Today is Earth Day, and I see from the newspaper that some caring and clever person has asked us to help save the planet by giving up eating meat. It seems that cows account for 18% of all methane gases by, er, venting. Of course we’d have to find an alternative source of protein. Turns out the best vegetable (fruit?) source is the lowly bean. So let’s all pass on the burgers and stoke up on beans. Together we can all make a resounding difference.
Jim
Replies
I'm thinking on shooting some caring and clever person, which will decrease the population explosion. Afterwards, a 24 ounce rib eye to round out a good day.
Den,
Better hurry up. With the price of fuel going the way it is we'll all be eating beans soon enough. You know, Bush beans!
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 4/22/2008 2:57 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Send me some more ammo. I can do more, and faster too. I'll bet Festool has a machine gun option.
Thank God for people like you! I think I’d blow my brains out if I thought the “Earth Day” types made up the true majority of people in this world.
Mr 1234,
Happily there are many more than two types of people in the world. Also, they vary in what they are over time. Moreover, most people have many permutations of often hundreds of competing ideas in their noggins at any one time.
So, no worries about majorities there then - they are unclasssifiable and uncountable, despite the Daily Frightener's insistence that there is only left or right, goodguys and badguys, blacks and whites or whatever silly and simple division suits their "story" today.
Here's another thing: the doings of the world will affect you only obliquely; you are unlikely to be able, anyway, to do much to affect the larger doings of the world. Why not just deal with the stuff local to you that you can actually change? Worrying about what some purveyor of doom, gloom or the latest fad&fashion wants us to is a waste of one's life and energy.
I find I can exercise power without ever being gainsayed in my shed (and sometimes in the hoosey although the ladywife rules there, truth be known). In the shed, everything is just as it should be and the rest of the world and it's sheds (small or vast) are not nearly so interesting. I certainly don't care what celebs and politicians do in theirs.
Lataxe, not for joining any mass-movements.
Very well put, sir.
Thank you, sir. It goes both ways. But keep in mind, I'm looked upon as an unenlightened loud mouthed naysayer.
I'm about as un-loud mouthed as a body can get, and if you don't agree with some people they pigeonhole you into a slot.
I'm a live and let live sorta guy. The challenge is, while others demand you let them live however they want, they want to force you to live their way. In this strange world, those most tolerant are the least tolerated.
“The challenge is, while others demand you let them live however they want, they want to force you to live their way” - YOU ABSOLUTELY NAILED IT! There was a time when the live and let live, pioneer spirit was nothing more than every day common sense. - It seems like every neighborhood has at least one old man who gives everybody the middle finger and just does what he wants to do. I used to think these old men were weird, but not anymore. I respect every one of those old guys.
Yeah, maybe they've learned something the rest of us haven't?
I'm with you!! Right after I burn these tires.Best,John
Right after I burn these tires........
Oooooo You be bad!!!
Hey, you know what I think? I know: you don't care anyway. Ha ha.
But still, what I think is this. Any bleeding heart what cares so passionately about the saving world, had better quit wasting time posting here. He'd better run out and get to work.
Edited 4/29/2008 8:09 am ET by blewcrowe
Jim,
I eats dead animals and beans of every kind. However, I have plans to assuage my guilt via the invention of a nether-collector mechanism, to divert methane to a proper cause, such as heating my shed or destroying vermin: like salesmen, religious maniacs and others who feel they may knock on my door then tell me I'm a fool of this sort or that for not agreeing with their lunacy and giving them my money to-boot.
But I digress.
The issue is, how to tank the stuff? And surely there will be unforseen dangers if the lovely gaz is over-confined? (It is dangerous enough now, or so the ladywife opines).
Lataxe, redolent with valuable fuel.
Lataxe,
If you do happen to harness that wasted energy I will provide you with the latest technology utilised to convert methane gaz into energy, appropriately named the Phartolator. This device that will capture the gaz and channel it into an engine to produce electricity.
It operates on the principle of alternating gaz inputs and is therefore much more efficient as it times its cycles with those required for alternating current. There exists a 60 cycle adapter for advanced technological U.S. users and a 50 cycle version in the works for those less advanced folks across the pond.
If you would be interested in participating in our testing program we can provide you with a prototype of the 50 cycle version. Be advised that we are not responsible for potential fires or explosions.
Just phartin around the woodshed,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
the latest technology utilised to convert methane gaz into energy, appropriately named the Phartolator
Several years ago, I was in Tanzania. There was a local guy who put a concrete tank in the ground. The cow manure (from a single cow) was mixed with a little water and collected in the tank. He ran a pipe from the top of the tank across the ground and up the side of his house (really just a simple hut.) The pipe went through the wall and connected to a simple little gas burner. He used the methane to cook with, instead of wood or charcoal.
Yum
And what's all the talk about Yankee ingenuity!?
I remember reading that in Europe, especially in Italy, that farm animals were kept under the houses to provide heat and a place to cure cheeses. I'm sure this practice wasn't limited to Italy either.
Landfills are tapping into the methane gas to be used in generation of electricity all over the country. In years past this free gas was simply burned off into the atmosphere...........
I would be interested to know what the effect is of burned methane gas on the environment. I'm sure the impact is not nearly as negative as fossil fuels like coal and fuel oil or wood for that matter.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob, they just ran a methane line from the Turnkey landfill in Rochester to the UNH campus, Durham. They will be using the gas to heat water for the University. Line runs about 10-12 miles.
Donkey
How much gas does a donkey make...wife thinks...a lot!
Bob, they just ran a methane line from the Turnkey landfill in Rochester to the UNH campus, Durham. They will be using the gas to heat water for the University. Line runs about 10-12 miles.
By my estimate 12 miles of piping would cost around 3.8 Million, plus various compression pumps (etc.) need. A real fine use of money.
This type of project makes people feel good, but in the end it's a real waste of money. While it makes good use of the gas, it does it in a very uneconomical way. Using the gas closer to the source would have saved money for use on other projects.
Buster,
Not sure but I suspect your post was directed to me. In any case I feel compelled to respond.
Please allow a bit of sarcasm, not directed to you, but rather the illustrious business leaders and perhaps a politician or three in Concord. What you fail to realise is the potential for what I call political accolades.
By running that pipeline for 10-12 miles think about all the jobs I have created! If we consume/waste more resources that will inject more money into and improve the economy, right? Think of how many lives we'll disrupt thus causing them to spend more money.
In light of the above it wouldn't make any sense to place the methane to power generation plant on/near the landfill site, put this power on the existing grid and credit the power generated from same to UNH would it?
:-)
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
They have had the pigalator in china for centuries. Oink, boom
We started buying only hormone free, grass fed and grass finished beef earlier this year. It tastes better and has a better mix of Omega 3 versus Omega 6s. Because they aren't forcing ruminants to eat grain, they don't need antibiotics either to keep the cattle healthy. They also produce a lot less gas than corn-fed, fecal farmed beef. The cattle are local, so it doesn't take nearly as much transportation fuel as the average steak in the corporate big-box store that sells semi-edible food-like substances. Because they don't use artificial growth hormones, eating it won't make your daughters grow boobs when they are eight years old or put as much fat around that waist of yours. I don't think it is necessary to stop eating beef, but the source is important to me. Did I mention that the grass fed beef tastes better too? Yep. Tastes like meat. Other things I've eaten lately that taste like meat: Elk Burgers, Bison, Lamb. All raised locally using sustainable practices. Just like we did for 1000s of years before corporations took over food production. I'm having stew today made with some of that local beef and veggies out of my garden. Used a mixture of chicken and vegetable stock we made ourselves. Yes, I also have a stock of pinto beans from last year's garden - also canned sweet potatos, salsa, orangequat marmalade, pomegranate jelly and apple sauce. I am doing more and more things the old way not only because it is more sustainable, but I also like the lifestyle. I'm closer to nature and I know where my food comes from. I am starting to use local woods whenever I can too. Later, I'll post a picture of a rustic bench I built with wood from my dad's place. First I have to fix the tire on my bicycle so I can go to Yoga tonight without driving a vehicle that fouls the air.
Scotty
Well done!. Go git'm. Spread the friggin word before we destroy our selves. (Goldang it)
Tom the orgasmic, I mean, organic fahmah.
Get a hold of this book: "The Omnivore's Dilemma"It's not making a case against meat, but rather the most thought-provoking view of the food production industry in the US that I've ever seen. An eye-opener...if you want your eyes open, that is.David Ring
http://www.touchwood.co.il/?id=1&lang=e
Also his next, In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto is a good read.
Comedian Ron White has a friend who is vegetarian "because of cow flatulence and the ozone, and the clearing of land for the raising of cattle. What are you doing, Ron, to help the environment?" White responds, "I'm eat'n the cows!" Tom
All in fun, I know, but the "carbon footprint" of beef production is huge and I would guess far more detrimental to the environment than their methane gas production. I am a confirmed and dedicated carnivore, but am leaning more and more toward trying to find meat that originates as close to home as possible, not being shipped from afar. It's easy to get Washington State chicken (as opposed to Georgia or wherever that big chicken place is). Not so easy with beef and pork.
My step-daughter is so allergic to corn that she has to buy grass-fed beef if she wants to eat beef. She just put in her order for a half-beef with a Mountain-beef.com that collects orders, then sends the beefies out to pasture to fatten up. Her half-beef (along the other half) will be slaughtered in the fall and brought down for her to pack away in the freezer.
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Edited 4/23/2008 9:56 am by forestgirl
My step-daughter is so allergic to corn that she has to buy corn-fed beef if she wants to eat beef.
OK, what am I missing here? If she is allergic to corn, how is it OK to eat corn-fed beef?
