Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29
Hi Josephine, Obviously, by the data you provided, it is slanted information. My next question is: Why would a supposed "scientist" do this type of work that could easily be researched and debunked? He obviously went out of his way to cherry pick his data to conform to his own ideology. I bet if looked into, one might find Mr. Monckton's research to be funded by the fossil fuel industry or some right wing think tank. Have you noticed that all the global warming debunkers have to use other peoples' data? They have no data of their own. They always cherry pick from NOAA, NASA or some other scientific organization. And every single time they are exposed by the media, other researchers or the scientists who accumulated the data. This happens time and time again. So why... why on Earth would anyone ever... ever rely on these pseudo researchers for this type of information. If you want to find the real data, go to the source ie; the government sources. The government sources contain the only real believable data. Well... aside from the studies released by the Bush admin. Jon
Jon: I would appreciate it if you stop referring to every scientist that doesn't agree with your views on Man- Made Global Warming as a Pseudo-Scientist. It's silly and insulting and does not do you any credit. There is a growing list of Scientists, approaching majority in fact, that do not agree with the Man-Made Global Warming Theory. They are not all (in fact there are very few if any are) crack-pots and on the payroll of the oil companies, the CATO institute, Heritage Foundation or any other group you currently don't like. The fact is warming has been occurring for a very long time. That does not mean it is caused by man, that is correlation, not causality. Wild claims about the weather changes and creating a frenzy around it may be good for TV ratings and News Paper and Magazine circulation but that does not make it fact. Repetition is not fact. I am old enough to remember the Panic in the 60's that the world would soon not be able to produce enough food to feed to swelling (over) population - some how we managed. I remember the 70's where we had only 10 years of oil left before the Earth was going to go dry, some how our known oil reserves have managed to double every ten years. Later that decade we were told we were facing a World Wide Ice Age because of - wait for it - increased levels of CO2. I'll never forget the Cover of Time Magazine showing the world covered in Ice. And yes this data came from Government and U.N. sources and was considered to be very reliable. Strangely despite the government assurances that their data was correct none of these disasters occurred but we are still suffering from the knee-jerk reaction of Politicians wanting to use the current crisis for social change. That list of Politicians is long and distinguished. I think there is more than sufficient reason to de-politisize and reduce the rankor and name calling around the ever increasingly political debate about whether the current warming trend is completely natural, man-made or a some combination there-of. Politics is not going to provide an answer, only scientists, over time, allowed to do real research outside the influence of any government body will provide answers. And like it or not, that type of research is still very rare. Robert Taylor -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of stormcrow60@xmission.com Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 11:23 AM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29 Hi Josephine, Obviously, by the data you provided, it is slanted information. My next question is: Why would a supposed "scientist" do this type of work that could easily be researched and debunked? He obviously went out of his way to cherry pick his data to conform to his own ideology. I bet if looked into, one might find Mr. Monckton's research to be funded by the fossil fuel industry or some right wing think tank. Have you noticed that all the global warming debunkers have to use other peoples' data? They have no data of their own. They always cherry pick from NOAA, NASA or some other scientific organization. And every single time they are exposed by the media, other researchers or the scientists who accumulated the data. This happens time and time again. So why... why on Earth would anyone ever... ever rely on these pseudo researchers for this type of information. If you want to find the real data, go to the source ie; the government sources. The government sources contain the only real believable data. Well... aside from the studies released by the Bush admin. Jon _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Robert,
I do not remember people in 70's saying we had only 10 years of oil left, most thought it limitless, as some do today. I guess my question is why are we in such a hurry to use it up. It is a finite resource I think you would agree with that. Right? As I remember most of the debate was about particulate pollution, not CO2, that would lead to an ice age in that might mean less sunlight reaching the ground. I do not remember any science class grade school, high school or college that taught greenhouse gases would cause cooling. I do have vivid memories of seeing the particulate air pollution from Detroit and Chicago from several hundred miles away. Thankfully this has been abated, but if you live in Downtown SLC probably realize does still exist. I for one wish we had done more in the way of conservation in the 70's and 80's and kept it going. How would that have been a bad thing? To tell you the truth I have seen little to support much of what you are claiming. A majority believe man has nothing to do with it? Bush authorized the NASA studies we have to give him credit for that. It seems what you are saying is that NASA and Godard are incompetent and or biased. NASA scientist did complain that their report were edited by non-scientists. I certainly tend to believe them more I would economists at this point. Some of the debunkers I have heard simply mock the high and low data points and present the data without a statistical analysis. Any data looks inconclusive prior to that. I wonder if what some of what you dispute is the amount of CO2 and CO that is put in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. That number seems to be known better than the amount that would be naturally emitted. Are really disputing the general greenhouse science? You seem to say the government funded scientist are biased, while the oil and coal companies are not. That seems incredible to me. They certainly spend a lot of advertising dollars telling us everything is OK. You have provided very few sources to back your assertions. I appreciate the ones Don has provided, I wish you would. Respectively of course. Erik Jon: I would appreciate it if you stop referring to every scientist that
doesn't agree with your views on Man- Made Global Warming as a Pseudo-Scientist. It's silly and insulting and does not do you any credit. There is a growing list of Scientists, approaching majority in fact, that do not agree with the Man-Made Global Warming Theory. They are not all (in fact there are very few if any are) crack-pots and on the payroll of the oil companies, the CATO institute, Heritage Foundation or any other group you currently don't like.
