewed mathematics supports that fact. So, as I previously pointed out, if you want "drastic reductions in consumption" you need to stop living the life of a hypocrite and set the example before you try "drastically" changing the infrastructure of this great country.

PS - If you read the link, you wouldn't have made that comment about the BP chairman. That's the point! It's a liberally skewed view supporting manmade global warming. That's the point! Even with a liberally skewed viewpoint, your environmental impact is calculated to be non-significant. Your futile efforts are mathematically useless.

Open your mind. I was once an environmental whacko such as yourself. The difference is I didn't avoid clicking links that weren't made to cater to my bias. Do the math and stay out of my wallet. If you feel guilty, fine, do what makes you feel good about yourself, but don't ask for "drastic" changes from others who deal in reality.

The preceeding message was brought to you via an eco-star compliant computer.


last edited: 5/22/06 6:45:46 AM”

“Karma.,...I love the Join the Military and become trained killers (LOL) that is so pathetic in a comparison. Want to know where you find the largest supporters of peace? The Military, kinda like some of the biggest supporters of fire prevention are the Fire Deparments. Since their ass is on the line first.

Don't you know the "Baby killer" chant went out with John Kerry running weapons to the Khmer Rouge (HEY THEY WERE THE ENEMY ISNT THAT aid and comfort to the enemy?) Oh wait aid and comfort to the enemy is a hallmark of the Democratic Party.”

“Sarge, you don't live with me and have no idea about how I live my life.

Don't presume to know how I live my life.

No one is in your wallet, you stupid #&%!$.”

“Karma.,...I love the Join the Military and become trained killers (LOL) that is so pathetic in a comparison. Want to know where you find the largest supporters of peace? The Military, kinda like some of the biggest supporters of fire prevention are the Fire Deparments. Since their ass is on the line first.

If you join the military, you're trained to kill. Well trained. Sorry, that's just the truth.

The largest supporters of peace are the ones doing the killing? That's an interesting twist.

And who said anything about Democrats? I'm not a Democrat. Never voted for one in my life.
last edited: 5/22/06 9:22:32 AM”

“You wouldn't think that's a twist if it was your family being attacked.”

“You wouldn't think that's a twist if it was your family being attacked


My family isn't being attacked, and the chances that they will be attacked is extremely small.

Oh wait. What's next....

"And that's because of our military protecting your freedoms!"”

“Let's all buy hummers so we can send more money to the terrorist sponsoring states all over the world. Oh! I'm gona throw my bikes away so I can become a conservative. Hugo wanted me to thank you guys for your support.
last edited: 5/22/06 9:48:49 AM”

“My family isn't being attacked, and the chances that they will be attacked is extremely small.

I didn't say they were. I said "if". That's a hypothetical. The question was "Does the military contribute to peace?" The answer is "yes". The military saves other families, but it's apparent if it's not YOUR family, you don't want to hear about it.”

“Sarge, I don't need the military to protect my family. I don't feel threatened, at least not now.

Now, if the current administration keeps pissing off the entire world, well, that could change.”

“Karma, better move to Iraq if you want protection for your family.”

“Again karma, it's not about you. There are other people that are being attacked.

That said, if it weren't for the military, you WOULD be attacked.”

“An excellent example of how much time and money is needed to decommission one single reactor. The Trojan Nuclear Plant in Portland, the first plant in the US scheduled to be completely decommissioned, took another step over the weekend. They blew up the cooling tower Sunday morning - 13 years after they first shut the plant down. The plant was only considered to be "radologically decommissioned" (free of nuclear contamination) as of last year. So it took 12 years just for that important step...and even then the radioactive stuff was just put in other places, its just as deadly as it was before. The spent fuel is still on-site in a special containment building, and the reactor vessel and other equipment was sent up-river to a processing facility and then buried.

And it will be another 17 years before the final shipment of spent fuel is shipped off-site. That's 30 years between shutdown and the removal of the final fuel rod from on-site. Then they'll still have a job of removing the storage facility that held that fuel for several decades. Of course they assume that Yucca will be available soon to receive all that fuel, which is doubtful. So add some more decades to that bolded number above. Full timeline and other info in the link below.

http://www.portlandgeneral.com/about_pge/current_issues/trojan/images/issues_in_perspective.pdf

Think of the billions in dollars and the hundreds of tons of concrete and steel and stainless steel that is all going to waste. All during a few decades where that plant isn't putting out any electricity at all. Yup, that nuke technology is really cost-effective.

And all of this for just one single reactor. There are over 100 in the US. And how many more around the world?

So it takes over 30 years to sort-of get rid of a nuke. Solar panels produce electricity for more time than that.

Neat footage of the implosion at this link, although not so neat when you think about the embodied energy contained in all that concrete.

http://www.kptv.com/Global/story.asp?S=4930302
last edited: 5/22/06 10:02:47 AM”

“Again karma, it's not about you. There are other people that are being attacked


On this point, we agree. Other people/nations are being attacked, specifically by the United States government.”

“Assume you are correct. Should they defend themselves, or let us slaughter them? For peace ... let us slaughter them you would say. Nice solution.

Again, if it weren't for our military, you would be attacked. That's not very peaceful.”

“Sarge, I'm bored with you. You just not very interesting.”

“Bye Bye.”

“Karma - Sarge seems to thrive on making things very personal. Don't take it personally, you are not the first to get burned.

I was impressed by your attempts to sincerely engage him in conversation.

nm
last edited: 5/22/06 11:05:49 AM”

“karma - Watch out for pedxing's passive-aggressive patronizing words.”

