|
Post by 86xl34f on Feb 22, 2007 19:03:31 GMT -5
cool website bra: Server not found Firefox can't find the server at www.internetskeptic.com.. * Check the address for typing errors such as ww.example.com instead of www.example.com * If you are unable to load any pages, check your computer's network connection. * If your computer or network is protected by a firewall or proxy, make sure that Firefox is permitted to access the Web.
|
|
|
Post by f7jsvl9 on Feb 22, 2007 19:13:33 GMT -5
By ROHAN SULLIVAN, Associated Press Writer Tue Feb 20, 6:26 PM ET
SYDNEY, Australia - The Australian government on Tuesday announced plans to phase out incandescent light bulbs and replace them with more energy-efficient compact fluorescent bulbs across the country. ADVERTISEMENT
Legislation to gradually restrict the sale of the old-style bulbs could reduce Australia's greenhouse gas emissions by 4 million tons by 2012 and cut household power bills by up to 66 percent, said Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull.
Australia produced almost 565 million tons of greenhouse gases in 2004, official figures show.
Prime Minister John Howard said the plan would help all Australians play a part in cutting harmful gas emissions: "Here's something practical that everybody will participate in."
In incandescent light bulbs, perfected for mass use by Thomas A. Edison in the late 19th century, electricity flows through a filament to create light. Much of the energy, however, is wasted in the form of heat.
Australia is not the only place looking to replace them with fluorescent lighting, which is more efficient and longer lasting.
Last month, a California assemblyman announced he would propose a bill to ban the use of incandescent bulbs in his state. And a New Jersey lawmaker has called for the state to switch to fluorescent lighting in government buildings within three years.
Cuba's Fidel Castro launched a similar program two years ago, sending youth brigades into homes and switching out regular bulbs for energy-saving ones to help battle electrical blackouts around the island.
The idea was later embraced by Castro's friend and ally, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who announced his own program to save energy and in recent months has given away millions of fluorescent bulbs in neighborhoods nationwide.
Under the Australian plan, bulbs that do not comply with energy efficiency targets would be gradually banned from sale. Exemptions may apply for special needs such as medical lighting and oven lights.
Fluorescent bulbs are currently more expensive than incandescent bulbs, but use only about 20 percent of the power to produce the same amount of light and last longer, making them more competitive over time, advocates argue.
Environmentalists welcomed the light bulb plan, but noted than the vast bulk of Australia's greenhouse gas emissions come from industry, such as coal-fired power stations.
They urged the government to set national targets for emission reductions and renewable energy.
"It is a good, positive step. But it is a very small step. It needs to be followed through with a lot of different measures," Australian Conservation Foundation spokesman Josh Meadows told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio.
Howard has become a global warming convert, conceding in recent months for the first time that human activity is having an effect on rising temperatures.
But he has steadfastly refused to bring Australia into line with most of the world and ratify the Kyoto protocol on greenhouse gas reductions, arguing that doing so could damage Australia's coal-dependent economy.
|
|
|
Post by wwwplanet22com on Feb 22, 2007 23:38:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by wwwplanet22net on Feb 22, 2007 23:50:28 GMT -5
For Dr. Cank
Let's see the benefits of creating a global warming issue:
1)Scientists want money at the academic level, since living machines and anything that doesn't involve monocropping (ask Jack who had a job until funding was cut at PSU) doesn't bring in the dough they use their scientific method to exert ways of procuring money for their departments
2)Scientists scare the public. Sometimes this means omitting relevant material and data to convince/persuade fellow scientists and students involved in R+D
3)Public Pressure is put on the government (yes believe me this still can happen today, just not when it involves a war run by oil tycoons. No public pressure can stop wahts going on with the middle east right now)
4)Government raises research funds and perhaps slightly acknowledges the issue science has brought to the public attention
5)Science gets their money
6) Science wants more money.... Repeat process or initiate new studies supporting old studies findings maybe tweaking them to show a increase of "bad" things
somewhat relevant:
there is a large part of the scientific community that thinks the army has been controlling weather by adding aluminum and silver iodine to high flying jet fuel. google chemical contrails to find out more about this hoax. These scientists are claiming that this practice (many believe it has carried over to the commercial jet industry as well in the last ten years) is the leading cause to a increase in hurricane strength and global warming.