The fact is warming has been occurring for a very long time. That does not mean it is caused by man, that is correlation, not causality. Wild claims about the weather changes and creating a frenzy around it may be good for TV ratings and News Paper and Magazine circulation but that does not make it fact. Repetition is not fact. I am old enough to remember the Panic in the 60's that the world would soon not be able to produce enough food to feed to swelling (over) population - some how we managed. I remember the 70's where we had only 10 years of oil left before the Earth was going to go dry, some how our known oil reserves have managed to double every ten years. Later that decade we were told we were facing a World Wide Ice Age because of - wait for it - increased levels of CO2. I'll never forget the Cover of Time Magazine showing the world covered in Ice. And yes this data came from Government and U.N. sources and was considered to be very reliable. Strangely despite the government assurances that their data was correct none of these disasters occurred but we are still suffering from the knee-jerk reaction of Politicians wanting to use the current crisis for social change. That list of Politicians is long and distinguished.
I think there is more than sufficient reason to de-politisize and reduce the rankor and name calling around the ever increasingly political debate about whether the current warming trend is completely natural, man-made or a some combination there-of. Politics is not going to provide an answer, only scientists, over time, allowed to do real research outside the influence of any government body will provide answers. And like it or not, that type of research is still very rare.
Robert Taylor
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of stormcrow60@xmission.com Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 11:23 AM To: utah-astronomy@mailman.xmission.com Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29
Hi Josephine, Obviously, by the data you provided, it is slanted information. My next question is: Why would a supposed "scientist" do this type of work that could easily be researched and debunked? He obviously went out of his way to cherry pick his data to conform to his own ideology. I bet if looked into, one might find Mr. Monckton's research to be funded by the fossil fuel industry or some right wing think tank. Have you noticed that all the global warming debunkers have to use other peoples' data? They have no data of their own. They always cherry pick from NOAA, NASA or some other scientific organization. And every single time they are exposed by the media, other researchers or the scientists who accumulated the data. This happens time and time again. So why... why on Earth would anyone ever... ever rely on these pseudo researchers for this type of information. If you want to find the real data, go to the source ie; the government sources. The government sources contain the only real believable data. Well... aside from the studies released by the Bush admin.
Jon
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Erik: I have not provided any sources, deliberately so. We can send links all day long refuting each other, that's exactly the kind of debate I get tired of and will not participate in. If there was link I could send you that would change your mind I would but no matter what information I send you, you will not alter your views, you believe what you believe. So what's the point? I'm sorry you do not recall the 10 years of oil remaining claims of the early 70's, I do very clearly. It was taught to us in school as fact, so was impending famine. The movie Solent Green was based on beleifs of the time. When was the last time we made a movie about eating each other that became main stream, I'm not talking about Zombie Movies. We don't believe in world wide famine any longer, it's not part of popular culture. CO2, acids, particulates and all manner of emission were blamed for the impending deep freeze. They were all wrong, not about pollution, but about the big Freeze. That is perhaps the more important point. Good data, wrong conclusion. The conclusion is always where the politics kick-in. That's what I think we're repeating today. But despite that we did make positive changes because people could see dying trees, there was evidence people could agree on and we all forgot about the big freeze and we moved to protect our forests. Regardless of whether you are a skeptic or believer in Man-Made Global Warming one thing we can all agree on is that we need to clean things up, oil is dirty, coal is dirty, etc. and we would all be better off with cleaner fuels and cleaner energy, safer chemicals, etc. Wrapping the debate in very questionable conclusions changes the debate from what we can all agree on (pollution) to what we can't agree on (the need for radical social change). So I will politely refuse to engage in the Link sending which is pointless. Not that I haven't done research and continue to do so, I've done quite a bit and can quote long list of names and figures, but it does no good. I would suggest we focus on solutions we can agree on: Energy independence, clean energy, cheap energy and a healthy planet just to name a few. I know of no one that doesn't want those things. I'm sorry, I for one don't think it is no accident that we are so divided over this issue, polls show a nearly 50-50 split between skeptics and believers in this country, pretty much along political lines. Unfortunately today if I know your politics there are any number of things I know your opinion on. Yet there are any number of things both sides agree on that we can't even have a civil conversation about. Manipulation of public opinion? Maybe, division has long been a tool of control it has been known to happen, but we can choose not participate. So again, I will not engage in link sending, it will not change your opinion. I will ask that we all stop and consider the things we can agree on and focus on solutions. We all want a cleaner, greener planet without impoverishing nations, causing misery or destroying economies. How do we do that? Robert Taylor -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 2:56 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29
Robert,
I do not remember people in 70's saying we had only 10 years of oil left, most thought it limitless, as some do today. I guess my question is why are we in such a hurry to use it up. It is a finite resource I think you would agree with that. Right? As I remember most of the debate was about particulate pollution, not CO2, that would lead to an ice age in that might mean less sunlight reaching the ground. I do not remember any science class grade school, high school or college that taught greenhouse gases would cause cooling. I do have vivid memories of seeing the particulate air pollution from Detroit and Chicago from several hundred miles away. Thankfully this has been abated, but if you live in Downtown SLC probably realize does still exist. I for one wish we had done more in the way of conservation in the 70's and 80's and kept it going. How would that have been a bad thing? To tell you the truth I have seen little to support much of what you are claiming. A majority believe man has nothing to do with it? Bush authorized the NASA studies we have to give him credit for that. It seems what you are saying is that NASA and Godard are incompetent and or biased. NASA scientist did complain that their report were edited by non-scientists. I certainly tend to believe them more I would economists at this point. Some of the debunkers I have heard simply mock the high and low data points and present the data without a statistical analysis. Any data looks inconclusive prior to that. I wonder if what some of what you dispute is the amount of CO2 and CO that is put in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. That number seems to be known better than the amount that would be naturally emitted. Are really disputing the general greenhouse science? You seem to say the government funded scientist are biased, while the oil and coal companies are not. That seems incredible to me. They certainly spend a lot of advertising dollars telling us everything is OK. You have provided very few sources to back your assertions. I appreciate the ones Don has provided, I wish you would. Respectively of course. Erik
I knew doctors that thought they did not need to give sources, they where not listened to.