“"I do." said the very warm bride and groom.”

“pedxing - Stop trying to make things about me. karma police is the one who made it about him, not me. Even he admits that. Stop the obsession dude. It's pathetic.”

“In the center's (NHC) detailed 2006 prediction report, meteorologists said water in the Atlantic is not as warm as it was at this stage in 2005.”

“WHEW..Karma so since you are not being attacked...kinda like the idiots who tell me to cut fire protection in an area. LOL then when their house is burning they are screaming like hell.

In World War II (remember the war where Japan attacked us and we attacked Germany, and Italy for apparently NO reason). Winston Churchill made a hilarious note related to the Battle of Britain. He noted that the same twits who were screaming about why the RAF couldn't protect them were the same ones who by and large wanted the British to disarm and show Hitler they meant him no harm. (LOL)./..
We had the same debate about Aircraft Carriers in 1980, Britain has One jump jet carrier with 15 aircraft. The US at that time had something like 15 with 100 aircraft. The brits and LIBBIES in this country said they were a waste of money. Then the Falklands occurred. Do you know that if ONE Exocet had hit the British Carrier Britain would have had to conceded the war?”

“Hey, XL whatever your name is....

This continent hasn't been attacked by a foreign military since THE WAR OF 1812. Japan attacked a US TERRITORY that was taken from its indigenous inhabitants, not a state. (Unless you count balloons being launched to California!)

Like I said, I feel pretty secure.”

“I wonder if we haven't been attacked since 1846 (had to correct you) because we have a strong military.”

“Sarge, you don't live with me and have no idea about how I live my life.

Don't presume to know how I live my life.

No one is in your wallet, you stupid #&%!$.”
karma police
9:20:11 AM
5/22/06

Sarge, I'm bored with you. You just not very interesting.”
karma police
10:40:02 AM
5/22/06

Ahhhh, it's always amusing when one finally breaks from trying to use reason with sarge, and instead treats him like the feeble minded child that he is.”

“Buddha Bear ... again with personal insults instead of ... well ... anything else.

Hey Buddha Bear, when is your lawyer contacting me like you said he would. I think there is a statute of limitations on prosecuting somebody who spanked your izass.”

“wonder if we haven't been attacked since 1846 (had to correct you) because we have a strong military

Correct me? It was The War of 1812. The Mexican War was over a largely undefined and contested border and territory that the United States took.
last edited: 5/22/06 6:24:48 PM”

“Somehow I knew you'd say that.”

“Sarge, since you were engaged in enlightening conversation with BB and karma I held off, but now I'll ask. Any comments on that 30+ year decommissioning plan I posted about yesterday? Can you acknowledge now that nukes aren't the cheap panacea you were hoping for?”

“I already addressed the costs techntrek. You believe your sources, I believe mine. How many times do you want me to say the same thing?

I will reiterate that I find it ammusing that global warming alarmists are *sometimes* concerned about the costs to save then environment (when it has to do with nukes), but other times they are not (when it is convenient for them). typical
last edited: 5/23/06 9:06:13 AM”

“What ever it was you Mind
Trust did it worked the temperature outside here is 59*F. Thanks.”

“Sarge - I'm surprised you're so happy to rely on the power and safety of research and science when it comes to nuclear technology - yet you basically call all scientists quacks when it comes to global warming and evolution. Which is it to be?”

“Sarge, the source of that timeline was the energy company itself. Are you saying you don't believe them?

And no, you haven't addressed the costs, or any of the other points. Every time you are presented with hard evidence to refute the "postives" of nuclear energy (by me and others) you say something dismissive and/or change the subject. How convenient for you! Ha, it seems you are no better than "us".”

“y2 - When I saw that you posted, my first thought was "y2's post will be about me". Two bonus points for me.

I did not call all scientists quacks when it comes to global warming. Please tell me where I said that.

What I have maintained is that there is much science to refute the alarmists. I have never waivered from that view.

techntrek - Actually techntrek, I haven't paid much attention to any of your posts since the other day when you got personal. If you have a specific question for me, ask it and I'll answer it. I have addressed costs, and if you don't think I haven't, I bet it's because you didn't read my points or go to the threads I have provided. I responded to costs before you even posted that. If you are going to continue with the personal remarks though, don't bother asking the specific question.
last edited: 5/23/06 9:49:11 AM”

“PS techntrek - I briefly glanced back a little bit in the thread and saw that not only did I address costs, but you responded. You dismissed my points. What else do you want? A fight? You have selective reading syndrome.

Also, your post wasn't addressed to me. As you said, I was enganged in a "discussion" with two others. If you have questions you only want to direct to me, feel free to email or put my name at the top of the post. This is a big discussion. It never occurred to me that all the posts were specially for me.
last edited: 5/23/06 9:59:16 AM”

“May 23, 2006

McCain calls for more nukes
'We've got to get over it,' senator says

The United States needs to overcome its fear of nuclear power and embrace the technology as a way to wean itself from fossil fuels

Nuclear power "is safe. The technology is here,"

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060523/REPOSITORY/605230345”

“When the hell did I get "personal"? I have never insulted you or made personal jabs. If I called you names like "idiot" please quote me. You definitely have me mixed up with someone else.

My posts in response to your links to your sources makes it clear that I do read your posts and sources.

Now, I did address you with a specific question. I'll repost it here for you. With a 30-year timeline to dismantle one - and only one - reactor, just how is nuclear energy cheap?

But maybe that question is too personal.”