The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Anthropogenic Global Warming Debate
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 05-27-2009, 06:59 PM
tannerwaterbury's Avatar
tannerwaterbury tannerwaterbury is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerhanner View Post
So let me get this straight - you're getting your scientific ideas from a retired weatherman? Do you see where this might be a little.... sketchy? I mean, does he even have an advanced degree in a real science???

Anthony Watts is a weather presenter for KPAY-AM radio, described as a 'Chief Meteorologist' by the radio station[1] but listed as a retired Television Seal Holder by the American Meteorological Society.[2] He runs the climate-related blog Watts Up With That, owns ItWorks, a weather graphics company, and is founder of the SurfaceStations.org project which attempts to document the quality of weather stations.
the man himself is a retired weatherman, BUT there are ACTUAL Scientists that post on that site, like Lief Svelgard for instance (i think thats how you spell it?) This site has won the 2009 Web Blog award for its apparent accuracy in this debate on Climate Change. I rely heavily on this site and climateaudit.com
__________________
ALL PRAISE TO ZARDOZ!

GREAT SCOTT!!! ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ!

Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 05-27-2009, 07:01 PM
TGElder TGElder is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Indian Trail, NC
Posts: 1,323
Default

In case you missed what I had said. I am NOT opposed to clean air and water and land. Just because I want the government to leave private industry alone does NOT mean I want to destroy the earth. If that's the case you'd better get your precious Starfleet to come stop me as the next villan!

EPA regulations keep industries from being able to expand their operations to produce more fuel, or to invest in any kind of R & D for new energy sources because these companies are constantly being forced to retrofit their refineries to keep up with new regulations that are annually updated. Expanded production equals more supply which reduces prices. Simple entry level economics.

The majority of cost in each gallon of gasoline is in taxes to the local, state and federal government. Currently I am paying $2.35/gallon. $.46 is in federal taxes, $.18 is in local taxes, and $.08 is in local taxes. That's $.72 of each gallon going to pay taxes. This does not include the taxes that the oil company is made to pay for transportation, taxes on property that they pay, and corporate taxes that they pay. Because you must realize that NO corporation ever pays taxes. Taxes are calculated into the production cost and those costs are passed on to the end consumer to pay.

All of these ever expanding regulations and government policies are being forwarded based on a scientific theory that has not yet been proven to be conclusive. Going green is an emotional issue not a scientific one. If someone can produce the hard science to prove global warming is caused by human influence I'll accept that once I see the proof.

The argument of Anthropogenic Global Warming takes more faith than most religions I know. And our children are being indoctrinated with this in our government run schools, and they are not being taught to look at the issue with critical thinking, or follow the scientific process of working through a hypothesis into a theory and then either proving or disproving the theory.

Show me an alternative fuel that won't put more burden on the environment. Ethanol take 3 gallons of fossil fuels to produce one gallon of ethanol. Ethanol cannot be burnt hot enough or consistently enough to produce the heat needed to turn corn mash into corn alcohol. There is an ethanol plant in California that had to declare bankruptcy because the cost of production was higher than they could make in profit.

Electric cars sound really good on the surface, but how do you produce the electricity? You burn coal, or natural gas. Again, put as few as 5000 electric cars in any metropolitan region in the country and watch the electric grid have a massive cascade failure. Each summer we hear about brownouts and rolling blackouts because the air conditioning's electrical demand is so great.
What's the solution? Build more power plants? NO, EPA regulations in California make it impossible for new plants to be built. They have to meet so many standards that power companies won't try, so California imports more power than any other state in the nation. Besides, if we build more electric companies we'll be burning more fossil fuels. Wind power works...When there's wind. Solar works, at a trickle. When there's no wind, you can't get power from a windmill, so you have to have a redundancy system that kicks in, and what is more proven than coal and natural gas. Hydroelectric is great if you've got a river you can tap, but when I last looked we've already done that. The only other option is nuclear. And NO ONE wants a nuclear plant in their backyard.

I'm all for an alternative, I just don't think that the government can mandate innovation. Innovation comes from inspiration. And sadly, in this world there is very little that motivates more than profit. And when people cannot make a profit from their innovations the innovations will cease.
__________________
TGElder NCC 1701-E
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 05-27-2009, 07:52 PM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TGElder View Post
In case you missed what I had said. I am NOT opposed to clean air and water and land. Just because I want the government to leave private industry alone does NOT mean I want to destroy the earth. .
When the government left the airline industry, the banking industry, and the coal mining industries alone, did good things happen? Or did bad things happen? You can't trust greedy people to do the right thing - you can trust them to do the greedy thing.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 05-27-2009, 08:31 PM
tannerwaterbury's Avatar
tannerwaterbury tannerwaterbury is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jerhanner View Post
When the government left the airline industry, the banking industry, and the coal mining industries alone, did good things happen? Or did bad things happen? You can't trust greedy people to do the right thing - you can trust them to do the greedy thing.
Well when are you talking here? You mean when Regan left the industries alone back in the 80's? Or are you figuratively stating something?
__________________
ALL PRAISE TO ZARDOZ!

GREAT SCOTT!!! ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ!

Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 05-27-2009, 10:03 PM
Scribbler's Avatar
Scribbler Scribbler is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 726
Default

There has been lots of emotionless delay and "wait and see." What the skeptics are calling for has already been done. You will never get 100% agreement, just like the tobacco companies certain business interests don't care about the facts, they just want to delay things so they can keep polluting and making money. You can always recruit "experts" who will say anything you want. The vast weight of opinion has now decided in favour of man made climate change after years of conservative feet dragging. I am not being emotional and it's a ridiculous assertion to state that all of the scientific community is wringing its hands and overreacting for political reasons.

People radically miss the point by saying that carbon dioxide is "natural". So is cyanide and the Ebola virus.Just because a thing is found in nature, it doesn't make it healthy. Ultimately, if the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion is right, there will be mass flooding and vast swathes of the earth will become uninhabitable, including parts of the US and coastal cities like New York. There will be far more exteme weather and drier parts of the earth will run out of drinking water and food, leading to vast numbers of refugees. That is the risk of doing nothing. We are out of time, if we don't take massive and decisive action, these terrible events will fall on us, and particularly on the poor who have done very little to generate global emmissions.

I'm afraid this is much like the silly debates on this board about evolution. Irrespective of the amount of evidence, some people will always deny the facts and bury their heads in the sand.

Last edited by Scribbler : 05-27-2009 at 10:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 05-28-2009, 12:01 AM
MonsieurHood's Avatar
MonsieurHood MonsieurHood is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scribbler View Post
There has been lots of emotionless delay and "wait and see." What the skeptics are calling for has already been done. You will never get 100% agreement, just like the tobacco companies certain business interests don't care about the facts, they just want to delay things so they can keep polluting and making money. You can always recruit "experts" who will say anything you want. The vast weight of opinion has now decided in favour of man made climate change after years of conservative feet dragging. I am not being emotional and it's a ridiculous assertion to state that all of the scientific community is wringing its hands and overreacting for political reasons.

People radically miss the point by saying that carbon dioxide is "natural". So is cyanide and the Ebola virus.Just because a thing is found in nature, it doesn't make it healthy. Ultimately, if the overwhelming weight of scientific opinion is right, there will be mass flooding and vast swathes of the earth will become uninhabitable, including parts of the US and coastal cities like New York. There will be far more exteme weather and drier parts of the earth will run out of drinking water and food, leading to vast numbers of refugees. That is the risk of doing nothing. We are out of time, if we don't take massive and decisive action, these terrible events will fall on us, and particularly on the poor who have done very little to generate global emmissions.

I'm afraid this is much like the silly debates on this board about evolution. Irrespective of the amount of evidence, some people will always deny the facts and bury their heads in the sand.
The rivers are still running, the rain is still falling, the sun is still shining, the grass is still green and growing. I'm surrounded by healthy trees, thousands upon thousands of them, several different species of Oaks, Cedars, Pecan, Persimmon, Willow, Cottonwoods, etc. Hummingbirds are eating out of the feeder on my porch, honey bees and bumblebees sucking nectar out of the flowers in my front yard, rabbits munching on my lawn, Vultures and Hawks soaring overhead and Owls hooting at night time. Frogs in every puddle, box turtles showing up at the back door for some of my Aunts bread crumbs. And you're trying to tell me the world's going to fall apart tomorrow? Poppycock and Balderdash! Scare tactics and ploys to sell me something I don't need, and overzealous environmental busy bodies who don't know their butt from a hole in the ground. What are you going to do that's so "massive and decisive"? Sounds like an excuse to do some damage to me, to people their homes and their rights.
__________________
"One of the many, the proud, the friends of Zardoz".
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 05-28-2009, 12:03 AM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

The calm before the storm, Monsieur, the calm before the storm.
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 05-28-2009, 12:15 AM
MonsieurHood's Avatar
MonsieurHood MonsieurHood is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livingston View Post
The calm before the storm, Monsieur, the calm before the storm.
What massive and decisive action are we going to take Livingston? Tell me? Ultimately that kind of thinking leads to things better left alone, better left unthought, better left unsaid doesn't it? I could write it here but it might get me banned. We don't do those kinds of things and the few people who did them have the darkest most horrible names in all of history. Do you understand what I'm saying? Do you know who and what I'm talking about? Is that the kind of world you want to live in? A world of fear, a world that has total disregard for all that's hopeful and positive and right? A world without freedom of choice? Where the leaders make THOSE kinds of decisions? Read between the lines. Personally, I'd rather live in a Biodome.
__________________
"One of the many, the proud, the friends of Zardoz".
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 05-28-2009, 12:33 AM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

Well I was just joking there. But as for all this debate on global warming and all, I think it is best left to science. As I mentioned before, so much of this issue is politically charged, the politics cloud the truth of the matter. It's difficult to find decent info on this topic without political agenda. From what I can tell there is not enough scientific evidence to support the assertion we are solely to blame and there is not enough to refute it. It seems to me, we certainly play a part, but there are other factors at work as well.

I certainly don't want to live in a world of fear, but I also don't want to wake up one day and find we've trashed the planet. I don't think the proponents of global warming are fear mongering if that's what you are implying, it is an issue and it is certainly a real issue we cannot turn a blind eye to, but as I said before, politics is so entwined here, it is difficult to see the situation in any truth.
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 05-28-2009, 02:33 AM
TheTrekkie's Avatar
TheTrekkie TheTrekkie is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,030
Default

Global warming or not, inventing new alternative technology only brings advantages
1. oil and similar ressources probably still will last for 50 years, in a few decades it will be unaffordable. The economy and the "normal" people have to invent an alternative
2. independence from dictatorships we have to deal with to get their ressources
3. jobs are created
4. it's good for nature
__________________
And if tyrants take me, And throw me in prison, My thoughts will burst free, Like blossoms in season.
Foundations will crumble, The structure will tumble, And free men will cry:
Thoughts are free!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:03 PM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.