Soylent Green was SCI Fi, I thought it more a message of over population. Asia and Africa are both thought to be over populated, we are getting there. Erik Erik: I have not provided any sources, deliberately so. We can send
links all day long refuting each other, that's exactly the kind of debate I get tired of and will not participate in. If there was link I could send you that would change your mind I would but no matter what information I send you, you will not alter your views, you believe what you believe. So what's the point?
I'm sorry you do not recall the 10 years of oil remaining claims of the early 70's, I do very clearly. It was taught to us in school as fact, so was impending famine. The movie Solent Green was based on beleifs of the time. When was the last time we made a movie about eating each other that became main stream, I'm not talking about Zombie Movies. We don't believe in world wide famine any longer, it's not part of popular culture. CO2, acids, particulates and all manner of emission were blamed for the impending deep freeze. They were all wrong, not about pollution, but about the big Freeze. That is perhaps the more important point. Good data, wrong conclusion. The conclusion is always where the politics kick-in. That's what I think we're repeating today. But despite that we did make positive changes because people could see dying trees, there was evidence people could agree on and we all forgot about the big freeze and we moved to protect our forests.
Regardless of whether you are a skeptic or believer in Man-Made Global Warming one thing we can all agree on is that we need to clean things up, oil is dirty, coal is dirty, etc. and we would all be better off with cleaner fuels and cleaner energy, safer chemicals, etc. Wrapping the debate in very questionable conclusions changes the debate from what we can all agree on (pollution) to what we can't agree on (the need for radical social change).
So I will politely refuse to engage in the Link sending which is pointless. Not that I haven't done research and continue to do so, I've done quite a bit and can quote long list of names and figures, but it does no good. I would suggest we focus on solutions we can agree on: Energy independence, clean energy, cheap energy and a healthy planet just to name a few. I know of no one that doesn't want those things.
I'm sorry, I for one don't think it is no accident that we are so divided over this issue, polls show a nearly 50-50 split between skeptics and believers in this country, pretty much along political lines. Unfortunately today if I know your politics there are any number of things I know your opinion on. Yet there are any number of things both sides agree on that we can't even have a civil conversation about. Manipulation of public opinion? Maybe, division has long been a tool of control it has been known to happen, but we can choose not participate.
So again, I will not engage in link sending, it will not change your opinion. I will ask that we all stop and consider the things we can agree on and focus on solutions. We all want a cleaner, greener planet without impoverishing nations, causing misery or destroying economies. How do we do that?
Robert Taylor
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 2:56 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29
Robert,
I do not remember people in 70's saying we had only 10 years of oil left, most thought it limitless, as some do today. I guess my question is why are we in such a hurry to use it up. It is a finite resource I think you would agree with that. Right?
As I remember most of the debate was about particulate pollution, not CO2, that would lead to an ice age in that might mean less sunlight reaching the ground. I do not remember any science class grade school, high school or college that taught greenhouse gases would cause cooling. I do have vivid memories of seeing the particulate air pollution from Detroit and Chicago from several hundred miles away. Thankfully this has been abated, but if you live in Downtown SLC probably realize does still exist. I for one wish we had done more in the way of conservation in the 70's and 80's and kept it going. How would that have been a bad thing?
To tell you the truth I have seen little to support much of what you are claiming. A majority believe man has nothing to do with it?
Bush authorized the NASA studies we have to give him credit for that. It seems what you are saying is that NASA and Godard are incompetent and or biased. NASA scientist did complain that their report were edited by non-scientists. I certainly tend to believe them more I would economists at this point. Some of the debunkers I have heard simply mock the high and low data points and present the data without a statistical analysis. Any data looks inconclusive prior to that.
I wonder if what some of what you dispute is the amount of CO2 and CO that is put in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. That number seems to be known better than the amount that would be naturally emitted. Are really disputing the general greenhouse science?
You seem to say the government funded scientist are biased, while the oil and coal companies are not. That seems incredible to me. They certainly spend a lot of advertising dollars telling us everything is OK.
You have provided very few sources to back your assertions. I appreciate the ones Don has provided, I wish you would. Respectively of course.
Erik
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I'm not a doctor, you're not paying me and I don't really care if you believe me. Most importantly you missed my point completely. This is why I don't engage in link swapping. Your mind is made up, there's nothing I can say to change it. And I'm OK with that. Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:31 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29
I knew doctors that thought they did not need to give sources, they where not listened to.
Soylent Green was SCI Fi, I thought it more a message of over population. Asia and Africa are both thought to be over populated, we are getting there. Erik Erik: I have not provided any sources, deliberately so. We can send
links all day long refuting each other, that's exactly the kind of debate I get tired of and will not participate in. If there was link I could send you that would change your mind I would but no matter what information I send you, you will not alter your views, you believe what you believe. So what's the point?
I'm sorry you do not recall the 10 years of oil remaining claims of the early 70's, I do very clearly. It was taught to us in school as fact, so was impending famine. The movie Solent Green was based on beleifs of the time. When was the last time we made a movie about eating each other that became main stream, I'm not talking about Zombie Movies. We don't believe in world wide famine any longer, it's not part of popular culture. CO2, acids, particulates and all manner of emission were blamed for the impending deep freeze. They were all wrong, not about pollution, but about the big Freeze. That is perhaps the more important point. Good data, wrong conclusion. The conclusion is always where the politics kick-in. That's what I think we're repeating today. But despite that we did make positive changes because people could see dying trees, there was evidence people could agree on and we all forgot about the big freeze and we moved to protect our forests.
Regardless of whether you are a skeptic or believer in Man-Made Global Warming one thing we can all agree on is that we need to clean things up, oil is dirty, coal is dirty, etc. and we would all be better off with cleaner fuels and cleaner energy, safer chemicals, etc. Wrapping the debate in very questionable conclusions changes the debate from what we can all agree on (pollution) to what we can't agree on (the need for radical social change).