Guess I'm out of the loop on the eco-friendly beef scene ;)
Lee
Yawwwwwnnnnnn! She has to eat grass-fed beef. Thanks, Lee! Jamie's not getting enough sleep!forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
In fact I very rarely eat beef myself -- I just couldn't resist pointing out that this emperor wore no clothes. Another loony with a simple answer to the world's problems. Why do good causes attract the worst advocates?
I like to buy local too, but not blindly. If you'd bought locally in 19th century Ireland you'd have been lucky to make it down to the docks to catch the next ship to America. And here in the Great Lakes basin eating local produce grown traditionally might have brought you a goiter from iodine deficiency. I guess there's no substitute for vigilance and commonsense.
Jim
Jim,
Its not 18% of methane. Its 18% of all greenhouse gasses - more than all transportation sources combined (17%). And to Wineman - you are speaking myth-talk when you say that scientists don't agree about global warming. Their is a worldwide consensus that the Earth is warming much faster than was predicted even a few years ago, and that human activity is a major cause of it. The good news is that means we can stop it if we act soon enough. This isn't a partisan issue, it is a survival issue and real enough that everyone needs to do what they can personally while also demanding government and businesses do the same. Its going to take all of us working together, but we have proven we can do that in the past, a few loudmaouthed naysayers aside.
a few loudmaouthed naysayers aside ...........
I guess that makes me a loudmouthed naysayer, because there are as many scientists not in agreement as with.
Actually, you are very wrong, and you know it. That makes you a...
How about these 17,000 scientists who don't agree? I thought you said they agreed.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/162241/17_200_Scientists_Dispute_Global_Warming
http://gribbitonline.com/2008/03/03/al-gore-may-be-named-in-possible-global-warming-fraud-suit/
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/11/gore-admits-financial-reasons-advancing-global-warming-hysteria
Thank you for the opportunity to disabuse you of a couple of falsehoods. First, I noted that there is scientific consensus, not that all scientists agree. One of the great things about science is that different ideas are actually tested, repeatedly. Conclusions are not made based on one's own biases. For an excellent if slightly dated (2004), brief summary of the basis for the scientific consensus that has developed on the issue of climate change, see:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Secondly, the links you posted have little to do with science.
Finally, this thread, at least so far as the issue of climate change goes is probably off topic, so I'll leave it here. Open minds know the truth when they see it. Closed minds only get there by accident, and mostly just bumble around in darkness.
Scotty
Open minds know the truth when they see it.
And those who agree with you are the "open minds". Okay, I got it.
The two most prominent broad-scope journals in the scientific community are Science (USA) and Nature (UK). If you want to know what's really going in the world of science, do a search of the articles in those journals.
The links you posted represent, at best, cherry-picking of facts to suit preexisting agendas, and at worst, outright untruths. For example, the first link refers to a "peer-reviewed" article that supports its contentions. Well, guess what? That article wasn't peer-reviewed; rather, it was formatted and printed to look like a peer-reviewed article. In other words, it was pure fraud. And so on.
Truthiness can certainly give people a warm fuzzy feeling, but it's not how science works.
-Steve
Steve, I am a degreed scientist from a science base college, so you don't have to explain science to me. Nearly all articles can be construed as having political or other agendas.
This is an argument that only time will prove out. Each of us looks through our own lens. Here's an article written 30 years ago, that said the consensus was the world was in a cooling trend, predicting doom and gloom.
Once again, you cite the popular press. Show me a scientific publication from the 1970's that reports a consensus of scientific support for a hypothesis of global cooling, and then you'll have some basis for your argument.
Food for thought: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
-Steve
Okay, how about this from MIT?
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/
You can find articles: I can find articles. It is what we choose to believe and screen. As I said (and you alluded), science is not a static study. Only time itself will prove or disprove.
This is precisely the kind of cherry-picking I was talking about. The paper I cited is a broad-based review of the literature; it references 102 other papers (I don't even think my dissertation had that many references...). The Technology Review article talks about concerns raised over the statistical methodology used in one paper. Is it at all surprising that out of the many thousands of papers that have been published on climate change, a handful of them have problems?
-Steve
You're telling me that MIT and 102 science papers and 400 other scientists' opinions don't meet your qualifications for science.
Talk about cherry picking.
Steve, I'm done with this one. You can have the last word.
"You're telling me that MIT and 102 science papers and 400 other scientists' opinions don't meet your qualifications for science."
By "400 other scientists' opinions" you're referring to the Oregon petition, right? I wasn't including that in my criticism of cherry-picking, not because it isn't (it may well be), but because there isn't enough information available. How many scientists were asked to sign and declined? If that number is 40,000, for example, then saying that 400 scientists signed, without mentioning that 39,600 didn't sign, is cherry-picking of the highest order. But the real story seems to be somewhat shrouded in mystery (which is itself not a good sign), so I reserve judgment.
Anyway, yes, I do consider a comprehensive review of published climatology literature to carry far more weight than an unaudited survey of an unknown number of scientists, most of whom are not engaged in anything even remotely related to climate research.
-Steve
My article is bigger than your article.
Right............."It's a a survival issue."
Is is it a survival issue like the great global cooling hysteria of the 1970s?
Do we need to be earth-conscious? Yes we do. But let's not get non-sensical about how we live.
Save a tree, eat a beaver.
A while ago plastic bags were touted as an alternative to "Evil" paper bags made from trees.
Now plastic bags are bad for the environment.
Ethanol was touted as an alternative to gasoline. Now we find out that ethanol production is not Environmentally friendly. Plus, have you noticed the stories related to the price of food? Price of corn goes up, price of food goes up, poor countries run out of food.
Wind power is our savior, until the bird people complain that the birds are flying into the windmills and dying. (Why, because they are "bird brains").
Gotta go hug a tree now, right before I cut it down for lumber.
I don't doubt the reality of global warming. I addressed a particularly stupid response to it from a particularly stupid person: cows produce a lot of gases, so lets stop eating meat. She didn't say let's stop eating cows, it was cows, pigs, sheep, rabbits, chickens etc. She didn't address cows as milk producers. She didn't follow through for a moment on the consequences for the environment in the unlikely event that the world followed through on her suggestion.
You would wipe out several species that survive only because humans eat them.
The human digestive system does not deal efficiently with large amounts of vegetable matter. You could say that cows fart so that we don't have to. The original comment I made as a joke has a germ of truth in it. Eating meat is the most efficient way to acquire the substances that sustain life. If you eat only vegetables, you have to eat more to stay alive. There is already a chronic shortage of foodstuffs in the world that would be worsened. It would be exacerbated by the absence of organic fertilizer. It's true that you can now live a very healthy lifestyle as a vegetarian in an industrial society, but it's generally a lifestyle open only to the well-educated and the well-heeled. I could go on, but I won't. I had hoped that the arrant folly of the simplistic cure for the problem would be obvious. Apparently it's not.
I'm beginning to regret the original post. Perhaps this non-woodworking thread should be moved to the cafe.
Jim
Jim,
In my little noggin memes come and go. I gets them by reading and that. I keep a few for longer than the others, such as the one that recognises memes and how they come and go. I like scientific memes (not the pretend ones though). New Scientist magazine is a good 'un for deciphering the esoterica spoke by real scientists. Nevrtheless, one understands one's Thomas Kuhn (even scientific theories have their fashions).
As to taking responsibility for the planet - I'll give it go! (But the bluddy thing's a bit big, innit)! To start, I am going to become your President and force all Americans to ride bicycles instead of driving cars. It is also good for your heart, lung and thrusting muscle (your ladwives will feel renewed). The aeroplanes will have to go too. (I mean airplanes). They burn an awfy lot of parafin and make a nasty racket.
Then I am going to become Chinese Dictator and all that coal burning will have to stop!
As to meat, it is likely to be soylent green when I gets my way (populations are much too big and long pig is said to be delishish - them vets o' yourn will know).
Lataxe, who is always hungry and, if it comes to it, may eat you before you eats him.
I hope you do become President -- the current crop of candidates are more "Me! Me!" than meme, and wouldn't know Richard Dawkins from Coleman Hawkins. But you wouldn't be mine. I'm Canajun via Scotland and England. I gained most of my knowledge of cows innards by stepping in stray chods as I tramped from pylon to pylon defacing your fair countryside with brand-new HT cable. Now I'm choking on smog from the American midwest. Planet of the apes, eh?
Jim
Jim,
I agree that arguing that we should all become vegetarians is probably fruitless :-) for the reasons you stated.
Humans are Omnivores. We need lots of variety to be healthy. There is nothing found in meat that can't be found in other sources though. That doesn't mean that we have to give up all meat sources. We also don't have to raise animals for flesh to ensure their survival as a species, so there are certainly examples of poorly thought out arguments from many perspectives.
Your assertion that meat is more ecologically effiecient is simply way off. It takes over 25 pounds of corn to make a pound of beef. The corn we raise for beef production requires massive amounts of water, petrochemical-based fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides. Then you transport the corn to the feed lots. You also transport the cattle to the feedlots, then to the slaughter houses, then to large storage areas, then to stores. All of that adds to the ecological footprint of our cattle industry ( it isn't just the farts, though some naysayers enjoy repeating such lies). In fact, the carbon footprint it is a larger footprint than our transportation related carbon footprint. So it isn't unreasonable to say that we would be better off ecologically if we stopped or drastically reduced the amount of corporate, fecal-farmed beef we consume. Local, grassfed beef has a much smaller carbon footprint. Same for local grass fed chickens which I will buy this weekend at the farmer's market.
Scotty
I did not assert that meat is more ecologically efficient. I said it's a more efficient way for humans to process the substances they require to survive, given their physiology. They may do so by eating many kinds of animal including local grassfed beef. I nowhere advocated factory farming, which I abominate. Please do not foist on me statements I did not make so that you may set me up for a lecture on your beliefs. You've left the leaflet. I'd prefer if you didn't ring my doorbell again. I won't answer.
