Home Page link

For the global warming agnostics

Home| Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 2 of 3       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
For the global warming agnostics Michael Bulatovich 01-07-2008
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Edgar on January 10, 2008, 4:16 pm
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>>> http://climatedebatedaily.com/
>>>>
>>>> Spend a little time at http://www.climateaudit.org and you'll
>>>> quickly realize that there is much of the stuff listed under
>>>> "Climate Debate Daily" "Calls to action" is severely flawed.
>>>
>>> Have been there.
>>>
>>>> Also much of it isn't climate related, but based on zero growth
>>>> theories.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002
>>>
>>> This is more or less my short term position on the issue. I have
>>> quite a bit of confidence in homo sapiens sapiens' ability to adapt,
>>> but I still grieve for the irretrievable losses. My gut tells me we
>>> are at least partially responsible....
>>>
>>
>> THe problem is that Global Warming and Pollution have become
>> interchangeable. They aren't - related, yes; interchangeable, no.
>>
>> There is no doubt whatsoever that pollution causes damage, not only to
>> other species, but to humans as well. Dealing with pollution, trying
>> to reduce it, is important to human health, as well as to trying to
>> preserve some semblance of environmental balance, and natural beauty.
>>
>> If we decreased pollution, one can argue that it would also help slow
>> or decrease global warming, at least, whatever part of it that is
>> anthropogenic.
>>
>> What pisses me off is idiots who whine and kvetch that "global warming
>> is a myth!" and then use that as an excuse to crap up as much of the
>> environment as they possibly can. Regardless of whether one "beleives
>> in" global warming, the fact is that pollution is *known* to be
>> detrimental to the health and well-being of biological entities
>> (including humans). And there are prob. peoblems from it that haven't
>> yet been discovered.
>>
>> The whole global warming thing aside, what the heck is wrong with
>> reducing pollution, when inmproving the environemnt would improve our
>> (and our descendents') own health and well-being? That's what I don't
>> comprehend - why people blither and yowl as though pollution is great.
>>
>>
>
> I concur. I live in a place where the predominant airflow comes off the
> Coral Sea and hence the South Pacific. Should be the freshest air
> anywhere. No one out there dumping shit in the atmosphere eh? On the
> other hand, The place is in danger of becoming a polluters paradise. They
> come to town, get out the idiot meter, and it goes off the dial. There is
> a strong possibility that nickel and other ores are regularly being
> spilled on arrival at the port, along with airborn pollution from
> transport and processing. There is a problem of black "dust" which is a
> complex cocktail of lead, zinc, silicas and moulds. The mould is probably
> tricodesmium, naturally occurring as 'red tides' but maybe being modified
> by the brew ?. With the coastal drift, everyone gets a bit, and the main
> city water containment is downwind of one of the processing plants -
> which is known to release cadmium ...

Someone in another forum I visit is always going on about the "soot". He
makes some pretty valid arguments about soot vs carbon, but in the end it is
a combination of all those things.

--
Edgar



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Posted by Kris Krieger on January 10, 2008, 5:20 pm

>
>>
>>>
>>>> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>>> http://climatedebatedaily.com/
>>>>
>>>> Spend a little time at http://www.climateaudit.org and you'll
>>>> quickly realize that there is much of the stuff listed under
>>>> "Climate Debate Daily" "Calls to action" is severely flawed.
>>>
>>> Have been there.
>>>
>>>> Also much of it isn't climate related, but based on zero growth
>>>> theories.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002
>>>
>>> This is more or less my short term position on the issue. I have
>>> quite a bit of confidence in homo sapiens sapiens' ability to adapt,
>>> but I still grieve for the irretrievable losses. My gut tells me we
>>> are at least partially responsible....
>>>
>>
>> THe problem is that Global Warming and Pollution have become
>> interchangeable. They aren't - related, yes; interchangeable, no.
>>
>> There is no doubt whatsoever that pollution causes damage, not only
>> to other species, but to humans as well. Dealing with pollution,
>> trying to reduce it, is important to human health, as well as to
>> trying to preserve some semblance of environmental balance, and
>> natural beauty.
>>
>> If we decreased pollution, one can argue that it would also help slow
>> or decrease global warming, at least, whatever part of it that is
>> anthropogenic.
>>
>> What pisses me off is idiots who whine and kvetch that "global
>> warming is a myth!" and then use that as an excuse to crap up as much
>> of the environment as they possibly can. Regardless of whether one
>> "beleives in" global warming, the fact is that pollution is *known*
>> to be detrimental to the health and well-being of biological entities
>> (including humans). And there are prob. peoblems from it that
>> haven't yet been discovered.
>>
>> The whole global warming thing aside, what the heck is wrong with
>> reducing pollution, when inmproving the environemnt would improve our
>> (and our descendents') own health and well-being? That's what I
>> don't comprehend - why people blither and yowl as though pollution is
>> great.
>>
>>
>
> I concur. I live in a place where the predominant airflow comes off
> the Coral Sea and hence the South Pacific.

Oh my but that sounds deliciously exotic <G!>

ANyhoo, you point out:

> Should be the freshest air
> anywhere. No one out there dumping shit in the atmosphere eh? On the
> other hand, The place is in danger of becoming a polluters paradise.
> They come to town, get out the idiot meter, and it goes off the dial.
> There is a strong possibility that nickel and other ores are regularly
> being spilled on arrival at the port, along with airborn pollution
> from transport and processing. There is a problem of black "dust"
> which is a complex cocktail of lead, zinc, silicas and moulds. The
> mould is probably tricodesmium, naturally occurring as 'red tides' but
> maybe being modified by the brew ?. With the coastal drift, everyone
> gets a bit, and the main city water containment is downwind of one of
> the processing plants - which is known to release cadmium ...