So I will politely refuse to engage in the Link sending which is pointless. Not that I haven't done research and continue to do so, I've done quite a bit and can quote long list of names and figures, but it does no good. I would suggest we focus on solutions we can agree on: Energy independence, clean energy, cheap energy and a healthy planet just to name a few. I know of no one that doesn't want those things.
I'm sorry, I for one don't think it is no accident that we are so divided over this issue, polls show a nearly 50-50 split between skeptics and believers in this country, pretty much along political lines. Unfortunately today if I know your politics there are any number of things I know your opinion on. Yet there are any number of things both sides agree on that we can't even have a civil conversation about. Manipulation of public opinion? Maybe, division has long been a tool of control it has been known to happen, but we can choose not participate.
So again, I will not engage in link sending, it will not change your opinion. I will ask that we all stop and consider the things we can agree on and focus on solutions. We all want a cleaner, greener planet without impoverishing nations, causing misery or destroying economies. How do we do that?
Robert Taylor
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 2:56 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29
Robert,
I do not remember people in 70's saying we had only 10 years of oil left, most thought it limitless, as some do today. I guess my question is why are we in such a hurry to use it up. It is a finite resource I think you would agree with that. Right?
As I remember most of the debate was about particulate pollution, not CO2, that would lead to an ice age in that might mean less sunlight reaching the ground. I do not remember any science class grade school, high school or college that taught greenhouse gases would cause cooling. I do have vivid memories of seeing the particulate air pollution from Detroit and Chicago from several hundred miles away. Thankfully this has been abated, but if you live in Downtown SLC probably realize does still exist. I for one wish we had done more in the way of conservation in the 70's and 80's and kept it going. How would that have been a bad thing?
To tell you the truth I have seen little to support much of what you are claiming. A majority believe man has nothing to do with it?
Bush authorized the NASA studies we have to give him credit for that. It seems what you are saying is that NASA and Godard are incompetent and or biased. NASA scientist did complain that their report were edited by non-scientists. I certainly tend to believe them more I would economists at this point. Some of the debunkers I have heard simply mock the high and low data points and present the data without a statistical analysis. Any data looks inconclusive prior to that.
I wonder if what some of what you dispute is the amount of CO2 and CO that is put in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. That number seems to be known better than the amount that would be naturally emitted. Are really disputing the general greenhouse science?
You seem to say the government funded scientist are biased, while the oil and coal companies are not. That seems incredible to me. They certainly spend a lot of advertising dollars telling us everything is OK.
You have provided very few sources to back your assertions. I appreciate the ones Don has provided, I wish you would. Respectively of course.
Erik
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Bob, I think you make good points. We all agree light pollution is bad. 25% of electricity generated in the U.S. goes to lights. 50% of that 25% comes from coal generation. Coal = air pollution = lousy seeing and more importantly respiratory unhealth = very expensive medical treatment. Turning off lights and/or switching to LED, forget CFLs if you're concerned about 2mg of Hg. Here's a USEFUL URL 100 W (equivalent luminance) with dimmer capability if desired and 50,000 hour bulb life. They cost $80 but when they last 10 years plus only pull 14 watts the money saving occurs after only 3 years! http://www.earthled.com/ Both wind and solar are cheaper (even when you ignore health costs) than clean coal (generously assuming clean coal is even possible). Storage problems with intermittent electricity like wind and solar can be overcome why hyrdo-pumping (pushing water up into storage basins to convert back to electricity through on-demand hydro). My "pet" solution is a network of high-speed trains where during the very early morning (best wind time) the trains are charged by the grid, use that energy during the day, in addition to diurnal solar generation, and when the grid needs the energy back, 5-11pm, the trains recharge the grid. Clean alternative energy gives us energy independence especially when we replace air travel with high speed trains as they have in Europe. Incidentally I'm in CT right now. After our pilot failed to show, my family and I slept in Vegas airport. Our 6 hr flight turned out to be 18 hours. In 300kmph trains like I rode in France we could have easily made the Vegas to Hartford trip in less time by electric trains. If everybody did this and we only flew donated organs and other super essential goods we wouldn't need anybody else's oil or to open ANWR for more drilling. THEN, if by accident we end up saving the planet from the real and/or imaginary ravages of global climate change that would just be icing on the cake. If the oil industry is right and it's all nonsense (which I'm sure it isn't) all they would have lost by investing in alternative energy is not have single source income -- which of course is silly - in any economic climate diversification is the smart thing to do. If Exxon was smart they'd also corner the market on alternative energy before people like me start generating our own energy and become not only politically energy independent but also economically independent. The more time and "energy" big oil puts into spreading doubt regarding global climate change the less they will profit form the inevitable solution - alternative energy. Hell, I'm paying an extra 40% on my electric bill because Garkane promises me that if I do I'm buying green energy instead of the nasty coal generated stuff. And if I can convince my little town of Tropic to change its "no towers" restrictions I'll soon be generating all of my household energy via wind for only $10,000+ installation of which I'll get $4000 back in federal tax break alone - new stimulus bill provisions - and additional amount from the state. As for what we can do? Spend some money on those expensive LED bulbs. Go crazy like me and get off the grid. Or if you have more protective or you money than your time, email the new Secretary of Energy Steve Chu (instead of each other about what percentage of input the sun contributes) with our support for alternative energy independence. Would you pay an extra $1/gallon at the pump if you knew it was going to fund the next generation of transportation infrastructure - high speed electric rail? I would! We need to let our country's leaders know just how much we stand behind our talk. And perhaps is so doing we'll also put big oil "on notice" as well so they might see the light, and make the switch (all puns intended) before they end up like AIG. You are right Bob. There is more productive things we could be doing -- but like most things it does involve putting our money where our mouths are.... On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Robert Taylor <robtaylor3661@comcast.net>wrote:
I'm not a doctor, you're not paying me and I don't really care if you believe me. Most importantly you missed my point completely. This is why I don't engage in link swapping. Your mind is made up, there's nothing I can say to change it. And I'm OK with that.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:31 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29
I knew doctors that thought they did not need to give sources, they where not listened to.
