They call this a consensus?

So should you stop producing it, i.e. stop breathing?

BTW, I understand that if the US did not emit any carbon emissions, i.e. operated no cars, factories, or otherwise burned carbon based fuels for an entire year we would have reduced the greenhouse effect by about .75 percent.

Could you be any more over-dramatic there caktus?

As for your no carbon emissions for a year comment? First off, did I make my comment specifically about the US? Ummm... no, I did not. Iffin your gonna pull out the China card, well... if you keep buying stuff at Walmart then your supporting Chinese industry anyway. So whose fault would it be then?

"we would have reduced the greenhouse effect by about .75 percent." Ummm... what green house effect? I thought the whole debate was that it really didn't exist?

Seriously, I would give a dollar to see where you got your information.

Trees remove (sequester) CO2 from the atmosphere during photosynthesis , and return O2.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

During the night, trees respire (take in O2 and create CO2. Not as much as the reverse during the day but it does happen.

Diana

(especially in Brazil) is also a dramatic contributor. Ther problem for the Third World, though, is that they're simply following our example from the 18th and 19th Centuries, when the great North American forest was mostly destroyed. Unfortunately, there often is a tension between economic growth and the environment. If we could ever solve the waste problem, btw, nuclear power is among the cleanest available -- the ultimate answer will be controlled nuclear fusion, which we're spending only a pittance of research money on. Even the cost of two day's current energy consumption would be more than has been spent on this area in the last five years!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!


David A. Konkel, Ph.D.
Associate Professor and Research Coordinator
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston
(409) 772-4074

And they say we won't find a substitute for fossil fuels. If we can make a tree that "breathes". who knows?

Seriously, there are possible applications for the artificial "tree" when the costs come down.

At least it's good to know there are people out there looking for solutions.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

A few weeks ago, I had seen an article about a filter that would remove CO2, say, from some industrial process. The first of it would probably be used by soft drink companies, but I'm sure others could use it.

I've been trying to find it lately, but to no avail.

...... has drawn as much passion as some social issues.

An unknown in the equation is if this would be so had not Mr. Gore championed his side.

Angeline
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email
semods4@yahoo.com

No one wants toxins dumped into the air or water in any significant quantity. I assume you realize that emissions at extremely low levels are neither toxic nor pollution.

No, the sceptics are really saying that you and your ilk have not proved your point. You want the rest of us to spend our wealth trying to eliminate a phantom. The rule must be, proof first. Then we'll think about spending. You want action and spending without proof because you fear the boogeyman will get you. He won't, and it's time to ante up.

You say it is not pollution in small increments... how much of it has to be produced before it becomes a pollutant?

You live in Chicago Kid? Next to Lake Michigan? It has made a pretty remarkable come back over the last few decades, ecologically speaking that is. Would you have drank an untreated glass of water out of it back in the 1960's? The 1980's? Heck, how about now? How often do you eat fish caught out of Lake Michigan?

Now... consider how long it took to the point where Lake Michigan was at its most polluted. Think about how many insignificant amounts of pollution went into the lake to get it to that point? Are you seriously going to tell me it didn't add up over time?

Now, about your assertion that the emissions at extremely low levels are neither toxic nor pollution. What you really mean is that they are not hazardous if they are diluted enough, correct? I mean you wouldn't consider spending a week sitting half way inside an active smoke stack with no protection, right? So what makes the difference between acceptable emissions and unacceptable pollution. Where is the tipping point? The saturation level?

I give you credit for saying it is about spending wealth. Most people won't say more than it is a political issue. What dismays me is your qualifying the issue thus...

"The rule must be, proof first. Then we'll think about spending." So you are saying the protocol should be if it is proven... we will THINK about correcting the problem that caused it? Isn't that like saying... prove I killed your dog and I will think of not target shooting in my backyard?

Ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. It's been true for a few hundred years now and I don't see it changing anytime soon.


Hey, I'm in the market for a new digital camera but I just spent a few grand on software and other equipment... is the Nikon D-40 worth the money or should I spend a few hundred more for something else? Thanks for your input on this one.

grim

lived here in 1900. That hasn't changed since although the lake is lot cleaner now than it used to be.

The pollution in Lake Michigan began hundreds of years ago, and has absolutely nothing to do with global warming.

IMCO, Nikon is a dead end system. Canon dominates the scene today. That's unfortunate. Canon needs some competition.

Many of my friends like the Canons for the body and the lenses but i have met some Nikon fanatics who rave with religious fervor about their lens quality. Their passion is what made me interested.


As for drinking water from any place... I know some pristine mountain streams that I still wouldn't drink out of without filtering the water. No mater how clean it looks, there can still be pollution not to mention Giardia cysts and other nasty bacteria.

Not to beat a dead horse but I totally agree with you... pollution has nothing to do with global warming. That is why the 2 issues are separate in my view.

I see the pollution and readily admit that we should be working on doing better, but....