|
|
|
Post by wwwplanet22uk on Feb 22, 2007 23:59:55 GMT -5
Let's step away from the latest eco-terrorism trend and remember scientific scare tactics from years gone by:
Nuclear Winter (I guess this could still happen but if it did it would really put a stop to global warming so let's keep it quiet for a little bit)
Acid Rain (this still has to happen but f*** it can't be as scary as global warming so why bring it to the publics attention. We tried once that should be enough, why would we want to suck funding out of global warming)
The hole in the Ozone (wouldn't most people think that greenhouse gases are escaping through his ever increasing hole over the south pole. oh shit, lets not talk about that anymore someone might bring up a study proving that this is causing the ice sheets and shelves to melt down there)
|
|
|
Post by scientists on Feb 23, 2007 0:26:23 GMT -5
Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Delhouise University, Nova Scotia- "Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, to attract great funding for themselves have to find a way to scare the public"
H.L. Meneken- "The aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary"
Unknown- "Global warming is still a theory, people are using this theory for ulterior motives. There are several holes in this theory, if not total falsehoods. Weigh the facts for yourself and come to your own conclusion. Environmentalists are not interested in your quality of life; they are interested on forcing their message on you"
Horton economic survey- The average cost per American family to follow the Kyoto treaty would be $2753.28 per year. The international panel on climate control used one scientist (Micheal Mann; he's famous for his "hockey stick" warming chart) who purposely left out data from the medieval warming period. [glow=red,2,300]Dr. Cank's post acknowledges, even labels this medieval warming period left out of the data compiled for the UN's briefing on global warming. It was warmer then than it is now, hell they were farming in greenland!!! Yes Vikings were farming! [/glow]
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 23, 2007 9:53:05 GMT -5
got to say looks like you had a big day at the office yesterday James. Stated watching the YouTube video, got through about fifteen minutes I plan to watch the rest but unfurtuneatly I don't have 115 min to burn right now. got to say he started off preatty strong, but when he got to the ozone it became clear that he doesn't have much of an understanding of the upper level atmosphere. Which in his own defense he claims from the begining. The ozone is not a static hole like an open window to space. first of all the basics, ozone is O3 (three bonded oxygens) it is the same substance in urban smog (among others). this ozone layer is very useful to earth because it absorbs UV light with wavelengths of 310 to 200nm. I think we all now the effects of UV light on human skin (liver spots, cancer). Now here is the important part, the ozone hole changes size every year grows and shrinks, grows and shrinks, over and over, year in and year out. It usually reaches its largest size in September (the end of the southern Hemispheres winter). If you compare september of every year the ozone hole is not growing linearly (although 2006) was the largest on record. this is also because 2006 was a very cold winter in antartica. So as we can see there are many factor that effect the size of the ozone hole. and now to where the internet skeptics thesis falls apart. he states "If CFCs where outlawed and they are the reason for Ozone depletion, than why is the hole still growing"? well the answer is simple, just because we are not throughing CFCs into the atmosphere at the same rate doesn't mean that are atmosphere isn't still Swimming with CFCs. in his theory once you stop releasing a compound into the atmosphere all of the previous contaminant should disappear. how does this make logical sence. (if I continually add blue dye into a glass of water, when I stop does the water magically become clear again? of course not). It is going to take a long time for all of these halogens to work their way out of the upper atmosphere (inparticular Flourine, Chlorine, and Bromine). So assuming we where correct about CFCs being the primary destructive force to Ozone we should see a gradual trend of thickening ozone, but over multiple decade scale. not in ten years and it is fixed. Also just to address Global cooling, more because Sen. James Inhofe, chair of the Environment and Public Works Committee, brought it up on the floor of congress than because james points it out. This whole theory consists of basically two magazine articles from the seventies. and when you say "that was only thirty years ago" it sounds alot different than when I say "man, that was funkin' thorty years ago". in scientifc research 30 years is a crazy amount of time. You Have to think about what didn't we have 30 years ago. here is a small list: -knowledge of upper atmospheric composition -Computer models -ice cores showing long term changes in climate -global communications linked thousands of researchers all around the globe. -satellites (other than for communications) hell we didn't even know about the mid atlantic ridges until the 1960s, don't under estimate the academic learning curve wth respect two time. and two articles are no match to thousands of researchers preforming calculated studies in everytime zone around the globe. There have been millions of mislead hypothysis throughout time through further testing "global cooling" just turned out to be wrong. If global warming was wrong there would be a larger outcry against it but as of right now, it appears to valid. And just a note from my personal experience: this is how acedemics get funding. you go to undergrad, funk around with a few courses figure out what interests you (in this case climatology). then you go to grad school take more specialized courses in your field and find something within the discipline that you are willing to spend 80 hrs. a week studying (lets say O3 composition in sub-polar upper-atmospherics). then finally you are so interested in that field (in our example: sub-polar upper-atmospherics) you start teching broad based classes which allows you to keep researching on (in our example: sub-polar upper-atmospherics), finally you start working on a docterate program, because hell what kind of job are you going to get in private industry that will allow you to continue figuring out all of the ins and outs of (in our example: sub-polar upper-atmospherics). Finally you are ready to do a docterate thesis so you find some grant money to get satelite time to test a hypothesis you have (CFC interaction with O3 causing a thinning of Upper atmospheric Ozone). then you get your Phd and teach upper level (in our example: sub-polar upper-atmospherics) and continue to get grant money so you can ensure you are teaching the most accurate information, and not to mention you get to feed the love you have (in our example: CFC interaction with O3 causing a thinning of Upper atmospheric Ozone) and spend only 45-60 hrs a week at it. If you wanted to be rich go into, business or Real estate. but don't make people who have a thirst for knowledge, and are willing to spend time and effort (you most of all have no right to question someone who places time and effort into something) studying something that either interests them or feels applies to a greater good. you don't have the legs to stand on to bad mouth these individuals. I am not saying there aren't exceptions to this rule (there normally are) but in my experience it is drive and curiousity that motivates acedemics not greed. as I said if you want to be rich you make it in the private sector.