Soylent Green was SCI Fi, I thought it more a message of over population. Asia and Africa are both thought to be over populated, we are getting there.
Erik
Erik: I have not provided any sources, deliberately so. We can send
links all day long refuting each other, that's exactly the kind of debate I get tired of and will not participate in. If there was link I could send you that would change your mind I would but no matter what information I send you, you will not alter your views, you believe what you believe. So what's the point?
I'm sorry you do not recall the 10 years of oil remaining claims of the early 70's, I do very clearly. It was taught to us in school as fact, so was impending famine. The movie Solent Green was based on beleifs of the time. When was the last time we made a movie about eating each other that became main stream, I'm not talking about Zombie Movies. We don't believe in world wide famine any longer, it's not part of popular culture. CO2, acids, particulates and all manner of emission were blamed for the impending deep freeze. They were all wrong, not about pollution, but about the big Freeze. That is perhaps the more important point. Good data, wrong conclusion. The conclusion is always where the politics kick-in. That's what I think we're repeating today. But despite that we did make positive changes because people could see dying trees, there was evidence people could agree on and we all forgot about the big freeze and we moved to protect our forests.
Regardless of whether you are a skeptic or believer in Man-Made Global Warming one thing we can all agree on is that we need to clean things up, oil is dirty, coal is dirty, etc. and we would all be better off with cleaner fuels and cleaner energy, safer chemicals, etc. Wrapping the debate in very questionable conclusions changes the debate from what we can all agree on (pollution) to what we can't agree on (the need for radical social change).
So I will politely refuse to engage in the Link sending which is pointless. Not that I haven't done research and continue to do so, I've done quite a bit and can quote long list of names and figures, but it does no good. I would suggest we focus on solutions we can agree on: Energy independence, clean energy, cheap energy and a healthy planet just to name a few. I know of no one that doesn't want those things.
I'm sorry, I for one don't think it is no accident that we are so divided over this issue, polls show a nearly 50-50 split between skeptics and believers in this country, pretty much along political lines. Unfortunately today if I know your politics there are any number of things I know your opinion on. Yet there are any number of things both sides agree on that we can't even have a civil conversation about. Manipulation of public opinion? Maybe, division has long been a tool of control it has been known to happen, but we can choose not participate.
So again, I will not engage in link sending, it will not change your opinion. I will ask that we all stop and consider the things we can agree on and focus on solutions. We all want a cleaner, greener planet without impoverishing nations, causing misery or destroying economies. How do we do that?
Robert Taylor
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 2:56 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29
Robert,
I do not remember people in 70's saying we had only 10 years of oil left, most thought it limitless, as some do today. I guess my question is why are we in such a hurry to use it up. It is a finite resource I think you would agree with that. Right?
As I remember most of the debate was about particulate pollution, not CO2, that would lead to an ice age in that might mean less sunlight reaching the ground. I do not remember any science class grade school, high school or college that taught greenhouse gases would cause cooling. I do have vivid memories of seeing the particulate air pollution from Detroit and Chicago from several hundred miles away. Thankfully this has been abated, but if you live in Downtown SLC probably realize does still exist. I for one wish we had done more in the way of conservation in the 70's and 80's and kept it going. How would that have been a bad thing?
To tell you the truth I have seen little to support much of what you are claiming. A majority believe man has nothing to do with it?
Bush authorized the NASA studies we have to give him credit for that. It seems what you are saying is that NASA and Godard are incompetent and or biased. NASA scientist did complain that their report were edited by non-scientists. I certainly tend to believe them more I would economists at this point. Some of the debunkers I have heard simply mock the high and low data points and present the data without a statistical analysis. Any data looks inconclusive prior to that.
I wonder if what some of what you dispute is the amount of CO2 and CO that is put in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. That number seems to be known better than the amount that would be naturally emitted. Are really disputing the general greenhouse science?
You seem to say the government funded scientist are biased, while the oil and coal companies are not. That seems incredible to me. They certainly spend a lot of advertising dollars telling us everything is OK.
You have provided very few sources to back your assertions. I appreciate the ones Don has provided, I wish you would. Respectively of course.
Erik
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- By the 3rd millennium, the reckless use of light nearly vanquished the night. A formidable few rushed to defend the last sanctuaries of natural darkness.
From the national parks, armed with science, mythology and a love for all things nocturnal came warrior poets who pushed back against the light. They were called Dark Rangers, and no one knew their names. . .
Kevin Poe 435-590-9498 (c)
Yes I would say Bob did make a point. He thinks wild assertions are made without basis so he is going to make wild assertions as well. Yes, I have been sometimes guilty of that, but without malice. I am attempting to make amends.
I remember an editorial about the night without lights last year. One reader responded that he was going to turn on every light and appliance because he was deeply offended by the request. WOW Erik Bob,
I think you make good points. We all agree light pollution is bad. 25% of electricity generated in the U.S. goes to lights. 50% of that 25% comes from coal generation. Coal = air pollution = lousy seeing and more importantly respiratory unhealth = very expensive medical treatment. Turning off lights and/or switching to LED, forget CFLs if you're concerned about 2mg of Hg. Here's a USEFUL URL
100 W (equivalent luminance) with dimmer capability if desired and 50,000 hour bulb life. They cost $80 but when they last 10 years plus only pull 14 watts the money saving occurs after only 3 years!
Both wind and solar are cheaper (even when you ignore health costs) than clean coal (generously assuming clean coal is even possible). Storage problems with intermittent electricity like wind and solar can be overcome why hyrdo-pumping (pushing water up into storage basins to convert back to electricity through on-demand hydro). My "pet" solution is a network of high-speed trains where during the very early morning (best wind time) the trains are charged by the grid, use that energy during the day, in addition to diurnal solar generation, and when the grid needs the energy back, 5-11pm, the trains recharge the grid.
Clean alternative energy gives us energy independence especially when we replace air travel with high speed trains as they have in Europe. Incidentally I'm in CT right now. After our pilot failed to show, my family and I slept in Vegas airport. Our 6 hr flight turned out to be 18 hours. In 300kmph trains like I rode in France we could have easily made the Vegas to Hartford trip in less time by electric trains. If everybody did this and we only flew donated organs and other super essential goods we wouldn't need anybody else's oil or to open ANWR for more drilling.
THEN, if by accident we end up saving the planet from the real and/or imaginary ravages of global climate change that would just be icing on the cake. If the oil industry is right and it's all nonsense (which I'm sure it isn't) all they would have lost by investing in alternative energy is not have single source income -- which of course is silly - in any economic climate diversification is the smart thing to do. If Exxon was smart they'd also corner the market on alternative energy before people like me start generating our own energy and become not only politically energy independent but also economically independent. The more time and "energy" big oil puts into spreading doubt regarding global climate change the less they will profit form the inevitable solution - alternative energy. Hell, I'm paying an extra 40% on my electric bill because Garkane promises me that if I do I'm buying green energy instead of the nasty coal generated stuff. And if I can convince my little town of Tropic to change its "no towers" restrictions I'll soon be generating all of my household energy via wind for only $10,000+ installation of which I'll get $4000 back in federal tax break alone - new stimulus bill provisions - and additional amount from the state.
As for what we can do? Spend some money on those expensive LED bulbs. Go crazy like me and get off the grid. Or if you have more protective or you money than your time, email the new Secretary of Energy Steve Chu (instead of each other about what percentage of input the sun contributes) with our support for alternative energy independence. Would you pay an extra $1/gallon at the pump if you knew it was going to fund the next generation of transportation infrastructure - high speed electric rail? I would! We need to let our country's leaders know just how much we stand behind our talk. And perhaps is so doing we'll also put big oil "on notice" as well so they might see the light, and make the switch (all puns intended) before they end up like AIG.
You are right Bob. There is more productive things we could be doing -- but like most things it does involve putting our money where our mouths are....
On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Robert Taylor <robtaylor3661@comcast.net>wrote:
I'm not a doctor, you're not paying me and I don't really care if you believe me. Most importantly you missed my point completely. This is why I don't engage in link swapping. Your mind is made up, there's nothing I can say to change it. And I'm OK with that.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:31 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29
I knew doctors that thought they did not need to give sources, they where not listened to.
Soylent Green was SCI Fi, I thought it more a message of over population. Asia and Africa are both thought to be over populated, we are getting there.
Erik
Erik: I have not provided any sources, deliberately so. We can send
links all day long refuting each other, that's exactly the kind of debate I get tired of and will not participate in. If there was link I could send you that would change your mind I would but no matter what information I send you, you will not alter your views, you believe what you believe. So what's the point?
I'm sorry you do not recall the 10 years of oil remaining claims of the early 70's, I do very clearly. It was taught to us in school as fact, so was impending famine. The movie Solent Green was based on beleifs of the time. When was the last time we made a movie about eating each other that became main stream, I'm not talking about Zombie Movies. We don't believe in world wide famine any longer, it's not part of popular culture. CO2, acids, particulates and all manner of emission were blamed for the impending deep freeze. They were all wrong, not about pollution, but about the big Freeze. That is perhaps the more important point. Good data, wrong conclusion. The conclusion is always where the politics kick-in. That's what I think we're repeating today. But despite that we did make positive changes because people could see dying trees, there was evidence people could agree on and we all forgot about the big freeze and we moved to protect our forests.
Regardless of whether you are a skeptic or believer in Man-Made Global Warming one thing we can all agree on is that we need to clean things up, oil is dirty, coal is dirty, etc. and we would all be better off with cleaner fuels and cleaner energy, safer chemicals, etc. Wrapping the debate in very questionable conclusions changes the debate from what we can all agree on (pollution) to what we can't agree on (the need for radical social change).
So I will politely refuse to engage in the Link sending which is pointless. Not that I haven't done research and continue to do so, I've done quite a bit and can quote long list of names and figures, but it does no good. I would suggest we focus on solutions we can agree on: Energy independence, clean energy, cheap energy and a healthy planet just to name a few. I know of no one that doesn't want those things.
I'm sorry, I for one don't think it is no accident that we are so divided over this issue, polls show a nearly 50-50 split between skeptics and believers in this country, pretty much along political lines. Unfortunately today if I know your politics there are any number of things I know your opinion on. Yet there are any number of things both sides agree on that we can't even have a civil conversation about. Manipulation of public opinion? Maybe, division has long been a tool of control it has been known to happen, but we can choose not participate.
So again, I will not engage in link sending, it will not change your opinion. I will ask that we all stop and consider the things we can agree on and focus on solutions. We all want a cleaner, greener planet without impoverishing nations, causing misery or destroying economies. How do we do that?
Robert Taylor
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 2:56 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29
Robert,
I do not remember people in 70's saying we had only 10 years of oil left, most thought it limitless, as some do today. I guess my question is why are we in such a hurry to use it up. It is a finite resource I think you would agree with that. Right?
As I remember most of the debate was about particulate pollution, not CO2, that would lead to an ice age in that might mean less sunlight reaching the ground. I do not remember any science class grade school, high school or college that taught greenhouse gases would cause cooling. I do have vivid memories of seeing the particulate air pollution from Detroit and Chicago from several hundred miles away. Thankfully this has been abated, but if you live in Downtown SLC probably realize does still exist. I for one wish we had done more in the way of conservation in the 70's and 80's and kept it going. How would that have been a bad thing?
