Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time

    I think all can agree that the Earth has been, is currently and will continue to change.

    Pangea no longer exists.

    Ice ages have come and gone (many times), and may return in the future.

    Most scientists agree that the Earth will be uninhabitable in the very, very far future. Think billions of years.

    The remaining question is how can humans make what resources we have last as long as possible, and can we reach a point where resources (including energy) are used in a sustainable way. At least until we can find a new planet to colonize.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by backwoodsman View Post
      So what are the solutions? Should we stop all fossil fuel consumption immediately? If we do how long will it take for the planet to correct itself, and what is the proper state of the Earth? Does it really have one?
      From the UN:

      "Global emissions need to fall by at least 40 per cent by 2050 and almost to zero by 2100 to have a good chance of limiting the increase in the average temperature to 2C, above which the UN says there could be catastrophic impacts."

      Be prepared to turn off that heat. After all, if Africans and Indians can do without it during winter so can you.

      And you're going to have to trade that SUV in for a Segway.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by backwoodsman View Post
        So what are the solutions? Should we stop all fossil fuel consumption immediately? If we do how long will it take for the planet to correct itself, and what is the proper state of the Earth? Does it really have one?
        We should put forth every effort possible to develop and utilize clean renewable energy, reducing our use of fossil fuels in proportion to how we can replace them with renewable energy. How long it takes for the planet to correct itself has no bearing on the solution. The proper state of the earth is clean air, clean water and non toxic soils. That doesn't take a degree to define.

        Time or cost should not be factored in. If the Earth was your Mother or a child, you would spare no expense to save them. Why should it be different for the Mother of all peoples?
        "If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson

        Comment


        • Originally posted by redhawk View Post
          We should put forth every effort possible to develop and utilize clean renewable energy, reducing our use of fossil fuels in proportion to how we can replace them with renewable energy. How long it takes for the planet to correct itself has no bea,ring on the solution. The proper state of the earth is clean air, clean water and non toxic soils. That doesn't take a degree to define.
          No it doesn't take a degree to define, but it may take a degree to determine what really is clean and non toxic, not to mention what proper CO2 levels are and how they are determined . Which is what I was referring to . That's why I quoted the Professor's post. I was hoping for something a little bit more factual and science based, that's why I asked him.

          Good Lord, do you realize we might have to wait for nature to create new coal and oil deposits before the atmosphere is in it's so called normal state again. Whatever that is. After all life once thrived here with more CO2 in the atmosphere.

          I'm a little more concerned with other things we're willing to do to produce energy, like pumping chemicals into the ground, or the trees that are being cleared right here in our own state for the sake of growing more corn to produce ethanol.

          The trouble with mankind is he fights nature, when what he really needs to do is figure out how to work and live with it. Then life might be real again.
          Last edited by backwoodsman; 04-15-2014, 11:29 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by backwoodsman View Post
            The trouble with mankind is he fights nature, when what he really needs to do is figure out how to work and live with it. Then life might be real again.
            Amen.
            Scooting here and there
            Through the woods and up the peaks
            Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


            "Pushing the limits of easy."™

            Comment


            • Originally posted by backwoodsman View Post
              So what are the solutions? Should we stop all fossil fuel consumption immediately? If we do how long will it take for the planet to correct itself, and what is the proper state of the Earth? Does it really have one?
              not sure how to multi quote, but I got a kick out of "Be prepared to turn off the heat". As if there is no possible way to keep from freezing to death without fossil fuels.
              Some of you act as if our only two choices are gluttony or starvation.

              Like Redhawk, I think we need to greatly reduce fossil fuel consumption ASAP. Obviously we can't do it Immediately, but it needs to happen soon.
              And it is possible, if we switch to renewable and carbon neutral energy sources, and use a lot less energy overall by increasing efficiency. Alternatives can never supply us with as much energy as we have from fossil fuels now, but they might be able to provide enough to get by on, if we can remember what the word "Enough" means.

              How long will it take for the planet to heal. Quite a while probably. CO2 levels won't return to "normal" for hundreds of years.
              What's a normal climate? I'd say the CO2 levels and temperatures we've had for all of recorded history (ie. the last 10,000 years). That's the climate that allowed civiilization as we know it to develop. It's the climate that determined where we built cities and where we grew our food. If it ain't broke, don't break it.

              Yes, it may require some sacrifices. We've become so wasteful we think it's normal. We think if we don't throw away half the food we buy that we'll starve to death. We think if we don't have a different change of clothes for every day of the month that we'll end up freezing to death.

              We may not be able to keep the heat in our houses at 75 all winter. We may have to spend some money on solar panels or upgrading our appliances, or insulating our houses.

              Or we may not be able to live an hour away from our job and commute, alone, in our own personal vehicle. We may have to walk or ride a bike, or carpool, or ride on a bus or train with the unwashed masses. We may have to drive small, odd looking vehicles that don't look quite as macho as we might like. But if you want to hang truck nuts on your hybrid smart car, be my guest.

              We may not be able to buy apples imported from New Zealand in February. We might have to buy locally made stuff, and support local jobs. You may have to go to the farmers market, or grow a garden, or raise chickens in your back yard.

              We may have to start whole new industries and supply chains to make the transition. And some of that will require large initial investments in money (and probably fossil fuel energy). We put men on the moon. We built the internet. We can make a transition to clean energy.
              He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.

              Comment


              • A differing scientific opinion.