|
|
|
Post by Misleading on Feb 23, 2007 13:17:35 GMT -5
"you most of all have no right to question someone who places time and effort into something" "you don't have the legs to stand on to bad mouth these individuals"
Dr, like I've said: Hitler was a horrible person but that has nothing to do with the fact he was a great leader. He brought his country out of a economic depression we can't even begin to understand.
Even Jesus has blemishes in his past that would make any Jesus loving Christian run from the good word (when Jesus was five he killed a little boy while "rough housing" at the sea of Galilee). And like Dan Akryod says in Ghostbusters: "You don't know what it's like outside of academia, in the real world they expect results"
The you tube video is hard to sit through (I've done it like three times) but the power point presentation is straight forward.
Now back to the real debate; my crudentials don't mean shit.
Your analogy of blue die is pretty convincing, except you left out the fact we are dumping yellow,red,purple,green,orange die at the same time.
o3 when confronted with a CFC throws one atom of oxygen at it thus becoming o2; something we breathe everyday. It's not like there is no reaction in the atmosphere involving CFC's; they are being sucked up by the millions everyday so in a sense they are dissipating rather quickly.
Again I question your means over gathering information, which you brought up a good point for my argument on this. The technology gets newer and (sometimes) more accurate (ice core samples to gain knowledge of our atmosphere are like using a 30 foot roller when you need a three hair fine brush to paint with) yet science continues to compare these newer methodically gathered info with the older "proxy" info gathered understand very, very, very, questionable means.
I have been doing my homework doctor. I once believed that humans were f***ing up this planet at a dangerously fast pace. I now realize that we are not. Global warming is distracting what I believe should be our main focus as a race (I'm pretty sure only 1st world nations give a shit about global warming) finding the next place to live and how to get there.
One day we will need to leave earth once and for all (perhaps how we needed to leave mars way back when) and this date isn't going to disappear because we figured out how to manipulate the environment for our own "safety". I would much rather use our resources we have left on earth figuring out ionic propulsion and space travel then figuring out how hummer can produce more efficient SUVs.
|
|
|
Post by 1w5liwd on Feb 23, 2007 13:31:33 GMT -5
James if global warming, toxic gas emissions and all the issues that this global warming initiative are trying to address are not a problem go suck on the tailpipe of a hummer for 10 minutes and come back here and tell us how you feel.
|
|
|
Post by Pipe sucker on Feb 23, 2007 13:56:35 GMT -5
only if you suck on pure, clean O2 first.
|
|
|
Post by Great posts Dr on Feb 25, 2007 13:40:53 GMT -5
We can only hope people like james aren't on the boat when we leave this planet. We can only hope that the human race has drastically altered its current modus operandi before taking off to mess up another beautiful piece of real estate like Earth.
Thanks to the Dr. for a very informative and compelling series of posts. I have a very healthy distrust for modern science, but I have a healthier distrust for the media and the political process, something I felt Dr. Cank did very well was to synthesize the arguments and remove them from B.S. that surrounds the debate in the world at large and esp. on this message board.
And I'm not 100% convinced of the total human impact on global warming, but there is incontrovertible evidence that we have had a negative impact on this planet. And if we don't study our negative impact, what will we have learned by the time we do land on our next planet? Nada.
Again, cheers to the Dr.
|
|
|
Post by James on Feb 25, 2007 20:58:59 GMT -5
People like james run the planet. James has never claimed to be anything other than a coldblooded heartless asshole. To expect anything more is foolish on your behalf.
Think about this the next time you want to try to guilt trip James. He has scammed frat boys, drug dealers, business owners and police officers. He has never betrayed or sold out his friends; shit talk them and degrade them sure. But if you think for one minute he wouldn't take a bullet or the fall for anyone he values as a friend then you don't know James at all.
|
|
|
Post by Bill on Feb 25, 2007 21:47:40 GMT -5
Think about this the next time you want to try to guilt trip James. He has scammed frat boys, drug dealers, business owners and police officers. He has never betrayed or sold out his friends; shit talk them and degrade them sure. But if you think for one minute he wouldn't take a bullet or the fall for anyone he values as a friend then you don't know James at all. Never betrayed? What about when ones tail lights, windows, poon dog, and car got trashed?
|
|
|
Post by DrCank on Feb 26, 2007 10:11:00 GMT -5
You also stole the founders car. 'Blue Steel'
|
|
|
Post by frs2ps6 on Feb 27, 2007 8:03:41 GMT -5
Examine what is said, not him who speaks.
|
|