The naysayers would have us spend all of our research dollars on climate change to implement a mass reduction in made made gases when science shows they are a miniscule contributor to climate change. CO2 emmissions are what they are but they're not the big culprit they're claimed to be. If they were then it would seem that we should get busy advocating mandated population control of the animal population as a whole, humans included, to reduce anthropogenic contributions of both CO2 and methane, huh?

... I'm not talking about global warming and I certainly never mention it's poster boy/whipping boy Al Gore because, to me, it's not about politics, it's not about global warming, it's not about CO2 emissions versus particulate matter versus cow farts ad infinitum. It is about a concept my mum taught me and a philosophy reinforced during many years of back packing when I was more capable.

That is the idea that if you make a mess, you clean it up. In the woods it is called "leave no trace" or more precisely if you bring it in with you then you carry it back out.

To distill it down even farther... be responsible.

Instead of being responsible for what we do, I see mankind rationalizing everything they do. We sit here and say that we want all these products and we want all the energy but we don't want to have to clean up the whole mess left over. The rationalization boils down to "it's too expensive or it's too much trouble". I had a room mate my freshman year in college who said that about his laundry. Instead of washing clothes he went out and bought more. A few months into the school year the stink got so bad that the people in the next room complained! I went to the janitorial closet and got 3 of those 55 gallon roughneck garbage cans and loaded up all his dirty clothes into them. I view industrial pollution this way (and history has pretty much proven this true) in that industry will always pick the cheapest way of dealing with their own mess, or not deal with it at all if they can get away with it.

I give respect to anyone willing to admit the real issue is about money. The people who argue for hours about whose favorite scientist is right and whose is wrong is just fooling themselves (no disrespect to you). No, the real debate is how much pollution is acceptable. The greenies just put preasure on the industrialists by saying we have already reached the tipping point. The industrialists are gambling that we haven't. But no matter how I have approached examining this issue, all I see is one group in favor of pollution for economic reasons and one group who is not for ecological/philosophical reasons.

Is my analysis wrong?

Use facts. 9 out of 10 "scientists" saying the sun revolves around the Earth, don't make it so.

I guess you missed that little notice Copernicus put out... of course there was Aristarchus of Samos back around 300 BC as well but no one really paid much attention to him.

9 out 10 of those scientits were WRONG

Though that news apparently hasn't reached Kansas yet

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Point is that you global warming kool aid drinkers don't get is, a majority of anyone can't over rule FACTS. Be intellectually honest for once. Which has caused more damage to education, the religious people of Kansas (that you seem to have plenty of contempt for), or the court ordered busing by the intellectually pompous activist courts??

Here, amid your efforts to be as disagreeable and insulting as possible (as if that somehow proves your logic defensible) you indefatigably declare the stupidity of following a majority consensus.

Yet, just a couple of years ago, you were one of many who said the country must follow a certain path because the majority had spoken. I'm vastly amused by this change of heart.

Thanks for the chuckle DM!



grim

There are times when it is appropriate to use a consensus or a majority to determine something, and there are times when it is inappropriate. Determining scientific fact by consensus is most inappropriate.

Saying that something must be so because lots of people say so is a sign of the weakness of the proposition.

Determining scientific fact by consensus is most inappropriate...
Saying that something must be so because lots of people say so is a sign of the weakness of the proposition.

and before there were scientists?

when the church was the ruling power and said "the sun revolves around the earth" and could back it up with "biblical evidence"....


.,

Do you dispute that?

Anyway, that was then; this is now. Is there any reason whatsoever to use a standard from centuries past that was incorrect to decide things NOW?

Did you intend some meaning?

You mention using a standard of the past that was incorrect. That standard was based on biblical interpretation. In short, the data was not the appropriate material to base such a scientific observation upon (an interesting point of discussion with extreme religious implications for those who would state today that the Bible is the true word of God and must be interpreted literally). Conclusion? Just because a majority believes does not make it true... QED

Now, I personally believe the comparison DM makes is faulty since the Church dogma on celestial structure was indeed based on no attempt at scientific data collection... but let us say that the analogy shows one can not take the word of someone who declares themselves an authority until time and the scientific method proves them out. To be more concise... a political or religious preference held by many does not make for accurate scientific truth. That is basically what DM is arguing in this case, correct? That preference does not make for fact?

Now... If preference does not make for fact... and the pro-glabal warmers prefer one scientific conclusion and the anti-global warmers prefer a different scientific conclusion, then why should one profess a preference for either side of the coin?

Few, if any of us, are qualified to interpret the data provided by the real scientists involved in this debate. Yes? Yet both sides have turned this into nothing more than a popularity contest based on the conclusion of one side or the other. DM and some others say the evidence provided is wrong. Let us take that out of the equation. DM says that a majority consensus by scientist or the public is wrong so let us discount that factor as well. So let us examine motive then...

What do both sides have to gain from their point of view? What is the motive of those who believe and those who don't?

I will leave that question out there for anyone else to answer.

grim

in Global Warming (faith based?) say "the time for debate is over", They wish to proceed with actions based on incomplete or incorrect research. When non-scientists declare that the time for debate is over I am very suspicious. It is clear that these people want to change everyone's lifestyles radically and curtail many rights based on a "consensus". That is very disturbing.