That's disgusting. IMO ther eis no excuse - it's just laziness.




Posted by Michael Bulatovich on January 10, 2008, 6:02 pm

>
>>
>>> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>> http://climatedebatedaily.com/
>>>
>>> Spend a little time at http://www.climateaudit.org and you'll quickly
>>> realize that there is much of the stuff listed under "Climate Debate
>>> Daily" "Calls to action" is severely flawed.
>>
>> Have been there.
>>
>>> Also much of it isn't climate related, but based on zero growth
>>> theories.
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002
>>
>> This is more or less my short term position on the issue. I have quite
>> a bit of confidence in homo sapiens sapiens' ability to adapt, but I
>> still grieve for the irretrievable losses. My gut tells me we are at
>> least partially responsible....
>>
>
> THe problem is that Global Warming and Pollution have become
> interchangeable. They aren't - related, yes; interchangeable, no.

The current Canadian government tried to use the substitution of pollution
reduction (smog) for carbon emissions in a relation to Kyoto targets. That
drove me nuts. Smog is one thing, runaway greenhouse effect is another. Now
that it is so oligopolistic, mainstream media is failing us as the fourth
estate.

I appreciate now more than ever our relatively robust public broadcaster,
www.cbc.ca. They might be shallow botoxed fools, but they're *our* shallow
botoxed fools, and at least Murdoch doesn't sign their checks.



Posted by Kris Krieger on January 21, 2008, 5:38 pm

>
>>
>>>
>>>> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>>> http://climatedebatedaily.com/
>>>>
>>>> Spend a little time at http://www.climateaudit.org and you'll
>>>> quickly realize that there is much of the stuff listed under
>>>> "Climate Debate Daily" "Calls to action" is severely flawed.
>>>
>>> Have been there.
>>>
>>>> Also much of it isn't climate related, but based on zero growth
>>>> theories.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002
>>>
>>> This is more or less my short term position on the issue. I have
>>> quite a bit of confidence in homo sapiens sapiens' ability to adapt,
>>> but I still grieve for the irretrievable losses. My gut tells me we
>>> are at least partially responsible....
>>>
>>
>> THe problem is that Global Warming and Pollution have become
>> interchangeable. They aren't - related, yes; interchangeable, no.
>
> The current Canadian government tried to use the substitution of
> pollution reduction (smog) for carbon emissions in a relation to Kyoto
> targets. That drove me nuts. Smog is one thing, runaway greenhouse
> effect is another. Now that it is so oligopolistic, mainstream media
> is failing us as the fourth estate.

I don;t even think it's that - I think it's the general reduction of
quality (and intelligence) in journalism. THere are a lot fo news
stories that sound to me like some crappy little report that any 78th-
grader could write after spending maybe a half-hour on the internet. The
level of both writing and research has been steadily decreasing. IWO,
what I suspect is that very *very* few people in the mainstream media
have any idea whatsoever of what the difference is between smog, and
greenhouse gasses. They just repeat what someone else said or wrote, and
if that someone was a dooflolly, well.....


>
> I appreciate now more than ever our relatively robust public
> broadcaster, www.cbc.ca. They might be shallow botoxed fools, but
> they're *our* shallow botoxed fools, and at least Murdoch doesn't sign
> their checks.
>
>
>


Posted by Michael Bulatovich on January 21, 2008, 7:28 pm

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>>>>>> http://climatedebatedaily.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> Spend a little time at http://www.climateaudit.org and you'll
>>>>> quickly realize that there is much of the stuff listed under
>>>>> "Climate Debate Daily" "Calls to action" is severely flawed.
>>>>
>>>> Have been there.
>>>>
>>>>> Also much of it isn't climate related, but based on zero growth
>>>>> theories.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=164002
>>>>
>>>> This is more or less my short term position on the issue. I have
>>>> quite a bit of confidence in homo sapiens sapiens' ability to adapt,
>>>> but I still grieve for the irretrievable losses. My gut tells me we
>>>> are at least partially responsible....
>>>>
>>>
>>> THe problem is that Global Warming and Pollution have become
>>> interchangeable. They aren't - related, yes; interchangeable, no.
>>
>> The current Canadian government tried to use the substitution of
>> pollution reduction (smog) for carbon emissions in a relation to Kyoto
>> targets. That drove me nuts. Smog is one thing, runaway greenhouse
>> effect is another. Now that it is so oligopolistic, mainstream media
>> is failing us as the fourth estate.
>
> I don;t even think it's that - I think it's the general reduction of
> quality (and intelligence) in journalism. THere are a lot fo news
> stories that sound to me like some crappy little report that any 78th-
> grader could write after spending maybe a half-hour on the internet. The
> level of both writing and research has been steadily decreasing. IWO,
> what I suspect is that very *very* few people in the mainstream media
> have any idea whatsoever of what the difference is between smog, and
> greenhouse gasses. They just repeat what someone else said or wrote, and
> if that someone was a dooflolly, well.....

We only differ as to the root cause of it, with you thinking it a bit more
innocent than me.



Page 2 of 3       < 1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
Architecture live webcast on global warming and design until 3:30 pm EST 2/20 February 20, 2007, 1:43 pm
Just in case this global warming thing gets outta hand.... June 12, 2007, 9:31 am

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap