A woman called my show yesterday when we were discussing Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth." We were praising the film, and she called to urge us and our listeners to "educate" ourselves.
We gave her 60 seconds to tell us where we had gone wrong, and all she could say was, "you just don't know what you're talking about. Read JunkScience.com, and you'll learn the truth. Al Gore is full of crap. You'll see."
So we did.
JunkScience.com claims, among other things, that recycling is actually detrimental to the environment; DDT is good, because it fights Malaria; low-level radiation exposure may be beneficial, as evidenced by Chernobyl's aftermath; Ethanol (E85) should not be offered as an alternative to fossil fuels; limitations should not be levied upon industrial/agricultural CO2 emissions, because CO2 is good; and, of course, Al Gore, along with countless scientists and scholars around the world, is full of shit.
What do you think? (And, ZT-In-Heat, I know it's all scientology's fault.)
Okay, firstly I will say that that site looks... shall we say, "unregulated", both in its visual presentation and the manner (i.e. wording) in which it expresses its content. So right off the bat I'm a little suspicious.
Now secondly, I've never really taken a stance on global warming, because I realized early on that I didn't know shit about it (and yes, let's be honest, I didn't really care, either). I continue to hold this stance. I did take an environmental science class back during Running Start, and the teacher's opinion, while it was not aggressively hard-core opposed to the people that spoke out against global warming, was still basically in support of the theory. That's the limit of my experience with it. So uh... basically what I'm trying to say is I have little to no opinon on this. I guess.
The problem with E85, is that it is made from corn, requires a shit load of chemicals to grow, and consumes more energy than it produces. Sugar based is much better.
Global warming, is maybe .1 of a degree in warming. Woooooooo! The fact is, earth goes from ice ages, to totally tropical (ie no ice caps and the antarctic being TROPICAL). I am not saying it is good to pump crap into the environment...but I am really not sure we could screw things up. One might argue that global warming is simply a fact of better and more accurate measurement. And guess what, warmer, equals wetter, and if it is CO2 based...guess what love hot, moist, and CO2...everything GREEN, ie plants, trees, and algae.
DDT *might* be bad for birds, but studies go both ways. Used properly...like by South Africa...and you get almost no malaria deaths, but if you use any ddt, you get no UN money...they went on their own.
The big new movement is against chlorine. The fact is it is the only way to safely disinfect water...and guess what, deliver water (ie PVC pipes...the C=Chlorine. So Green Peace want to kill the third world with cholera, dysentery, AND malaria.
The problem is the arguments have a grain of truth or logic...but it is all forgotten and lost in the hysteria.
Global warming is a pretty serious issue. Although it does not seem like it is having a huge effect, it really is. It warms bodies of water and hurricanes strengthen in warm water. It's so important to fight global warming or else hurricanes like wilma and rita could be much more common.
Mandee...are you telling me that the earth has never been warmer than it is now? Do you think we are heading into an ice age (like they thought we were up to 30 years ago...because the previous 30 years were the COLDEST on record or are we heading out of one...it is one or the other. A pendulum never stops, it goes from one extreme (miles of ice above where I type from right now) to the other (no ice caps at all).
The fact is the earth swings from ice age to tropical age. We have been somewhere in the middle for a long time. I think that stopping global warming would be like stopping an earthquake. When it comes to some things that happen on this planet, we are just a passenger along for the ride. The petty timeframe of humans does not matter when it comes to geological time.
That is not to say that humans can not affect any change on the environment...all the NOx SOx that was pumped into the air caused acid rain that had wide impact - that was very un-natural. I just do not think that pumping any amount of CO2 into the air is going to do that much...even with deforestation (while we might have taken trees down...we also have a lot of highly concentrated plant life like never before...ie farms). It is a little like trying to kill someone with oxygen, or a fish by thowing water at it. Sure, it can be done...water is a dangerous solvent, oxygen is a nasty poison and incredible reactive...but it is not exactly easy.
Also, there are strong arguments that global temperature is based on solar output, which is not a constant.
And, if you believe in global warming...then the only solution is really to go dirty....the more particulate matter released, the worse the cloud/fog cover is, the more the earth reflects solar energy. So one could argue that global warming has been caused *by* the environmental movement.
All that being said...I agree we should not dump crap into the air or water. I like trees. I like clean air. I like small cars, I hate waste...but all these environmentalists strike me the same as Bush and Co using WMD as the reason to invade Iraq. Just because I might agree with the end goals (well, the stated goals, most hard core environmentalists are actually anarchist/communist anti-capitalists that cloak themselves in other issues at heart...they feel the machine of society is broken, and need to affect drastic change, they just now are using new methods...) Where they used to be rabble rousing agitating communists...they are now rabble rousing protest/riot happy anti-capitalists. Same end goal, different package (although, the same general bad hygine...think about the average unwashed hippy, as to the modern dreadlocked WTO protester)
What about the possiblity of Weather Manipulation and Chem Trails? I listen to too much coast to coast am btw
I remember reading somewhere that china manufactured rain for drought infected area's. If that is true, imagine what could be possible from our side of the planet.
I also think global warming is slightly real but in all won't have a long term effect on the planet because the planet will fix itself like it has for the few billion years it's been floating here. The only way its fucked is when a big as asteroid hits us or the sun get's hungry and decides to swallow the planet like Unicron. :)
Now they show a range of variability that you're talking about.... but we're putting so much CO2 into the air that we're going to go way outside of the range for normal (read - by a couple times the historical range).
Also, there are strong arguments that global temperature is based on solar output, which is not a constant.
Of course it follows from solar output but that doesn't mean that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist. You can (and do) have both, ya know.
I know correlation isn't causation but the temperature and CO2 concentrations have historically been strongly correlated. Simple mathematical models and complicated compute simulations show that CO2 concentration not only tracks temperature fluctuations but causes them.
Also, there's this myth that it's just .1 degrees or so. From the research I've seen, models predict a range from a small negative change to a positive change of as much as 5-10 degrees in the global average temperature in the next 50 years (with the most likely scenario being of the order of a few degrees).
Keep in mind that that's the global average increase - most of that increase is in the polar regions (you know, where the ice is) and less is around the equator.
That could have a lot of consequences, including substantially lowering the temperatures in Northern Europe.
The Day After Tomorrow was a flaming turd and had crap science but it was actually based on models that predict that ice melts could cause the Global Conveyor to stop circulating warm water to the North Atlantic. Without that warm water, you don't have warm, moist air heading toward the UK and France (or the rest of Europe, really) and those places can end up as cold as other regions of the same latitude (you know, warm places like Canada, and Alaska).
And, if you believe in global warming...then the only solution is really to go dirty....the more particulate matter released, the worse the cloud/fog cover is, the more the earth reflects solar energy. So one could argue that global warming has been caused *by* the environmental movement.
What kind of bullshit logic is that? We're mucking with the system and causing problems... so the best way to fix things is to muck it up in a different way?
We could substantially reduce our CO2 emissions without decreasing our quality of life in the slightest.
I'm all for skepticism and weighing the body of evidence - the thing is that, despite looking like a debate in the popular press, peer reviewed articles that show evidence for global warming are an overwhelming majority. Yes, there are a few, exceedingly rare, exceptions. It may not be surprising that the authors of those exceptions tend to have an obvious conflict of interest and benefit from claiming that global warming doesn't exist.
As for the whole ADM "lets go energy negative and grow corn for ethanol thing", I wholeheartedly agree with you.
Forget the global warming "debate" for a moment--I can think of about 10 other reasons to curb fossil fuel use/CO2 creation for energy production. Cleaner energy production is just a better way to go as is more efficient design. It's turning into a national security issue. It freaks me out that my dollar only buys be $1.15 Canadian--I miss my $1.64.
I was mowing my lawn tonight with my push mower and a kid walked up to me and said "wouldn't it be easier with a lawn mower?" I replied "this is a lawn mower." The kid said "no--I mean a real lawnmower that makes smoke and noise." So I punched him in his smart mouth. Fucking kids.
Thursday, July 13, 2006 at 7:17 AM Edited Thursday, July 13, 2006 at 7:18 AM
The problem with E85, is that it is made from corn, requires a shit load of chemicals to grow, and consumes more energy than it produces.
I think this is true. I've heard intelligent people say the same thing. My dad's a botantist/agriculture guy and he also thinks this. But if we can find a way to make processing/growing it more efficient, I'm all for it.