To tell you the truth I have seen little to support much of what you are claiming. A majority believe man has nothing to do with it?
Bush authorized the NASA studies we have to give him credit for that. It seems what you are saying is that NASA and Godard are incompetent and or biased. NASA scientist did complain that their report were edited by non-scientists. I certainly tend to believe them more I would economists at this point. Some of the debunkers I have heard simply mock the high and low data points and present the data without a statistical analysis. Any data looks inconclusive prior to that.
I wonder if what some of what you dispute is the amount of CO2 and CO that is put in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. That number seems to be known better than the amount that would be naturally emitted. Are really disputing the general greenhouse science?
You seem to say the government funded scientist are biased, while the oil and coal companies are not. That seems incredible to me. They certainly spend a lot of advertising dollars telling us everything is OK.
You have provided very few sources to back your assertions. I appreciate the ones Don has provided, I wish you would. Respectively of course.
Erik
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- By the 3rd millennium, the reckless use of light nearly vanquished the night. A formidable few rushed to defend the last sanctuaries of natural darkness.
From the national parks, armed with science, mythology and a love for all things nocturnal came warrior poets who pushed back against the light. They were called Dark Rangers, and no one knew their names. . .
Kevin Poe 435-590-9498 (c) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Thanks, I'm glad you understood the point I was trying to make. The debate about Global Warming is primarily political, not scientific. Yes there are scientific aspects to it but it primarily political at this early stage. Most people believe or not depending on their politics but pollution and cleaning the planet is much more universal and something all us (I think) can agree upon. When my wife can't breath because of particulate matter in the air, that hit's home, that's real, when I see dying trees, it means something to me, when I follow a truck belching thick black smoke I get disgusted. The brown haze that invades this valley makes me want to leave the area. Those things are quite real and we can all relate. I don't think I'm alone and that transcends petty party politics. Along those lines there's a company in Colorado, and I will apologize here as I don't have all the information I want yet, that announced they have developed a new way to produce alcohol suitable for auto fuel, either as an addition or straight replacement for gasoline. To me that's the Holy Grail of alternate fuels. Wind farms can take power plants off line and help with Electric cars but out west electric cars have serious limitations. Additionally the huge existing gasoline infrastructure makes a rapid change unlikely. This new type of alcohol can use any number of crops including grasses, not really new but it can also use the existing pipeline and pumping system for distribution which ethanol cannot do, it must be trucked everywhere, at least that's my understanding. It can also go directly into existing cars fuel tanks It can also be used in diesel trucks and jet engines with a few modifications. The important thing is that it can use the existing infrastructure more or less as is. Nearly all cars can take a mixture of 50-50 gas alcohol today with no mods, if you have a flex fuel engine you can use this stuff straight. I've been a fan of alcohol for a long time it is vastly cleaner than oil emitting almost no emissions, is renewable and is for those that are counting, carbon negative taking more carbon out then goes back in burning. They say they are 3 to 5 years away from mass production, government red tape being the issue. Ok, we've all heard that one before but it gives me hope that maybe we can yet break our dependence on oil (no offense Don). Bob -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Kevin Poe Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 12:17 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29 Bob, I think you make good points. We all agree light pollution is bad. 25% of electricity generated in the U.S. goes to lights. 50% of that 25% comes from coal generation. Coal = air pollution = lousy seeing and more importantly respiratory unhealth = very expensive medical treatment. Turning off lights and/or switching to LED, forget CFLs if you're concerned about 2mg of Hg. Here's a USEFUL URL 100 W (equivalent luminance) with dimmer capability if desired and 50,000 hour bulb life. They cost $80 but when they last 10 years plus only pull 14 watts the money saving occurs after only 3 years! http://www.earthled.com/ Both wind and solar are cheaper (even when you ignore health costs) than clean coal (generously assuming clean coal is even possible). Storage problems with intermittent electricity like wind and solar can be overcome why hyrdo-pumping (pushing water up into storage basins to convert back to electricity through on-demand hydro). My "pet" solution is a network of high-speed trains where during the very early morning (best wind time) the trains are charged by the grid, use that energy during the day, in addition to diurnal solar generation, and when the grid needs the energy back, 5-11pm, the trains recharge the grid. Clean alternative energy gives us energy independence especially when we replace air travel with high speed trains as they have in Europe. Incidentally I'm in CT right now. After our pilot failed to show, my family and I slept in Vegas airport. Our 6 hr flight turned out to be 18 hours. In 300kmph trains like I rode in France we could have easily made the Vegas to Hartford trip in less time by electric trains. If everybody did this and we only flew donated organs and other super essential goods we wouldn't need anybody else's oil or to open ANWR for more drilling. THEN, if by accident we end up saving the planet from the real and/or imaginary ravages of global climate change that would just be icing on the cake. If the oil industry is right and it's all nonsense (which I'm sure it isn't) all they would have lost by investing in alternative energy is not have single source income -- which of course is silly - in any economic climate diversification is the smart thing to do. If Exxon was smart they'd also corner the market on alternative energy before people like me start generating our own energy and become not only politically energy independent but also economically independent. The more time and "energy" big oil puts into spreading doubt regarding global climate change the less they will profit form the inevitable solution - alternative energy. Hell, I'm paying an extra 40% on my electric bill because Garkane promises me that if I do I'm buying green energy instead of the nasty coal generated stuff. And if I can convince my little town of Tropic to change its "no towers" restrictions I'll soon be generating all of my household energy via wind for only $10,000+ installation of which I'll get $4000 back in federal tax break alone - new stimulus bill provisions - and additional amount from the state. As for what we can do? Spend some money on those expensive LED bulbs. Go crazy like me and get off the grid. Or if you have more protective or you money than your time, email the new Secretary of Energy Steve Chu (instead of each other about what percentage of input the sun contributes) with our support for alternative energy independence. Would you pay an extra $1/gallon at the pump if you knew it was going to fund the next generation of transportation infrastructure - high speed electric rail? I would! We need to let our country's leaders know just how much we stand behind our talk. And perhaps is so doing we'll also put big oil "on notice" as well so they might see the light, and make the switch (all puns intended) before they end up like AIG. You are right Bob. There is more productive things we could be doing -- but like most things it does involve putting our money where our mouths are.... On Mon, Mar 9, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Robert Taylor <robtaylor3661@comcast.net>wrote:
I'm not a doctor, you're not paying me and I don't really care if you believe me. Most importantly you missed my point completely. This is why I don't engage in link swapping. Your mind is made up, there's nothing I can say to change it. And I'm OK with that.
Bob
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 10:31 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29
I knew doctors that thought they did not need to give sources, they where not listened to.
Soylent Green was SCI Fi, I thought it more a message of over population. Asia and Africa are both thought to be over populated, we are getting there.
Erik
Erik: I have not provided any sources, deliberately so. We can send
links all day long refuting each other, that's exactly the kind of debate I get tired of and will not participate in. If there was link I could send you that would change your mind I would but no matter what information I send you, you will not alter your views, you believe what you believe. So what's the point?
I'm sorry you do not recall the 10 years of oil remaining claims of the early 70's, I do very clearly. It was taught to us in school as fact, so was impending famine. The movie Solent Green was based on beleifs of the time. When was the last time we made a movie about eating each other that became main stream, I'm not talking about Zombie Movies. We don't believe in world wide famine any longer, it's not part of popular culture. CO2, acids, particulates and all manner of emission were blamed for the impending deep freeze. They were all wrong, not about pollution, but about the big Freeze. That is perhaps the more important point. Good data, wrong conclusion. The conclusion is always where the politics kick-in. That's what I think we're repeating today. But despite that we did make positive changes because people could see dying trees, there was evidence people could agree on and we all forgot about the big freeze and we moved to protect our forests.
Regardless of whether you are a skeptic or believer in Man-Made Global Warming one thing we can all agree on is that we need to clean things up, oil is dirty, coal is dirty, etc. and we would all be better off with cleaner fuels and cleaner energy, safer chemicals, etc. Wrapping the debate in very questionable conclusions changes the debate from what we can all agree on (pollution) to what we can't agree on (the need for radical social change).
So I will politely refuse to engage in the Link sending which is pointless. Not that I haven't done research and continue to do so, I've done quite a bit and can quote long list of names and figures, but it does no good. I would suggest we focus on solutions we can agree on: Energy independence, clean energy, cheap energy and a healthy planet just to name a few. I know of no one that doesn't want those things.
I'm sorry, I for one don't think it is no accident that we are so divided over this issue, polls show a nearly 50-50 split between skeptics and believers in this country, pretty much along political lines. Unfortunately today if I know your politics there are any number of things I know your opinion on. Yet there are any number of things both sides agree on that we can't even have a civil conversation about. Manipulation of public opinion? Maybe, division has long been a tool of control it has been known to happen, but we can choose not participate.
So again, I will not engage in link sending, it will not change your opinion. I will ask that we all stop and consider the things we can agree on and focus on solutions. We all want a cleaner, greener planet without impoverishing nations, causing misery or destroying economies. How do we do that?
Robert Taylor
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of erikhansen@TheBlueZone.net Sent: Sunday, March 08, 2009 2:56 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Utah-Astronomy Digest, Vol 73, Issue 29
Robert,
I do not remember people in 70's saying we had only 10 years of oil left, most thought it limitless, as some do today. I guess my question is why are we in such a hurry to use it up. It is a finite resource I think you would agree with that. Right?
As I remember most of the debate was about particulate pollution, not CO2, that would lead to an ice age in that might mean less sunlight reaching the ground. I do not remember any science class grade school, high school or college that taught greenhouse gases would cause cooling. I do have vivid memories of seeing the particulate air pollution from Detroit and Chicago from several hundred miles away. Thankfully this has been abated, but if you live in Downtown SLC probably realize does still exist. I for one wish we had done more in the way of conservation in the 70's and 80's and kept it going. How would that have been a bad thing?
To tell you the truth I have seen little to support much of what you are claiming. A majority believe man has nothing to do with it?
Bush authorized the NASA studies we have to give him credit for that. It seems what you are saying is that NASA and Godard are incompetent and or biased. NASA scientist did complain that their report were edited by non-scientists. I certainly tend to believe them more I would economists at this point. Some of the debunkers I have heard simply mock the high and low data points and present the data without a statistical analysis. Any data looks inconclusive prior to that.
I wonder if what some of what you dispute is the amount of CO2 and CO that is put in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels. That number seems to be known better than the amount that would be naturally emitted. Are really disputing the general greenhouse science?
You seem to say the government funded scientist are biased, while the oil and coal companies are not. That seems incredible to me. They certainly spend a lot of advertising dollars telling us everything is OK.
You have provided very few sources to back your assertions. I appreciate the ones Don has provided, I wish you would. Respectively of course.
Erik
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
-- By the 3rd millennium, the reckless use of light nearly vanquished the night. A formidable few rushed to defend the last sanctuaries of natural darkness.
From the national parks, armed with science, mythology and a love for all things nocturnal came warrior poets who pushed back against the light. They were called Dark Rangers, and no one knew their names. . .
Kevin Poe 435-590-9498 (c) _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://gallery.utahastronomy.com Visit the Wiki: http://www.utahastronomy.com
participants (4)
-
erikhansen＠TheBlueZone.net -
Kevin Poe -
Robert Taylor -
stormcrow60＠xmission.com