                "The report they produced is long, over 1,000 pages, and it is not the first produced by the scientists of NIPCC. In it they debunk the dire claims of the IPCC’s latest report, in which the citizens of Earth are threatened with flood, famine, collapsing ecosystems, economic failure and death from extreme heat. There is not room in a single blog post to cover each in detail so I will recount the main points from the report’s executive summary:

                Global climate models are unable to make accurate projections of climate even 10 years ahead, let alone the 100-year period that has been adopted by policy planners. The output of such models should therefore not be used to guide public policy formulation.

                Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside the range of normal natural variability, nor were they in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history.

                Solar forcing of temperature change is likely more important than is currently recognized.

                No unambiguous evidence exists of dangerous interference in the global climate caused by human-related CO2 emissions. In particular, the cryosphere is not melting at an enhanced rate; sea-level rise is not accelerating; and no systematic changes have been documented in evaporation or rainfall or in the magnitude or intensity of extreme meteorological events.

                Any human global climate signal is so small as to be nearly indiscernible against the background variability of the natural climate system. Climate change is always occurring.

                A phase of temperature stasis or cooling has succeeded the mild warming of the twentieth century. Similar periods of warming and cooling due to natural variability are certain to occur in the future irrespective of human emissions of greenhouse gases.

                In short, there is nothing abnormal about the recent changes in climate—climate is always changing and those who would “stabilize” the climate are fools. They may as well try to stop the Sun from rising and setting. The warnings of imminent doom are all based on computer models that have proven to be totally unreliable,"

                To put into perspective, in order to solve a problem you must first be sure there really is a problem.
                Last edited by cityboy; 04-16-2014, 10:03 AM. Reason: Spacing

                Comment


                • Originally posted by cityboy View Post
                  A differing scientific opinion.
                  Source?
                  Scooting here and there
                  Through the woods and up the peaks
                  Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


                  "Pushing the limits of easy."™

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by randomscooter View Post
                    Source?
                    About the NIPCC Learn More About the IPCC Learn More
                    The best, the most successful adventurer, is the one having the most fun.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Neil View Post


                      Here's who they are:




                      Some quotes:

                      The Center is sharply critical of the position of the IPCC and believes that global warming will be beneficial to mankind.

                      The Center does not discuss their funding, "we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them."[3]

                      According to IRS records, the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to the center in 2000.[4] ExxonMobil stated it funded, "organizations which research significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company.


                      Selected publications[edit]
                      "The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production",



                      Oh and I almost forgot:
                      “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
                      ― Cormac McCarthy

                      Comment


                      • Okay, thanks for the context gentlemen. With that in mind -

                        Originally posted by cityboy View Post
                        A differing scientific opinion.

                        "...—climate is always changing and those who would “stabilize” the climate are fools. They may as well try to stop the Sun from rising and setting.
                        ..."
                        Now that is professionalism at it's best. This father/son/son team expects to be taken seriously? If so, they need to at least pretend to be professional. Or did I miss something? Is NIPCC another entertainment site?
                        Scooting here and there
                        Through the woods and up the peaks
                        Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


                        "Pushing the limits of easy."™

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Glen View Post
                          Here's who they are:




                          Some quotes:

                          The Center is sharply critical of the position of the IPCC and believes that global warming will be beneficial to mankind.

                          The Center does not discuss their funding, "we believe that ideas about the way the world of nature operates should stand or fall on their own merits, irrespective of the source of support for the person or organization that produces them."[3]

                          According to IRS records, the ExxonMobil Foundation provided a grant of $15,000 to the center in 2000.[4] ExxonMobil stated it funded, "organizations which research significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company.


                          Selected publications[edit]
                          "The Positive Externalities of Carbon Dioxide: Estimating the Monetary Benefits of Rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations on Global Food Production",



                          Oh and I almost forgot:
                          Glen, I believe this is the correct ID. I have no idea who you are referring to.



                          And these are the authors and contributors/reviewers.



                          OK, NOW you can bang your head!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by randomscooter View Post
                            Okay, thanks for the context gentlemen. With that in mind -


                            Now that is professionalism at it's best. This father/son/son team expects to be taken seriously? If so, they need to at least pretend to be professional. Or did I miss something? Is NIPCC another entertainment site?
                            This comment was not made by the NIPCC. It was made by the commentator of the Blog that referenced the Report. And I agree with it.

                            So lets see. You guys reference the wrong group and take a comment made by a blogger to discredit a 1000 page scientific report. I noticed that no one took a shot at disputing the highlighted findings and you expect me to take you seriously.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by cityboy
                              ...and you expect me to take you seriously.
                              Well, you never did provide the source. So, it was a blogger who shouldn't be taken seriously. That makes more sense. I stand corrected. For the record, which blogger was that?

                              Regarding the 1000 page scientific report you mention, if I interpret you correctly, it was from the NIPCC. Is that correct?

                              I quote Sherwood Idso "...what we ... have to say ... is derived from our individual scrutinizing of the pertinent scientific literature and our analyses of what we find there..."

                              To me it sounds like their "scientific report" is an opinion piece written by a dad and his boys about some scientific literature. Just seems like a huge credibility problem with that. To me at least. Maybe I'm wrong though. Was their scientific report peer reviewed?
                              Scooting here and there
                              Through the woods and up the peaks
                              Random Scoots awaits (D.P.)


                              "Pushing the limits of easy."™

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by cityboy View Post
                                Glen, I believe this is the correct ID. I have no idea who you are referring to.



                                And these are the authors and contributors/reviewers.



                                OK, NOW you can bang your head!


                                Look at the bottom of the page that you and Neil linked. If you have no idea of the people behind your "facts" you shouldn't post them.
                                Last edited by Neil; 04-16-2014, 05:22 PM. Reason: Clarification
                                “Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. They smelled of moss in your hand. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
                                ― Cormac McCarthy

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X