Jim
Jim,
Sorry if you took offense, but I wasn't accusing you of anything. I did go beyond what you wrote about in my post (addressing points made by others) and I think that was what you were reacting to. Sorry if my way of participating in this conversation caused the confusion.
Scotty
Scotty,
Your comments suggest to me that some of the old methods weren't all that bad ecologically and nutritionally. Corn fed beef doesn't seem to conjur visions of meat but rather fat whereas grass fed with exercise of the bovine turns to meat/muscle.
Mebbe a return of the cattle drives, visions of grazing beef cattle?
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob,
The "old ways" are also less expensive. The argument that this stuff if only for the rich is another unthinking talking point. Raising your own food is one of the quickest ways to get out from under the heavy hand of the government and megacorporations.
To reply to some other threads - I sure ain't rich and there have been times in my life when I lived in a one bedroom that shared a bathroom across the hall with another apartment. I know what its like to live poor. Like much of the middle class now, we live in a state where it is impossible to get ahead too. If the wife and I became unemployed, we are maybe two months away from losing the house we have paid on the the past 11 years.
I don't tell people how to live, and neither does Al Gore or others who are supporting ecologically responsible change. We do offer options/choices and give good evidence about the outcomes of our choices. All this talk about telling you how to live is just paranoid ranting.
"Your comments suggest to me that some of the old methods weren't all that bad ecologically and nutritionally."
It's probably more accurate to say that the modern factory methods are very often bad, ecologically and nutritionally, but that some of that may be the result of inescapable factors of scale. The old ways were mostly good, but often only in the context of small scale. So, for example, how do you feed a city of 5 million? Does locally-raised, grass-fed beef work on that scale? Nutritionally, it's probably better, but it will undoubtedly be more expensive, and I'm not sure that the environmental impact would be any less than what you get with a factory farm and feedlot, and could very well be more.
-Steve
I love animals, especially with ketchup.
"Their is a worldwide consensus..." Consensus is the operative word. It is facts that must be looked at. I have read many books about the subject and it appears that it is a way to control others and tax them for the most part. I say steady as she goes. Lefties mess up everything they touch.
I guess there's no substitute for vigilance and commonsense..............
Condoning common sense? What's next? Sanity?
I love beef -- especially a nice juicy steak. Problem is, beyond any "earth issues" (carbon footprint, low-efficiency protein production, all that stuff), someone my age has to consider (a) calories and (b) yucky stuff like colon cancer. Calories are self-evident. The cancer thing less so, but it's becoming increasingly evident that red meat consumption isn't your best friend when it comes to lowering your odds of such a disease.
I miss the days when I could anything I darned well pleased with little noticeable downside, ROFL!forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
I myself do love a great steak. big reason you can't get good steak is it is costly to dry age it like they used to , now it is wet aged . they vacuum packe it in a bag,which infuses the beef and ages it much faster and cheaper than the dry age method. you can buy the dry aged but it is expensive.and they,I think use a rosemary concoction to keep bacteria at bay,so supermarkets can sell their product. I do miss the old days
Did you get your money back?
Pena
Not that I know of. I will send you an email.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
I'll add my comment to the pile if you all don't mind,and if you do I'll add it anyway.;)When I was a little gaffer in the late 50's and early 60's I really enjoyed reading about Dinosaurs and the early history of the planet. I took from the books at that time that the planet had an atmosphere that was much the same as today except that there was about 1 to 2% of carbon dioxide that made the place a lot warmer. No ice, lots of high tropical heat and moisture. Through a few of the billion years until now, that carbon dioxide was removed by plankton and other little sea creatures along with the trees, and converted into oil and coal. Planet eventually becomes cooler to what we evolved in and grew to love so much. Now in the last couple of hundred years or so we go digging and drilling and burning as much of that "old carbon" as we possibly can, putting billions of tons of it back in the atmosphere.Does it really come as a big surprise to anyone that the place is going to get warmer again?
"Vegetarian" from the Saxon word for "Poor Hunter". We eat cattle because they can eat grass and we can't.
If cow flatulence is a concern might I suggest "Cat", the other white meat. Dogs and cats, in three fourths of the world are not called "pets" they are called "lunch".
With four grand sons I've been experimenting with an ancient and time honored method of suppling shop power: the apprentice. So far I've been able to cut down on the use of my shop vac, but that's about it.
And keep your shirt on. The theory will change next week.
Around here there are no "Low paid city employees." If you work for any government agency you have a good job and good benefits.
Just my two cents worth.
Bruce
"The scientist can’t agree if humans are causing the problem..."
Scientists can't agree on anything. That's why science has been so successful; there's always someone, somewhere, saying, "But wait a minute--what about this?" Science thrives on controversy--it is the "fuel" that's powers the progress of scientific knowledge.
Where things go awry is when people outside of the scientific community latch on to specific aspects of the controversy in order to further their own nonscientific agendas. They point to the controversy and say, "See, even the scientists can't agree," as if that were a flaw. In reality, compared to the arguments that rage over topics like the conflicts between general relativity and quantum theory, or the physical underpinnings of high-temperature superconductivity, the disagreements over the causes of global warming are extremely mild. But you don't hear about those other controversies in the popular press, because they don't affect people directly.
The bottom line is that, neocon spin doctors notwithstanding, there is an overwhelming body of evidence that supports the notion that human activity is having a very significant impact on climate, and there is an overwhelming consensus among climate researchers that this is so. It doesn't mean that all of the models are 100% accurate, or that every prediction that a scientist makes will come to pass, but the overall conclusions are inescapable.
-Steve
Wineman,
Just look at Gore, you don’t think he’s not making money on this. You would think that he made enough when he created the World Wide Web.
Ahhh, the illustrious Mr. Gore. His take on green is that he buys green energy for his house so he figures that he can and does use more electricity than nearly any other house in the U.S.
As for his involvement with the creation of the Internet, that's a myth that confounds me to no end. He had virtually nothing to do with its creation. Yes, he was a proponent for expanded use of it but that's all.
The one thing that is due his credit is that I am confident that he is making money on all this greenery though!
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
hey,you guys, their are some bleeding hearty al gore types out there,believe it or not are looking into the cattle methane dilemma, looking at the third world but want us to fund the programs in india and other poor countires, to actually fit the herds with devices made to collect methane and want the us taxpayers to fund ithese things,cause it the right thing to do!!!
what annoys me the most, these hollywood a-listers, the rosie's,the oprahs,the Dicaprios,they want us to feel all guilty ,all of a sudden, about our carbon foot print,how theyare better than you and me cause they care, and we(us) should do all we can, as they get in their private jets ,limos,50,0000 sq. ft homes. I do the best I can, and am not going to feel guilty or apologize for my existence! and also, they think that we are too stupid to be following these stories that they have to personnally put out the message or we won't get it. I am what I am--popeyeLOL
Mr Cliff,
Whilst I too cast a weary eye at them celeb things pontificating as if they they knew owt about anything, I hope never to allow them to make me angry or even mildly irritated. I never watch The Spectacle they provide for couch potatoes and similar. But, if one o' them does catch my eye or ear I use this as an excellent source of humour.
I particularly enjoy loud-mouthed pop-stars dressed in ludicrous garb and haircut trying to lecture me about their latest "look-at-my-sensitive love for [insert poor person-type employed for publicity purpose, who will be disarded as soon as the star's celeb-ratings climb]".
Not that I dismiss the idea that it is better to conserve energy, be kind to the animals we rear and eat and otherwise avoid being greedily profligate. But, as you say, it would be too rich to take the admonitions of them self-appointed moralisers on the tele and in the newspaper as the source of one's moral outlook.
Lataxe, a self-centred little skin-bag.
i don't use them as my moral outlook, althouh you could look at them so you know what not to do.LOL but , some of them,like the oprahs ,and the striesands etc,do have enough money and celebrity to make get some bad changes started,so this is where It is good to keep an eye on these folks,cause they will mess with your money and your way of living if you let them
how theyare better than you and me cause they care.......
Very true. What they preach applies to all but them. They brainwash weak minds to become ministers for the nonsense. It's a cult going mainstream, but still a religious like dogma. I am right: you are wrong: I am enlightened: you are stupid: agree with me, or else I will call you names and do what I can to destroy you.
As they sit in their oppulent extravagance and pontificate on what need to do and how we need live when the reality of it all is that they have no clue what it's like to live the way we do.
I for one have a difficult time relating to their lifestyles as much as I'm sure they would have relating to mine.
How in the world could they possibly know what it's like to get by in the world when they've never had to do it themselves?
RegardsBob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob,
You sound a little bitter. I bet you have a gun and a church somewhere up your sleeve ;-))
Ray
Edited 4/24/2008 1:09 pm ET by joinerswork
Ray,
Sorry, mebbe I picked the wrong day to quit sniffing cherry wood shavings! :-)
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Wineman,
Well said. You sound like one a them bookreadin types who thinks the world is round not flat.
What do you do for a livin?
Actually, this whole thread is pretty cool. This is what active democracy looks like in real life. A little windy and paranoid sometimes, but that's part of it. Maybe this thread'll go to five thousand!
Yall have a nice Sunday and love one another. Me, my son and his new spouse are coming over for beer and pizza and we're gonna talk about the rockin chair I'll be making for my lovely daughter in law to use while she's nursing my someday first grandkid, hopefully a girl.
and who hopefully grows up in a world that's getting a little better every day, if I have anything to goldang do about it.
Tom
Edited 4/27/2008 5:59 am ET by veggiefahmah123
I just thought there is one area where we can all Gore Al!
Make sure to use all your wood scraps in an environmentally safe manner. Which brings to mind a question: Is hide glue environmentally friendly?