Global warming is real (ask any alaskan, their winters were much, much colder a few decades ago, some glaciers melting like mofos), but I'm tired of people crowing about global warming every time we have a hot day. It's july, it's gonna be hot, people. And global warming now officially gets credit for everything that happens in our weather: too cold? severe wethere is caused by global warming. Too snowy? erratic weather from global warming. Too much rain? Global warming evaporates warm ocean water. I'm still more worried about getting killed on the freeway than by terrorists or weather.
All I am saying is that 30 years ago...it was a 'scientific fact' that we were experiencing global cooling, and were going to go into an ice-age.
Today, it is a scientific fact that we are experiencing global warming. What's next? Maybe we will be making the ocean too salty?
From some of the things I have read, we are no where near the max average temperatures that have been experienced in the past.
Mandee, I was not talking about you...just the unofficial leaders of the movement you are following.
I am in no way saying that I do not disagree with a lot of environmental actions...but saying we need to do it because of global warming is a bald face lie. (I still think we should though, pumping anything into the air or water is not great...because I like clean air and water).
To me it is like Bush and Co and the invasion of Iraq. The US had numerous reasons to justify the invasion...but instead of going with the truth, they went for a big-ticket, might have been true but was a total lie WMD justification. Ultimately it hurt their case when it turned out to be untrue.
To me it is like Bush and Co and the invasion of Iraq. The US had numerous reasons to justify the invasion...but instead of going with the truth, they went for a big-ticket, might have been true but was a total lie WMD justification. Ultimately it hurt their case when it turned out to be untrue.
Thursday, July 13, 2006 at 11:59 AM Edited Thursday, July 13, 2006 at 12:06 PM
I have read a lot of the literature and have the benefit of two PhD's in the family who have studied this stuff, both on the atmospheric side and the geology side and the consensus of them and their colleagues is that human activity is affecting our climate.
The best argument I've seen arguing against human activity causing climate change (that hasn't been bought and paid for by industry) was in the Straight Dope a few months back.
This is much ado about nothing though--the answer to the fossil fuels question is the same whether you believe that it's hurting the environment (been to Houston lately?) or that it's bad foreign policy to rely on unstable kingdom's that hate us for our energy. Plenty of good reasons to conserve.
Today, it is a scientific fact that we are experiencing global warming. What's next? Maybe we will be making the ocean too salty? Funny you should mention that; global warming -> massive ice melts -> decreased ocean salinity near the poles (effing up the global conveyor).
From some of the things I have read, we are no where near the max average temperatures that have been experienced in the past.
I'm guessing you might be talking about something like this.
If so, that's interesting because the leading theory for the cause is massive release of CO2 and methane, leading to increased global temperatures and a mass extinction (if anything, I'd look back to that and say that it's a good reason to worry about global warming).
I am in no way saying that I do not disagree with a lot of environmental actions...but saying we need to do it because of global warming is a bald face lie. (I still think we should though, pumping anything into the air or water is not great...because I like clean air and water).
I hate that everything with the environment gets lumped together like that. People don't distinguish depletion of the ozone layer, the greenhouse effect or fouling of the air and water. They are all different problems (even if they're not entirely unrelated).
The reason you (and everybody else) should worry about global warming is simple. It has nothing to do with effing up the planet or even mass extinctions. It's simply that if temperatures and sea levels rise significantly, enormous numbers of people living in coastal regions will be displaced.
Oh, you don't live near the coast? Doesn't matter because hundreds of millions of refugees will cause widespread conflict and war. Even if you're not personally involved, it would be bad times.
Now, getting back to your appreciation for clean air and water, that's good and I share it. To the extent that burning fossil fuels stinks up the place, that's just another great reason to cut back.
I'm bored (and don't care to do real work at the moment) so....
recycling is actually detrimental to the environment;
Not entirely untrue.
There's no question that recycling aluminum is a good thing because it requires so much more energy to extract the metal from bauxite or other ores than it takes to transport and melt down old cans.
Paper (and especially plastic) are another matter.
You could argue that burying them in a landfill is a way of sequestering carbon (though not that much, relatively speaking, and nowhere near enough to do much good - even without factoring in the additional release of carbon from making more paper and plastic to replace what we would have recycled).
Both paper and plastic can be recycled in a way that sense, but they're close enough to the margin that doing stupid things like transporting them too far can (but not necessarily will) make them worse for the environment than making new paper or plastic.
If you're interested in the subject, there's a great book on sustainability called Cradle to Cradle that you should check out (if you haven't already).
DDT is good, because it fights Malaria
Again - a bit of truth there (but not 100% true).
DDT is relatively inert as far as harming us, but it makes the shells of certain birds' eggs thin and weak, which can put them in jeopardy.
It does a great job of killing mosquitos and thus it's great for preventing the spread of malaria, it's super cheap to make, stable, and remarkably benign as far as insecticides go.
Now there are things that work as well without the adverse effects, but they're more expensive and you could make a decent argument that in the time from when DDT was banned to the time the alternatives became available, an enormous number of preventable human deaths from malaria could have been prevented (probably at the expense of a few species of birds).
low-level radiation exposure may be beneficial, as evidenced by Chernobyl's aftermath;
Eh.... that's a bit more of a stretch.
Chernobyl's aftermath definitely shows that low-level radiation exposure isn't as bad as you'd think, but in terms of overall health, it's spurious to claim that it's actually a Good Thing™ and there is no question that it causes adverse health effects.
... of course, it's a bit of a moot point anyway because we're constantly exposed to low levels of radiation from cosmic rays and unstable isotopes that are naturally present in the environment.
Ethanol (E85) should not be offered as an alternative to fossil fuels;
Eh.... also stretchy.
Certain forms of ethanol production consume more energy in fossil fuel than they produce in ethanol, so by any reasonable estimation, that's just dumb.
In particular, producing ethanol from corn in energy negative (consumes more than it produces), but things like sugar cane and especially switchgrass can be very much energy positive (and thus they can be used to produce net ethanol without fossil fuels).
... the problem is that there's this little company you've probably never heard of called ADM who has a huge stake in growing corn, and isn't so into growing switchgrass. ADM (and companies like it) have used the environment (and a lot of money) to lobby to congress and to dupe consumers into thinking that we should be producing ethanol from corn (which is most assuredly a Bad Thing™).
limitations should not be levied upon industrial/agricultural CO2 emissions, because CO2 is good;
OK - that's just dumb and not even worth addressing.
... other than to say that it's possible to reduce CO2 emissions by providing economic incentives (like the carbon credits of the Kyoto Protocol), rather than to use strong-armed regulation (though, to be effective, either really requires government intervention).
and, of course, Al Gore, along with countless scientists and scholars around the world, is full of shit
Why don't we just wait 50 years and see?
To be honest, I like things warm, so from a selfish perspective, global warming won't be so bad for me. Not only that but most of the increase in temperatures will happen in northern climates, and much less will happen near the equator, so I'll be able to wear shorts for longer when I'm further north.
... of course there is that pesky problem of people in low-lying coastal areas getting displaced, and wars starting over where the environmental refugees will live, but that's mostly gonna happen in parts of the world I'm not gonna go to, so no real skin off my back there either.
I was mowing my lawn tonight with my push mower and a kid walked up to me and said "wouldn't it be easier with a lawn mower?" I replied "this is a lawn mower." The kid said "no--I mean a real lawnmower that makes smoke and noise." So I punched him in his smart mouth. Fucking kids.
—bguirk
I completely forgot how often people in my neighborhood would walk up to me and be like "couldn't afford a real lawn mower huh." It happened literally every time I mowed my lawn. I can't get over how fucking lazy people are. How weak are you when you can't push a 15 pound object with wheels around your lawn for 20 minutes? Darwin would've weeded these people out ages ago.
This is actually the first bump that has done me some good. I'm on a team debating the merits of Senate Bill 23 in this congress which mandates dual fuel capacity (meaning e85) for all gas and diesel produced vehicles in the next 20 years. It also requires an E85 pump at 50% of all gas stations in around that time period. Horrible bill, will never work, and the time table doesn't even match the most optimistic switch grass development schedule which is what we'd need in our latitudes for grown biofuel to work long time. All of the corn ethanol goes to e10 now anyway.
not as much. I think on the levels of efficiency that ano was talking about it's at the corn end of the energy yield spectrum vs. the sugar cane side (switchgrass is still largely theoretical in extraction since they haven't come up with an economical process to do it).
was mowing my lawn tonight with my push mower and a kid walked up to me and said "wouldn't it be easier with a lawn mower?" I replied "this is a lawn mower." The kid said "no--I mean a real lawnmower that makes smoke and noise." So I punched him in his smart mouth. Fucking kids.