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Is hide glue environmentally friendly?..........
According to PETA, only if it's your human hide.
I have been reading this thread with great amusement. We humans think we have so much power that we can effect the this great blue marble. We are but fleas to the planet and the arrogance that we are in control is hysterical. We cannot even effectively predict the weather more than a few days into the future. Technically the earth has been warming for a long time. And as others mentioned, I remember as a kid that the earth was cooling and we were going to freeze. That was the consensus then. But then, scientific consensus was once that the earth was flat! Every time I hear the whole carbon footprint BS I want to laugh. Gore created that to make money plain and simple. Got to give him credit for creating a demand from us idiots to buy his BS. Many many moons ago there were glaciers where the current farmlands are, who was to blame back then, the saber tooth gophers? Enough for now, I'll think I'll go outside fire up the charcoal grill and eat some cow butts! (my little part to save the planet!!!!!!!!!!!).
View Image
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it.
And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Edited 4/27/2008 2:02 pm by bones
Lets not forget that for years now Al Gore has wanted to outlaw the internal combustion engine, and now (what for it) he has discovered a "reason" to do so.
Of course the fact that we have been warming (in general) for as long as we have been able to figure out. And that we have over the last 50 plus years generally made improvements to the way we treat the environment do not count. Also all the ways we could do things to save energy are not as important as as getting rid of gas and other things AllGore hates. Of course he buys clean fuel.
Say what you will even if this is a true issue we can only afford to do so much before we are all sitting at home starving to death from lack of money to buy what little food we still make.
Doug
A few brief points, respectfully offered:
Al Gore don't need no money.
This planet wasn't built for us, as our Judeo-Christian heritage leads us to believe. We're just one of the animals that got lucky enough to evolve here. We have no special privileges in Mother Earth's eyes.
The word "ignorance comes from "ignore". The evidence that we're messin up the planet is staring us in the face.
No Al Gore does not need money but he has an agenda (to rid the planet of internal combustion engines) If he was so worried about everything then he would not drive in limos, ride in privet jets, live in a house using more energy then a block full of other houses. And he would be suggesting things that can be done right now (like turning off lights in buildings that have no one in them or in parking lots of places that close at 9 but light the lots until morning.
There are things we can do that are not drastic that would help right now, and their are things we have done that no one wants to give us credit for. And lets not forget that we are not the only ones messing up this place. It is so bad in China that they plan to close whole industries down for days if not weeks before the Olympics in order to get a little cleaner air. And you think we have problems in the US and Europe?
And while we are talking about evidence, their is evidence that this is NOT a big an issue as some would have it, also that we (humans) are not the biggest cause of this, that the CO2 is going up because we have more people (well duh) thus we emit more CO2 and that the increase has been going on for longer then we have been making the mess.
Also when I was a kid we had evidence that we where going into an Ice age, and lets not forget that they can not tell you the weather this afternoon (around here anyway) but they can tell you the weather in a hundred years? Hard to swallow. And of course the fact that the planet has changed temps a lot when we were not involved in it (I mean it was worm for the Dinos and cold for the Mammoths) so the world temp changes with not help from us.
This is not to say that we do not have a problem. This is to say that we have issues that are NOT as clear cut as some would have you believe.
Also lets not forget that no matter what we may want to do we still need to survive and putting everyone in the poor house or out of work is NOT an acceptable option. Kind of odd how so many people that support the more extreme views (like the Al Gores) of how we have to handle this right now are those that can afford to spend more for gas, electrical, food etc.. Of course we know this is ok because Al Gore buys the "clean" energy.
Saving the world is great and I think we would all love to have a better place to live in with less mess and danger in the environment. But we have to do this in a way that does not destroy human society.
Doug
Doug
We have been leaders in most of the advances that have made the world a better place. We invented cast iron woodworking tools, were the first to use telephones, color TV, automobiles, etc. We invented the National Park system, modern economics, made free trade possible and brought freedom and prosperity to many nations. No matter if global warming is real or not (in fact it is real), a healthy environment is good work mankind. We as a nation have lost our leadership in environmental issues and there is little effort to regain the #1 position. In fact we are trailing the pack and point our fingers at the few that are worse than us.No doubt, conservation is a conservative value. Like so many times in the past it is time for us to step up to the plate and take on the role that the rest of the world expects from us.
---
Chris Scholz
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
Galoot-Tools
If we have lost our way, may I ask who is leading this parade? At best this is an issue that a Handful of countries are worried about. I doubt you will find many of them outside North America and Europe (with the obvious exception of Japan, and Maybe South Korea). I would guess that Australia, and Brazil are also on this band wagon, the rest of them may talk about it but I do not see much being done.
As for this being a fact. It is NOT a fact. It is (at best) a good working theory. Please look up the difference between fact and Theory before blasting me on this. Truth is it is theory because we can not prove it is happening and why it is happening. Same reason why we have a the Theory of Evolution vs the Fact of Evolution. Because we can not truly prove it at this point. To prove something you have to be able to run some sort of test that it is in fact happening. (for instance it is a fact the world is round not because ships disappear over the horizon but because people have traveled all the way around it) The ship disappearing over the horizon is supporting evidence but is not in and of itself proof, as other things could cause this. That is the issue with the theory of global warming, other things COULD be causing what we observe (such as a natural warming trend of the earth, as we all know the world was colder then this but it also was warmer once, so maybe it is just going back to where it wants to be). At this point we really can not prove it. Of course the only proof the Titanic was going to really sink was when it did.
The problem is 30 years ago we had the Theory of a new Ice age.Now we have one that says we are getting warm. Add in that we have problems predicting if it will rain today or not, and you have trouble convincing people. On top of this you have the most obvious person that is pushing this who happens to blow a huge amount of energy when ever he feels like it and who is known to have issues with what he calls the main cause that have little basis in reality (I am sorry we have NO WAY of outlawing the IC Engine any time soon, we would all starve to death as well as lose what little jobs we have).
On top of all this we have (In the US) a major issue with the economy and all anyone wants to do to protect the environment is make things harder for working people by taxing things (like gas) or making thing more expensive (like Corn by using them in place of gas) or restricting things (like tougher controls on coal burning power plants) that raise the cost of electricity. So this is not a popular idea. Now add in that a LOT of the people that are pushing the save the world idea (such as good old Al and the Hollywood types) happen to have a good amount of money and that these restrictions and increased costs will have little to any effect on them and people start to think that person A wants to save the earth but only at the cost of person B. Well heck I have no problem with YOU doing anything you want to save the earth. Go for it. It is when I have to pay that I have issues. And this is what people have trouble with. People pushing the save the earth ideas at large expenses for the average working Joe that the more well to do will not even notice.
Now we also add in that a lot of countries are not being asked to (or are just not) helping with this. So we have jobs leaving the US and going to another country that may not have the restrictions on the environment that we do (and thus the company can make it cheaper) So once again it appears (note I said appears) that the cost of the save the earth idea is being placed on the person that can least afford it and is being pushed by a lot of very well to do types. Now do we wonder why people have trouble with this idea?
If so I will recap. It is a theory not a fact (a good one however), The cost of doing anything are expensive. The effect is not immediate (heck I bet most Baby Boomers will be gone before it gets to bad) The cost at this point effect the working guy more then the well to do (they just buy their way out of it) It makes jobs harder to find. It makes food harder to get. It's most obvious spokesman is not real popular with the people (and things he can spend is way out of doing anything about conserving) So we are surprised people have issues with "Global Warming"?
Doug
"The problem is 30 years ago we had the Theory of a new Ice age."
Earlier in this thread, I gave a reference to a review from some years ago that shows that while this is a popular myth, and while there were undoubtedly some pieces in the popular media that suggested such a thing, there is no evidence that there was any thinking along these lines within the climate research community--that idea is purely a product of the GWD* propaganda machine. There have been papers published that suggested cooling trends, but they have always been in the minority.
"...making thing more expensive (like Corn by using them in place of gas)"
While I think repurposing food crops for energy use is a Profoundly Bad Idea, the motivation behind corn-based ethanol, biodiesel, etc. is much less about saving the earth and much more about avoiding having to send young Americans to the Middle East to die.
-Steve
*Global Warming Denial
Steve,
For some reason this comes to mind when talk of energy consumption and waste comes up.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
There is a guy in the united ststes who bought a ford with a very high tech carburator on it, this was years ago, he gets 40+ per gallon. Ford developed it , but somehow it got shipped, they forget to take it off. supposedly they bugged this guy for years,he would not give it up.
Edited 4/28/2008 4:50 pm ET by tcseacliff
The 200 mpg carburetor folks unfortunately seem to be a lot like the perpetual motion folks. Conflict with basic thermodynamic principles doesn't seem to faze them.
-Steve
This is pure bunk. There is not enough energy in a gallon of gasoline when burned, even if converted at 100% efficiency, to move a car 200 miles on flat ground in still air, in any reasonable time.
Chemistry is chemistry, and physics is physics. The total energy out can not exceed the total energy in.
Jigs,
I am but a lowly woodbutcher and cannot respond to your assertions about the chemistry/physics involved.
But, would you agree that there ARE ways to make a motor vehicle more efficient than they now are? Have not there been successful attempts to do this?
Of course we can hypothesize till the next Earth Day and beyond the questions I ask. I do feel confident that technology exists for better and more efficient use of energy resources.
The REAL question in my mind is, where are they and why aren't they available; the reason for my post?
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
The problem is their are pluses and minuses to everything. I am willing to bet that in the next 10 to 20 years that the amount of pollution from putting in the pipeline (from first making the pipe, to making the equipment to make the pipe, to making the equipment to put in the pipe etc) will exceed any real savings from putting in the pipe. Not to go into the question of if the money could have been better spent doing something else to protect the environment.
I have nothing against protecting the environment. My issue is we need to consider that we have already done a lot (if you do not think so go back and look at the way the US looked in the 1900 to 1960 time frame. It was a much bigger mess then it is today) We also need to consider that we have to be able to live here. If we put all of us out of work. I promise that any good done will be lost when the new leadership takes over, and all they are interested in is getting people back to work and getting them fed.
We also need to really look at what we are doing. Not just a knee jerk reaction. We have all seen fixes that turned out worse then the problem.
Also we need to add in that we really have a limited understanding of what is happening and why. To many other things effect the world. We know that the sun effects the temp. we know that the work was at one time both much colder then it is now and also much hotter. We know that if you put to much of one type of material into the atmosphere you will cool down the planet (think nuclear winter) but if you put in to much of another we will warm it up. We know a lot of things but what we know just goes to show you that we don't know a lot more.
So while I think that pretty much everyone in the US will agree that protecting the environment is a good idea, I think that those that appear to be against it are really just concerned that what some want to do is not as well thought out as it could be. Yes maybe only a handful of people will be effected buy a new law but if you are one of those that could lose your job (and thus your house, you health care, the abilities to put you kid thru school etc.) then you will be against that law. This is the thing that a lot of people miss.
And if you think that hidden issues will not effect things in ways not intended go and look at the number of SUVs on the market and then realize these are their because the government in the form of CAFE standards make large cars impossible, yet people are not getting smaller. So what do you do? You buy something that is not covered in the CAFE law. End result is we did not really get anyplace. Good law that one. And this is just an example that everyone can see on the street.
Doug
Doug,
I work for a company who is contracted with a local minucipality to cap and close an old landfill. This landfill was originally built uphill of two of the most beautiful ponds one could ever see, once full of native trout. Active and vibrant wildlife abounded. To some extent a lot of that is still true but was in harms way of pollution. The town was in a bind and simply couldn't afford to close it peoperly.
Beleieve me when I tell you, I am quite familiar with the ways of old. Years ago when I was very young I used to fish in these ponds and today I wouldn't think of it. Is there any clear evidence that these ponds are polluted - no, but there is clear evidence that if it were neglected there certainly would have been.
The ignorance in the past that you refer to can clearly be seen in and around the landfill and steps are being taken to prevent it from spreading. What's exasperating is the mind set of town management with regard the potential problem(s).
Years ago swamps and wetlands were prime candidates for dumps. Hey, that swamp aint good for nothin so we'll just bury it in trash. It stinks to high heaven so just cover it up. Follow me? In the spring of the year when I drive to work one can clearly see where now dormant sewer pipes ran across the road into the stream alongside the road.
So are we to continue make the same stupid mistakes?
I recall a commercial back in the 80s. It opened with a view of a beach strewn with litter. An Indian in the background paddling toward the beach, a tear in his eye...........
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
There really isn't much that can be done for the internal combustion engine fueled by gasoline, diesel, methanol, any other alcohol or combination there of, to increase fuel economy.
Modern engines, with the electronic controls burn fuel, as efficiently as possible. They adjust the amount of fuel to match the load and air flow continuously, to minimize unburned fuels.
The only hope on the engine front for increasing fuel economy is the variable configuration systems that some manufacturers are working on where in some cylinder are shut down when full power is not needed.
The real solutions are through alternate fuels, and changes in lifestyle.
My ex "needed" a Suburban, about as much as I "need" a dozen donuts for breakfast. She also doesn't need a 4000-SF house, that is poorly sited, poorly designed, and poorly built, (so it takes huge quantities of energy to heat and cool), that is twenty miles from everything she does, so she is driving a minimum of 60 to 70 miles per day.
She also doesn't need to keep the energy inefficient house at 70 degrees 24/7/365.
The problem is she is typical of far too many Americans.
And, there are good solutions that would help all Americans cut down on their energy footprint. Smaller, well designed homes that are suited to their environment would be a good start. But then we wouldn't have enough space to keep all the rest of what we buy that we don't need.
The soil temperature at five feet of depth is equal to the mean air temperature for the last five years. In Las Vegas, that is 71-degrees. So, banked earth homes and structures, and even underground houses would be an environmentally sound style of construction. Problem is, they are banned by the development code. But they do allow "Spanish" and "Mediterranean", or even Cape Cod style homes, with 2x4 construction and minimum insulation, even though they have more heating cooling degree days.
The US used to have a fine rail road system for the transport of freight. But through the public subsidization of the trucking industry, (by allowing them to pay less in fuel taxes and fees, than the actually cost of the damage they do to the roads and highway system), we forced the railroads into bankruptcy, and all the local spur lines were abandoned to save costs. A freight train is far fuel more efficient in terms of ton-miles than trucks could ever hope to be, yet the majority of freight is shipped by truck and not rail. If the trucking industry actually had to pay their true portion of the cost to build and maintain the roadways, the vast majority of long haul freight would go by rail.
There are a lot of choices most Americans make every day, that are environmentally unsound. Better choices can and should be made. But, people need to learn what the real options are, and also learn the real cost of the decisions.
The US used to have a fine rail road system for the transport of freight. ...........
That is so. My feeling is between big auto/truck labor and big auto/truck business, they worked hard to put the railroads asunder. Round here, they've ripped out most of the rail tracks. That was one helluva right-of-way to give up.
But our major highway system hasn't improved much over that time. Whenever I'm on the slabs, I seem to be spending more time sitting still.
Well I will disagree with most of the Car industries having a hand in the death of rail. Just the obvious problem with that is when railroads still where big (in the 50s) GM had most of the railroad engine buisness (it owns EMD one of the two surviving engine builders in North America)
But the fact that the roads were cheep and you could get a small load (and a truck is a small load compared to a rail car) anyplace you want it was just to attractive.
Heck around here they are using large long haul type trucks to deliver pop and such to the local drug store, talk about a using more fuel and damaging the roads.
And while I do not think we are perfect we are getting better. As for updating the IC Engine dream on it is about as far as it can go. We may trick it out a bit and we can make smaller vehicles but we will not be seeing double the fuel mileage unless the cars get a lot smaller. As for replacing it, well that is a swell idea, to bad we have not seen a new way of powering much of anything in the last 50 to a hundred years.
And as for things like Hydrogen, please keep in mind that these are really storage devices not energy sources. It takes a LOT of energy to make hydrogen in the first place.
So their are things we can do (and some of them we can do almost anytime we want) but it needs to be a slow steady move that will sustain itself and the people, not a balls to the wall charge into it and d@#M the cost to people and their lives.
Doug
Doug,
I think there was a lot more than the auto industry involved with the demise of railroads albeit they had a lot to gain.
Consider the potential number of engines with everything traveling down the highway versus those traveling down rails. The increased consumption of oil/fuel. Big auto makers and oil makers were surely all smiles.
And of course, along about this time wasn't Ike going hell bent for leather to make the Interstate System a reality.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Oh, interstates killed rail not doubt about it. I just do not think that the big three played a very big part of that. Heck until sometime in the 70s and 80s long after most of the kill off happened the big three still got huge amount so parts via rail (and still to a degree to today)
No the death of the rail roads was from a couple things. First off they all converted to diesels way to fast. By this I mean that they converted their large fleets of engines over as fast as they could buy the new diesels and they financed a huge amount of money to do this. They did this based on the faulty idea that the amount of traffic they had during the war years would keep up (well that was pretty obviously not going to happen) Then we had the government saying they needed to keep passenger trains running when no one wanted to used them (thinks to the cars and the big three in part) Now on top of that we had the post office pull its mail off trains and put it on trucks and what little money that could be made on passenger trains (the mail typically rain on passenger trains in special cars) was also gone. So what do we do? We make Amtrak and make the railroads in the early 70s pay to get into it so they could give up losing a lot of money on passenger trains after losing a lot of money on them for about 20 years.
Now on top of this we have unions that are not helping much (every wonder why we have a Fireman in an engine that does not have a fire?) And of course we have people that just do not like the railroads so they are inclined to do anything to get ride of them. Also we have industry going to Just on time delivery and that works better with trucks.
Of course their was a lot of investment needed in rebuilding the railroads Most of them having been built sometime between 1860 and 1920, meant they were in the 70 50 to 90 years old and that means time to replace bridges and such. But they had to do it on their own. And of course if they wanted to move the rail over a bit to build the new bridge while the old one was still standing this tended to have every anti railroad and environmentalist up in arms. So it was expensive and took a long time. Meanwhile uncle sam is building these nice roads and not making the trucks pay their fair share. Heck in Michigan we where so concerned with making sure that the trucks could bring in as much as they could carry that we raised the weight limit on them to help fight those evil nasty #### types. I expect once we have defeated them that we will lower the temporary weight increase back to something that will do a little less damage to the roads.
So their are a LOT of things that caused the death of the railroads, but truthfully the big three did not have much to do with this. They just went to trucks like everyone else because it was economical to do so. No conspiracy involved. As for big oil. Well I am sure they love the idea of trucks and they may have had something to do with it (and sure had something to gain from it) but I really do not know of anything. I think this was just a good example of the government doing something and it having results that no one expected. On the other hand I have read in some of my military stuff that Ike wanted to get trucks to become big because from a military stand point they are better in a time of war. They can carry many things in many directions not just where the tracks run, and they work better when under attack as it is simpler to fix or reroute a road then a train track. So he (supposedly) preferred trucks.
Now if you want a conspiracy you can look the the feds. Durring WWI they created the USRA to run all the railroads and did not want to let the companies take them back after the war was over. So when the owners basically forced the government to give them back their railroads the government (or at least parts of it) was not happy with the railroads. Then 20 or so years latter we get the interstate, and a lot of laws that seam to favor the truck over the trains. Was this the government getting back at the trains? I doubt it but we will never really know as all the players are long dead.
Doug Meyer
I understand what you're saying.
That is because the fuels taxes that fund the highway system haven't been raised since the seventies. They bring in less than half the money required to maintain the system, and nothing is left to build new infrastructure. McCain and Clinton have both come out saying we should have a fuel tax holiday for six months. There isn't enough money to maintain the system, and they want to cut the funds in half. I'm not a big fan of most taxes, but there are some, such as the fuels taxes to build and maintain roads that make sense. Those who buy fuels drive on the roads, the fuels tax revenue builds and maintains those roads.
One of those little know facts is that the trucks do in the high ninety percent level of the damage, and pay roughly 10% of the taxes. Had they been taxed appropriately the rail system would be far more extensive than it is today.
Good point.
Jigs,
Well said, especially about the rail system, another dumb decision.
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
There are a lot of choices most Americans make every day, that are environmentally unsound. Better choices can and should be made. But, people need to learn what the real options are, and also learn the real cost of the decisions.
Very well stated.
There are a lot of choices most Americans make every day, that are environmentally unsound. Better choices can and should be made. But, people need to learn what the real options are, and also learn the real cost of the decisions.
Very well stated.
Yes that was very well stated and I agree. This is one of the reasons I say a lot of people really are not into saving the world but trying to control what people do. I say that because their are a lot of things we could change that would have little impact on society but would help the environment and these are NOT the ones being pushed by the backers of the save the world movement. Also a big issue is that it is hard to make a case for this when you have the more obvious spokes people (self appointed I might add) who obviously are not doing what they could, and that do not care about the costs of what they are doing as they can afford anything they want.
As for the talk about the 4000 sq ft house. That is nice but when you have someone living in one of the largest houses in the US using more energy then almost all the houses in the US use talking about saving energy it kind of gets lost on the average Joe.
I mean it sounds like "well I have this huge house, and use tons of energy and drive in limos and fly in jets all over the place because I am rich and special, but you peons over their need to start saving energy and I think we should pass laws making it so expensive that you have no choice but that I with my millions will not really be effected by." This is the type of thing to get people really moving against the whole green thing.
As for building green. This is MUCH harder and a LOT more expensive them most people would like you to belive. Trust me I design houses and small businesses for a living and I just built a couple years ago a new house. It got so expensive and became so much of a hassle that I pretty much dumped all the green out of it as I was running out of time and money. Hard to justify the cost of solar energy to electrical for instance and the pain it would have been to get approval for a water system to collect rain water for use in even outdoor systems like sprinklers was beyond understanding. And the cost was nuts to. It would have taken me something like 15 years to come close to break even on the water system. And the electrical was just as bad.
I also looked into a wind generator (I have a lot of wind at my place) but once again cost and the government (you have to keep it as far away from your property line as it is tall for instance) laws just make it a non starter.
Once we have changed these laws and done things to help bring the cost down (cheep government backed loans and tax credits for instance) then I will believe that we are really interested in helping save the world vs just trying to tell people how to live.
Doug Meyer
Very real, very astute observations.
Denny
Umm, how old are you? I dont need to look this up I remember this. I remember sci fi books about it (a lot of them) I remember peaple talking about it on TV shows (I would say things like Nova but dont hold me to that) I recall some peaple in some of the mags such as popular sciance and such doing articals about it.
Is this like asking someone that was in Europe in WWII and saw the concentration camps to show them where they got thier info? Like I said I remember this.
Doug
Older than you.
Like I said, if you just relied on the popular press, you might have seen some articles suggesting a New Ice Age, or some such thing. (I think Carl Sagan said something to that effect in one of the episodes of Cosmos.) But if you look at the publications of the scientists who were actually doing the work, there's nothing to suggest any kind of scientific consensus of an overall cooling trend, and in fact much to suggest exactly the opposite. The paper I cited concluded that of papers published during the 1970's, those whose results indicated warming outnumbered those whose results indicated cooling by roughly 10 to 1.
Not that you would be interested in learning anything new, but the paper contains lots of references to both the scientific literature and the popular press of the time.
-Steve
Doug,I did not intend to blast you. Apologies.Chris---
Chris Scholz
Dallas/Fort Worth, TX
Galoot-Tools
. Hey, well said doug, I am not going to all of a sudden feel guilty about me. every carbon based lifeform has a "footprint'. I really don't think that matters all too much. At least there are things being addressed now. we didin't run out of trees yet ,we have replaced many. we are trying to conserve resources,companies are talking but I am not going to feel guilty about how I live . If my kid needs a diaper, I need to buy a bottle of milk .I m buying it. why not ask the Al Gore and Oprah types to stop using resources to build 50,000 sq. ft. house that they don't use. fly in Jets evry day!! imagine-flying every day?? how's that for carbon footprint !!
V,
Yes indeed. The planet cares not a bit about we humans. In fact, the notion of "care" or even "notion" might be inapproriate when thinking of what the planet may or may not do in the future. If there is a Gaia it seems unlikely to be a nice mommy-figure or to have any human attributes at all, such as thinking, caring, approving or admonishing.
Moreover, it is very unlikey that we can predict the planet's future doings, although we might note trends. When we posit causes for these trends we are probably just making up stories. "Causes" might not be the right notion, as in such a complex system as a life-hosting planet it becomes impossible to identify all the contributing facors; and impossible squared to understand how such factors interact.
Of course, some events are so great that they do indeed become a cause, sweeping all other influences aside at least temporarily. Hopefully there will be no global nuclear exchange, large meteor or eruption of Yellowstone's caldera just yet.
So, one prefers to follow one's natural inclination to conserve, be economic, avoid polluting and refrain from harming other entities just for fun or outrageous profit. If these are also factors in keeping the planet comfortable for we humans, all well and good - but that's not why I feel this way.
If global warming or other messing up of the biosphere doesn't get us, then the Next Big War, pandemic, economic meltdown or similar will. And if there is no such disaster tomorrow, the vast increase in populations will make sure there is one the day after. That Malthus had a point. Then there are the ideological men, with their political systems, religions and other mad schemes. Many are quite insistent that a few million humans need to be sacrificed on their altars......
Personally I hide in the shed and hope that what has been a very lucky life so far continues for a bit yet. I try not to burn too many lights or leave the TS running withut a plank to cut. This saves electricity, leaving more money for tool-toys. I cannot claim it is saving the planet. I make furniture to last, whether it will or not.
Meanwhile, clever, busy scientists and engineers are, in their own large sheds, hopefully building the first trans-galactic ship......
Lataxe, awaiting his unknowable fate and passing the time quite well.
A few brief points, respectfully offered:<!----><!----><!---->
Al Gore don't need no money.<!----><!---->
Since when has having money impacted greed. It's not the having but the getting. Second, take a look at Mr Gores wealth since he left office and you might be surprised<!----><!---->
This planet wasn't built for us, as our Judeo-Christian heritage leads us to believe. We're just one of the animals that got lucky enough to evolve here. We have no special privileges in Mother Earth's eyes.<!----><!---->
Hey man I value all creatures. Did you not see my picture? They all have a place next to the mashed potatoes!<!----><!---->
The word "ignorance comes from "ignore". The evidence that we're messin up the planet is staring us in the face.<!----><!---->
Evidence is a risky word here dude. One of the famous quotes I heard once that stuck with me was "There is lies, damn lies, then there is statistics" There was evidence a few years back that dow-corning silicone was making people sick, so many people sick that had it it must be the silicone. Put the company out of business. They did one of the most exaustive medical studies(afterwards of course) of patients and found no link to the porduct. Company still out of business, oh well to bad sorry for that! The main part was their intentions were good!<!----><!---->Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Bones,
Point taken, except I know by the following you didn't mean that since we're creatures, too; that we have a place next to the mashed potatoes. So I won't even bring it up. Hey man I value all creatures. Did you not see my picture? They all have a place next to the mashed potatoes
Not only Dow corning, but there's also the guy who made a million claiming he burnt his tongue on his Dunkin Donuts coffee, and the lady who claimed she punctured her eardrum with ear swabs.
LMAO
BINGO!!! to mother earth we are a nusiance,at best, we have created a few problems, which will not make much difference overall. Imagine back when the Us was just animals. probably had volcanoes erupting whenever. unterthered forest fires from lightening strikes, burning trillions of acres,tons and tons of solid particulates, probably for decades. and the tree huggers say I can't burn my leaves!!
I do remember that as kids, in school, we were all going to freeze!!! AGGGHHHHH!!! Now we are going to warm to death! ARGGGHHH!! B**Sh**! I do love that sign. I like my animals- (properly cooked) of course!!
"...and the tree huggers say I can't burn my leaves!!" Tree huggers and asthma sufferers. Although it's costing us money every year because we can no longer burn tree clippings and such, I'm all for the burn ban! Now if I could just get the neighbors to quite burning a cold fireplace, pumping thick smoke out the chimney day in and day out in the winter, life would be so much better.forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
my point of burning leaves was not to burn leaves as such, it was to make a point regarding the dooms=dayers saying we are burning our leaves and causing solid particulate pollution. and my point was nature has been doing that on a grand scale with no ill effects.but,yes I am sure asmatics erywhere would benefit if we didn't but don't ask me to quit farting!!LOL!
"...but don't ask me to quit farting!!" As long as you're not sitting across the living room from me, I wouldn't dream of imposing on you.
My own personal opinion on the global climate change controversy is that anyone who thinks there isn't a problem is probably also a member of the Flat Earth Society (or should be).
forestgirl -- you can take the girl out of the forest, but you can't take the forest out of the girl ;-)
Edited 4/28/2008 11:11 pm by forestgirl
Wine,
I changed my coffee to an organic brand. Does that count?
Is your coffemaker solar powered!?
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
I wonder if the beans scream when you yank them off the tree!!
Actually, a local farmer here is a retired environmental science prof and claims that if we raised beef cattle by "grass farming," we could actually solve many of the environmental problems that we have caused. The message: if you eat meat, eat grass-fed.
Just thought that I'd throw that into this off-topic thread,
Andy
Andy,
I was a veggie for many years, as I didn't care for factory farming methods - neither the hormone-ridden product nor the cruel techniques. Now there has been a great local revival of what might be called old-fashioned farming. I can buy hog and beef that have led a happy life: no weird feeds and allowed to roam or root as their nature takes them.
We eats salt marsh beef from the farm across the Lune Estuary. When walking I can see the happy beasts stuffing their faces with tide-washed turf and various other herbacious plants that grow there. The meat is delicious.
Similarly with the piggies. If I walk down the old Lancaster canal I pass a large field next 'the woods, where porkers root and wallow and the little ones gambol in gangs. They have names and the farmer is sad when he does for them to make a sausage or two.
Not only is the local economy stimulated by my buying this fare but also there are much smaller transportation costs and associated fuel-use. Small matters in which being "green" also gets you a better product. Best of all, the produce is cheaper than the meat sold by large supermarket chains, which came from the other side of the world and might well have had a bad time before it got here. (We can never know).
Lataxe, now complicit in beast-murder (I wis 'ungry, yer 'onour).
Edited 4/28/2008 3:07 pm ET by Lataxe
Lataxe,
My wife and I are also "converts" (reformed from herbivorism) -- we've been eating grass-fed local meat, and pastured chicken, ever since we moved to the land of milk and (meat and) honey (and maple syrup). If you ever make it to the green mountains I will treat you to a feast grown entirely within 40 miles. Most of our food is grown by farmers who are friends of ours (including the prof with his carbon-sequestering "grass farm").
-Andy, sipping milk that hasn't been cooked to death
We would eat grass fed if they fed the beef grass. the beef growers can't make a profit on just grass fed. hormones give you more bag for the buck and the supermarkets can't make enough on the beef, so it is all down to the benjamins again, not me not wanting to do my part.
I understand your point, but they can make a living selling grass-fed if they sell directly to the consumer. It also helps if they circumvent the fed-approved slaughtering facilities by selling "shares" of the animals (while they are still alive) and slaughtering on the farm, where state law permits this to be done. It is impossible to supply McDonald's in this way but I couldn't care less about that.
-Andy
when you read the u.s.d.a guidelines and studies etc. a lot of stuff is geared towards getting beef in quantity to supermarkets, and to keep bacteria levels managable. from what i read they don't dry age too much any more cause of the cost. and shrink wrapping the beef to age it also let's it ship fresher. If there was more local beef procucers it would probably get better.
i priced some of the dry aged steaks and stuff, it is a lot costlier than supermarkets. it annoys me but, I truly cannot afford those prices ,wish i could.
Hi again,The secret is to locate a farm from which you can buy direct. Perhaps there are some huge regional differences, but here in VT I pay an average of $6/lb for grass-fed organic beef shares of 50 lbs -- that includes about 1/2 ground beef and 1/2 steaks and roasts. Grass-fed organic ground beef costs $6/lb in the supermarket here, so from my farmer, I'm essentially getting steaks for the price of hamburger. Everyone's budget is different, of course, but I agree with Lataxe that the cost of buying locally like this is actually cheaper than the supermarket, and I also feel better about the source of the product that I'm eating. I'm also aware that in many areas of the U.S., there unfortunately aren't many local producers like the ones with which we are blessed here, but the numbers are rising. A good way to locate a source like this is to inquire at a summer farmer's market. Often the farmers can sell "shares" for much lower prices than the (packaged) meat that they are required to sell at the market.
Cheers,
Andy
that sounds pretty good. these shares you buy, do you have to get 50lbs. all at once?
Hi,
Yes. You have to pay the farmer up front, while the animal is still alive, so that you are actually a part-owner of the animal. Then it is slaughtered and butchered on the farm (which is allowed since the share-holders are owners of the animals). Finally, depending on the situation, you either pick up your entire share as packets of meat, or, if it is part of a larger CSA program, you get some each week for the duration of the CSA. CSAs are also a way to get excellent value in high quality food, and they also involved buying "shares" of a harvest (of veggies). Sometimes CSAs can include meat, eggs, milk, and cheese, depending on the farm. The idea of the share system is that the consumer acknowledges that agriculture is a risk and pays up front in order to share that risk with the farmer. In return, when things go well, the consumer enjoys high quality produce at a reasonable cost. The farmers like it because they get the money up front, which is useful in the winter when they are placing their seed orders, getting equipment, etc. Everyone benefits from the removal of middlemen, and often wonderful social connections are made. My nearest CSA for veggies is about 1 mile away -- I can ride there on my bike, and my toddler loves going there to play with other kids on our "pick up day."
-Andy
Hi there,
Good for you. I'm a CSA farmer.
Tom
Hi Tom,
Where is your farm located?
Here in VT there seem to be many CSAs, and a couple of them have started experimenting with "winter shares", and with some prepared foods like Sauerkraut or bread made with locally grown grains.
I think it would be cool to extend the CSA concept to lumber!
-Andy
Our CSA (community supported ag) is near Boston, MA. Last in the town and smallest I've ever worked at. (little over an acre) Planted very intensely, we yielded enough to keep 65 shareholders happy, plus farm stand and farmers' mkt sales. Lots of hand work, no room for tractors. Many hours and lots of little tricks to get the most out of the space. Topsoil is magnificent, 2' deep, and getting deeper from applications of manure and compost. No animals yet, except for bees, and educational worms. Maybe chickens and rabbits down the road. (The CSA is only in its 3rd year) Somebody did excellent work with a road killed deer served at our potluck) Pre-ordered meat might be in our future. For veggies we are extending the season both ways, and an unheated winter hoophouse is in the planning phase. We/ve got newly planted large and small fruit.We work with a sister CSA on winter shares. Starting upik flowers this year.
Came with an old barn full of boards I been lookin at. I'll be putting on a class making a 12' round picnic table with them, hand tools only. Kids allowed.
I'm too old to still do full'time fahmin so am part time and seasonal. I'm the assistant fahmah and a young guy is the main one. I'm his mentor, he's my boss.
We're working on making the farm as self sufficient as possible. The "Whole Farm" idea: lowest possible inputs, highest poss output. Plus leaving the land in better condition than we found it.
There's alot of this little, local stuff goin on, it's typically American I think. Individualists getting together, and after venting much hot air, coming up with a good thing that has a positive effect way bigger than the group.
Anyway, we're getting some very nice, much needed rain, settling in all the stuff we've planted this last several weeks.
As you might have guessed, I like talking about the place, and will answer any questions....
Tom
PS contractors drop off trees they've cut down, part of my pay is firewood. and little pieces for the lathe. We might sell firewood in the future. But green lumber is a whole nother thing. Oh, that slippery slope is calling me again!
Edited 4/29/2008 1:28 pm ET by veggiefahmah123
Veg,
Power to you!
But I had to snicker a bit when I read this remark o' yourn:
"Individualists getting together, and ........ coming up with a good thing that has a positive effect way bigger than the group".
I never really understood what an individualist is. I know it seems obvious but if one tries to imagine what a human without shared culture and a society would be, the concept becomes slippery. Whatever we humans are now, a large part of the definition must surely include concepts like "co-operation", "shared values/concepts", "commonly-used institutions", "shared goals" and so forth.
Here we are in Knots, a commonly used institution, sharing woodworking concepts and knowledge in a co-operative fashion using that fine shared value-set the English language. Sometimes we even agree shared goals, such as getting plane blades sharp with oilstones! (Or not).
Of course, wild-eyed men who have seen a lot of Westerns or read too much Ayn Rand will bite and bark at anything with "social" in it, as they think this means "totalitarian leftist State intent on crushing variation, enterprise and selfhood". Your enterprise is a fine example of why this is not the case.
Lataxe, a unique and yet strangely familiar memeplex.
PS Mrs Thatcher told us that "There is no such thing as society" and since she was always Right, the foregoing must all be nonsense.
seen a lot of Westerns or read too much Ayn Rand ..........
What about Zane Grey or Louis L'Amour?
Sounds like a little piece of paradise. Got any pics?
I'll send pics if the boss says it's ok to go public. So much concern for privacy these days. Oh, for the days when kids could run amok around the neigborhood without hurting hardly anything while being safe and asked into the house of a stanger for milk and cookies, and no video games or tv to keep you inside. (Sorry, that's the prescribed red wine talkin)
Tom the fahmah
Hi Tom,
Thanks for sharing. Your farm is unique, and yet it is part of a trend that I see as a very positive movement for the U.S. By the way, upik flowers are one of my family's favorite aspects of our CSA, and many members cite the flowers as one of the main benefits -- having something beautiful to put on your table 20 weeks out of the year. I'm not sure how many acres our CSA is, since it recently expanded when a neighboring farmer retired, but I think that there are around 400 families who are members.
-Andy
why aren't there more of these types of businesses available? that seems like a viable way to purchase good food from good sources,and would help solve the problems of having local economys struggling for revenue. bring backagriculture!! I would shop like that in a heartbeat!!
if I did not like the cold , would be there, sounds like VT has more to offer than just skiing!!
Edited 4/29/2008 7:48 am ET by tcseacliff
There may be a lot more of them around than you are aware of. They aren't big on broadcast advertising. Try visiting your local farmer's market - the ones where the farmers actually sell their own food and you will find a whole world that you didn't know existed.
Just another beautiful spring day in The Great North Woods!
View Image
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
I told you that ur gowanaget wet roads soon ;-)BB
Not sure what/how they work butt you may want to contact: http://www.neoseeker.com/members/profiles/sirstinkalot/
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
"This planet wasn't built for us, as our Judeo-Christian heritage leads us to believe. We're just one of the animals that got lucky enough to evolve here. We have no special privileges in Mother Earth's eyes.-"
'Did you find this written on a rock some where?'
Answer, Nope. Pretty good, huh? Lataxe ain't the only literary genius around here. Just popped into my head unbidden. Had just sat down with my first cuppa, brewed by my own stored hot air.
brewed by my own stored hot air
Now if one could figure out a way to harness/store all the hot air coming out of Washington, DC..............
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
to harness/store all the hot air coming out of Washington..........
They've not built the machine that handle that kind of volume.
Can you imagine though if someone were able to harness the heat from the sun and store it for later use - like next winter!
Certainly wouldn't have to worry about affording a SawStop.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Edited 4/28/2008 3:18 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
Edited 4/28/2008 3:18 pm ET by KiddervilleAcres
One amazing fact about the sun. was watching a show on solar enegy,and the sun produces enough energy,the amount that hits the earth, in two-seconds to run 2 million cars for a year!!would be nice to tp that!!!
wouldn't have to worry about affording a SawStop...........
So solar energy can save my finger?
It was a small blurb on some sci/tech section last year on the ineternet. guess there is nothin too it ,have not herd much boutit (LOL).
I would love to go back to seeing farms and manufactorers in this country,but the cartels involved with our,wars, finances, food and goods, they have other plans for us. we don't control anything in this world, cartels do,all behind the secenes. It is all about the benjamins. If everyone woke up tommorrow and demanded home grown food & made in us goods, WOW< would that be a site! we will have to reverse the trend over time.
If were gonig to farm again and make steel again and manufacture again,better hurry seems like other countries are buying so much us property there won't be any lerft to do what we used to do. It is all money. if there is not enough profit ,they won't do it. years ago you grew food to eat,share then maybe sell. thie big problem was we could not sustain the quality when the rest of the turds of the world thought nothing of it and undercut the crap out of the us.
I was cleaning my work bench and found a pile of paint can openers,all said - made in china,china,china,etc, then I thought how pissed the japanese must be when all they read now is made in china?? they must be sayin hey, how come we don't see nothin made in japan no more???? lol, hey, japan, your turn in the barrel!!!!
I was referreing to the coffee beans, I thought they were coffee trees , my bad
Hey Mel, this thread is up to 122! Best keep an eye on it.
And, of course, the second paragraph of the article reads:
"However, temperatures will again be rising quickly by about 2020, they say."
Thank you for presenting a perfect example of the fallacy of relying on headlines.
-Steve
Did you actually read the article? You're acting as if this is Big News, some kind of revolutionary change in thinking. As you would know if you had read the article, to climate researchers this is no big deal, pretty much business as usual. It's only when people who don't understand how science works get involved do controversies get concocted out of thin air.
-Steve
Hey Steve, you mean Algore (the scientist)?
I don't understand the question. When did I ever claim that Al Gore was a scientist? When did I ever advocate getting info from Al Gore?
Just another example of concocting something from nothing. Your lack of credibility is showing....
-Steve
I never made the claim that you DID advocate him. I was making a wisecrack (which I am known to do). I have always treated you with respect, and what you said to me is a real cheap shot.
And your wisecrack wasn't???
-Steve
Believe what you wish on this post. And name one time I have not been respectful and helpful with you.
Edited 5/1/2008 1:59 pm ET by blewcrowe
hey saschafer, you never said Al Gore is a scientist, algore and all his a**hole minions have said he is a scientist. If al gore said it, it must be true!!! he is the male Oprah!!
As you would know if you had read the article, to climate researchers this is no big deal, pretty much business as usual. It's only when people who don't understand how science works get involved do controversies get concocted out of thin air.
There are lots of people who understand how science works, but have no expertise in climate change science who create controversies as well. While a 'scientist' is better equipped than the average Joe, in the end it's an area of expertise in which most don't have a clue. In the end most are no better than the average person.
What's your expertise in the field of climate change?
"What's your expertise in the field of climate change?"
I have a Ph.D. in semiconductor physics. I have been a physics professor (Oklahoma State University), during which time my principal area of research was modeling the interaction of light (mostly laser light) with biological tissues, for both diagnostic and therapeutic applications. One example of my work is a publication in which I presented a novel approach to improving the computation efficiency of light modeling, which you can find here (unfortunately, while you can read the abstract for free, I think you have to pay for the full text). Another paper, in which I developed a new model for light/tissue interaction during laser fragmentation of gallstones, is here. I have also done computer modeling of electromagnetic fields within cyclotrons, used for producing short-lived radioisotopes for positron emission tomography (PET) scanners.
So while I have not personally engaged in climate research, I do have quite a bit of expertise in computer modeling (e.g., Monte Carlo simulations, finite element models, etc.) and statistical analysis, which together comprise a large part of climate research. And I do occasionally read (and understand!) some of the climate papers published in journals such as Science and Nature (admittedly, not as often as I should, but there are only so many hours in the day).
-Steve
Steve,
Very good. I did some computer modeling of charged particles in EM fields during my undergraduate degree... Its the reason I decided to become a geophysicist, and avoid the academic world.
I think as scientists we should be careful to avoid presenting ourselves as experts in fields that we are not (intentionally or not). My field of science is obviously very involved in the climate debate, however I'll gladly admit that it is outside my area of expertise.
I recently attended a talk and the speaker brought up two concerns with the computer models. Maybe you have an opinion:
- Computer models did not factor in water vapor as a greenhouse gas. His claim was that it was too variable, so it was excluded from models. My own readings have shown that it seems water vapor is assumed to be a positive feedback mechanism, and that it assumes a constant relative humidity... (As temp goes up, the air is able to hold more water vapor.)
- His second issue was the lifespan of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's not a well known number. The range he gave was 5-200 years, my own research shows 20-200 years (often depending on the slant of the article). That a 1000% error...
Any comments?
The emotions and sensitivities seem to be running a tad on the high side, don't they?
That's funny. That's what I've been doing off and on today.
Up to my arse in alligators today. Had the water line coming into the house from the municipal system break just outside the wall. Thank heavens I had some help to share in the digging. 6' down and a slop mudhole. Got 'er fixed though. But my missus aint gonna let me back in the house in my condition. <g>
Now, shall we return to our regularly scheduled wisecracks?
An entertaining thread. All completely pointless of course, for in the end the world will carry on, either with humans, or without.
I suspect Earth, the Sun, the solar system and the galaxy, etc, doesn't give a rat's arse if we all die off. It'll just carry on revolving around the Sun for a bit longer, either with us or without us, and it'll still have weather systems.
We're only worried about climate change for very small and selfish reasons. So what if 99% of the human population dies off? I bet the planet wouldn't mind, and we're not important anyway. We only think we're important. Slainte.
Richard Jones Furniture
Richard,
"We only think we're important".
Shurely shome mishtake!?
I am Very Important, in the shed at least. I admit, no one takes a ha'porth of notice of me outside of the shed but when I'm in there the audience hangs on my every word! (I am the shed-audience as well as the shed-lecturer, you see). I know there are several Even More Important persons here in Knots, because they have said they are; and in some cases that galaxy you mentioned actually revolves around them, or so they believe.
Now, the shed is probably the only place in the universe where things are good and sensible. Outside it is chaos, with all sorts of mad blokes going about their incomprehensible business. Also, Mother Nature is definitely a looney - look at all then tornados and lighting strikes.
Well, that's my theory and I'm sticking to it - until the Big Wave comes and washes away shed, cat, hoosey and even me, although I shall try to surf the bugger, naturally. (I'm hoping it's going to be a big wave and not that Black Death or an army of mechanical men with nasty red eyes or some end-timer with a nuclear button or ......).
Lataxe, probaby just a dust mote in A Great Vast Place after all.
You mean .............. Brittany Spears not using underwear is NOT going to affect the fate of the earth?
I'm shattered. Devastated.
Yeah that is not a bad picture of what happened. It is a little simple, and while Hitler may have had the idea of using the Autobahn that way it did not really happen. As he did not have big trucks, he did not have may trucks, the Autobahn did not go to the places it should have for that and it did not cover very much of the country but it was a start. On the other Hand Ike did build the US system because he like what his troops had been able to do with moving things on the Autobahn. To bad that in the US the system was so big that in order to be able to afford it, we had to build it on the cheep. (and for some reason still do) so it does not hold up well, add in a LOT heavy trucks and you have the mess of the US interstate.
And of course no one considered the demise of the rail roads and the increase in use of trucks as a bad thing back then.
Doug
Jim,
Just so you'd know I'm doin me best for the environment too. Just got this before it was lost to the landfill. Methinks it's Western Red Cedar
View Image
View Image
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Wine,
Do you think there’s a problem with attention deficiency here? :>
Is the Earth round? Just got the car registered and went shopping. Does anyone have a square? Nice day if it don't rain. Is ADD hereditary?
Ooopps, must be catching!
Eeegads I'm not sure.
Oh yeah, on the way to work I was thinking that if I could q-saw it up might make a good base for the cylinder in the secretary? I will try to focus my thoughts in a more cohesive manner; on the blackboard 100 times.
Regards,
Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Wine,
"and stick our heads between our legs. Like that was going to help. :>"
That's where you are wrong. It is a very helpful position to take in any dire emergency. That way, when the worst happens, you only have to purse your lips, to kiss your sweet a$$ goodbye.
Ray
Ray,
Former military or voice of experience!?
:-)
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
Bob,
Personal experience, tho I did watch a war movie once.
Ray
Ray,
I hear ya, I was in the National Guard............
Regards,Bob @ Kidderville Acres
A Woodworkers mind should be the sharpest tool in the shop!
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled