Adirondack Forum

Adirondack Forum (http://www.adkforum.com/index.php)
-   Environmental Issues (http://www.adkforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=87)
-   -   Rochester Professor Proposes Jail Time (http://www.adkforum.com/showthread.php?t=19888)

Schultzz 03-19-2014 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Glen (Post 215076)
Well, first off your attributing that quote to the wrong person. Secondly, this is a forum where we all come to express opinions on various subjects. If a subject doesn't interest you, ignore it. Regardless of one's views on any subject, to suggest we are powerless to change anything is something I strongly disagree with. Public opinion, people like us, won a huge battle over the energy and utility sectors concerning acid rain. We did it with less money, and no PR firms, just good old grass roots work. So if you choose to give up, thats a personal choice. I choose not to.

My apologies to you. You are correct.

Public opinion is not action, it's just opinion. Since the "action" people are "divided" it is not likely that any grass roots work will produce anything more than grass that continues to grow under your feet.

I have a question for you and others. Before "man-made" global warming how did we ever make it out of the ice age?

Glen 03-19-2014 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schultzz (Post 215077)
My apologies to you. You are correct.

Public opinion is not action, it's just opinion. Since the "action" people are "divided" it is not likely that any grass roots work will produce anything more than grass that continues to grow under your feet.

I have a question for you and others. Before "man-made" global warming how did we ever make it out of the ice age?


I'm posting a response out of courtesy, but I really am done with this. Your question is silly. Nobody on either side disputes the earth has had weather changes in the last billion or so years. That has nothing to do with the topic. As I've said numerous times, I am not a scientist so I keep an open mind and am willing to adapt to new information. You can't make up your own facts. There is no "divide" in the climate science community as you claim, unless you consider a handful of people meaningful. The hardest thing is to keep an open mind when you are convinced of something. I don't know what your motivation is but if proof ever does exist beyond a doubt that climate change is accelerated due to man's practices, you and others will find numerous graphs and charts to prove otherwise. I mean no disrespect, but I've dealt with too many people who are willing to argue anything for the sake of arguing. Life's too short.

Schultzz 03-19-2014 05:10 PM

Glen,

Thank you for your reply.

We were discussing public opinion and that's where the divide seems to exist. I have an open mind and it is apparent that you have already made up your mind. But you are entitled to your opinion. I am not arguing although it may look that way to you, I am seeking the truth. I am still neutral and willing to take action to effect good change if you can tell me how. Please do not group me with "others".

My point in bringing up the ice age query is precisely to the point though you claim it to be silly. The earth heats up and cools down. That is what has occurred in the last "billion or so years". Couldn't that be what is happening again now? We need some global warming to exist. Without it we would be in another ice age. Time magazine predicted back in 1977 that we were entering another ice age based upon the "climate science community". I too mean no disrespect for you or any other opinions yet I am not convinced that global warming is anthropogenic.

redhawk 03-19-2014 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schultzz (Post 215075)
Studies show that the belief in man-made global warming is losing credibility and interest due to a belief that facts and stats have been manipulated on both sides of the argument. The fact that this topic has become more of a political chess game places it in less of a priority than it used to be. Conflicting studies and opinions have rendered it less than news worthy therefore more people tend to believe that it is a political hoax. However, my point has always been that we are all basically powerless to effect any change regardless of our opinion. Does belief in man made global warming make you more of a conservationist? Not hardly. Does belief that it is a hoax make you less of a an ecological citizen? I don't think so. The professor at Rochester may sense also that the topic is losing interest so he makes a radical statement to keep the topic buzzing. Very clever. "Rabble Rousers" like Rush Limbaugh, and other media flashers also contribute to the "buzz" because they make money from doing that. My final point is that regardless of how you feel about it you are powerless to affect it either way. Hence attitudes like the following seem to be popular.

"And with that, I'm kinda done with this ongoing argument." - Glen

I rest my case.

And that kind of attitude is exactly what allows the status quo to continue.

History has proven that a determined group of people with the guts to sacrifice and persevere have brought change, against great odds.

In Europe, when citizens don't like what the government is doing, the country goes on strike and the politicians capitulate. When prices get too high, they boycott, not for a day or so like here, but until the prices come down, even if it means being uncomfortable and inconvenienced.

The problem here is that the masses will not give up their creature comforts for any amount of time in order to achieve change. Thus they shouldn't bitch, they deserve exactly what is being done to them.

Schultzz 03-20-2014 12:51 AM

"And that kind of attitude is exactly what allows the status quo to continue.

History has proven that a determined group of people with the guts to sacrifice and persevere have brought change, against great odds.

In Europe, when citizens don't like what the government is doing, the country goes on strike and the politicians capitulate. When prices get too high, they boycott, not for a day or so like here, but until the prices come down, even if it means being uncomfortable and inconvenienced.

The problem here is that the masses will not give up their creature comforts for any amount of time in order to achieve change. Thus they shouldn't bitch, they deserve exactly what is being done to them."

Thank you for your response.

You bring up some good points and you are most likely correct about people not wanting to give up their creature comforts yet what is being done to our country isn't right. It is true that some people with character have brought about good changes as Glen mentioned above, but many people seem too selfish or apathetic or afraid to stand up to what is not right.

However, I cannot see how good intentions will win over countries like China or India or others who are in the midst of their "industrial revolution" and are getting involved in trade due to their cheap labor.

With pollution I am under the impression that because of the way the earth turns and the subsequent Jetstream we all inherit others' lack of concern for clean air and clean natural resources. We eventually will breathe some of the same air. It's not that I do not want to be part of a desirable change and it is not that I am not ready to do whatever it takes to help bring about those worthy goals, it's just that outside of having an opinion on either side of the issue that not one concerned citizen here has told me what it is that I can do outside of being a better conservationist, to remedy the situation. I have asked several of you already.

Your answers often resound a similar theme such as you have stated above. So if I join the radical professor from Rochester in his rant to jail people who do not agree with him then I will be adding benefit to your cause? I don't think so. It's easy to become "brainwashed" when there is no readily apparent solution to the problems.

Man has caused many problems to our precious planet. It may be that some of us have contributed to its destruction before we became aware of the detriment. So people CAN change. Yet you haven't convinced me that the hypothesizes are accurate.

In the meantime what can we do to safeguard the resources of our individual states'? I know that the Adirondack Park needs to be protected but under its current mission it also needs to be available for recreation.

Kneejerk reactions do not present solutions which pragmatically are good long term remedies, yet we do not want to allow something that is wrong to continue.

Just because I may not agree with your viewpoint does not mean that I do not care or that I am not willing to personally or financially support a move toward the right direction. But once more I will ask what is it that I can do?

Limekiln 03-20-2014 09:31 AM

Interesting article....


"The 50,000-strong American body of physicists, the American Physical Society (APS), seems to be turning significantly sceptical on climate alarmism....."

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-...imate-science/

redhawk 03-20-2014 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schultzz (Post 215093)
"And that kind of attitude is exactly what allows the status quo to continue.

History has proven that a determined group of people with the guts to sacrifice and persevere have brought change, against great odds.

In Europe, when citizens don't like what the government is doing, the country goes on strike and the politicians capitulate. When prices get too high, they boycott, not for a day or so like here, but until the prices come down, even if it means being uncomfortable and inconvenienced.

The problem here is that the masses will not give up their creature comforts for any amount of time in order to achieve change. Thus they shouldn't bitch, they deserve exactly what is being done to them."

Thank you for your response.

You bring up some good points and you are most likely correct about people not wanting to give up their creature comforts yet what is being done to our country isn't right. It is true that some people with character have brought about good changes as Glen mentioned above, but many people seem too selfish or apathetic or afraid to stand up to what is not right.

However, I cannot see how good intentions will win over countries like China or India or others who are in the midst of their "industrial revolution" and are getting involved in trade due to their cheap labor.

With pollution I am under the impression that because of the way the earth turns and the subsequent Jetstream we all inherit others' lack of concern for clean air and clean natural resources. We eventually will breathe some of the same air. It's not that I do not want to be part of a desirable change and it is not that I am not ready to do whatever it takes to help bring about those worthy goals, it's just that outside of having an opinion on either side of the issue that not one concerned citizen here has told me what it is that I can do outside of being a better conservationist, to remedy the situation. I have asked several of you already.

Your answers often resound a similar theme such as you have stated above. So if I join the radical professor from Rochester in his rant to jail people who do not agree with him then I will be adding benefit to your cause? I don't think so. It's easy to become "brainwashed" when there is no readily apparent solution to the problems.

Man has caused many problems to our precious planet. It may be that some of us have contributed to its destruction before we became aware of the detriment. So people CAN change. Yet you haven't convinced me that the hypothesizes are accurate.

In the meantime what can we do to safeguard the resources of our individual states'? I know that the Adirondack Park needs to be protected but under its current mission it also needs to be available for recreation.

Kneejerk reactions do not present solutions which pragmatically are good long term remedies, yet we do not want to allow something that is wrong to continue.

Just because I may not agree with your viewpoint does not mean that I do not care or that I am not willing to personally or financially support a move toward the right direction. But once more I will ask what is it that I can do?

What the United States and we citizens do should be based on what is right, not what any other country does or not do.

I recycle, have a car that gives great gas mileage, I keep my thermostat at 65 degrees during the day and 50 at night. Among other things. My neighbors on the other hand and most people in general do not. None of my business. My business is what I do and don't do. To use what other people do in order to avoid the things I should do is just plain self centered BS. That includes personally and as a nation.

cityboy 03-20-2014 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Limekiln (Post 215100)
Interesting article....


"The 50,000-strong American body of physicists, the American Physical Society (APS), seems to be turning significantly sceptical on climate alarmism....."

http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/tony-...imate-science/

I think this is just for show. It is meant to give the appearance of collaboration but their previous stance will not be overridden.
As I understand it the deciding committee of 6 is half "Skeptics" and half Climate Modelers. In order to change their stance they would need a 4-2 vote and that will never happen.
Here is the logic:
If the debate is over then the science is settled. Therefore any gap between real world temperatures and Climate Model estimates simply means that real world temps are wrong. By implication if the models are correct then so too are the modelers and therefore none on the "pro" side will ever change their mind resulting in a 3-3 deadlock. The previous stance will remain unchanged.

The entire exercise is to have the 3 skeptics openly vote and should temperatures rise 2 years in a row the punishment will be raised from prison time to death. Method used will be electric chair and of course will be powered by renewable energy. Since public execution will be at night it will have to be wind power. Time of execution could vary according to weather conditions.

Schultzz 03-20-2014 11:58 AM

" What the United States and we citizens do should be based on what is right, not what any other country does or not do.

I recycle, have a car that gives great gas mileage, I keep my thermostat at 65 degrees during the day and 50 at night. Among other things. My neighbors on the other hand and most people in general do not. None of my business. My business is what I do and don't do. To use what other people do in order to avoid the things I should do is just plain self centered BS. That includes personally and as a nation."

No disrespect intended, but first you say that it's "none of your business" what other people do, then you turn around and contradict yourself by insulting the integrity of what other people do. I think I know what you are trying to say but I am not sure that you stated it very fairly.

On the other hand it appears that you are trying to do your part to make a difference.

redhawk 03-20-2014 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schultzz (Post 215108)
" What the United States and we citizens do should be based on what is right, not what any other country does or not do.

I recycle, have a car that gives great gas mileage, I keep my thermostat at 65 degrees during the day and 50 at night. Among other things. My neighbors on the other hand and most people in general do not. None of my business. My business is what I do and don't do. To use what other people do in order to avoid the things I should do is just plain self centered BS. That includes personally and as a nation."

No disrespect intended, but first you say that it's "none of your business" what other people do, then you turn around and contradict yourself by insulting the integrity of what other people do. I think I know what you are trying to say but I am not sure that you stated it very fairly.

On the other hand it appears that you are trying to do your part to make a difference.

No what I'm saying is that there are right things and wrong things to do. That it's none of my business if other people don't do the right thing.
What is my responsibility is to set an example by doing the right thing.
I also maintain that as "The greatest country in the world" (Not my statement by the way, but the consensus of what the overwhelming majority of Americans say), The United States and it's citizens should set an example. However it's not my business to make them do it, only for myself to put my money where my mouth is.

It's not a matter of fair or unfair, it's a matter of right or wrong.

Schultzz 03-20-2014 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redhawk (Post 215114)
No what I'm saying is that there are right things and wrong things to do. That it's none of my business if other people don't do the right thing.
What is my responsibility is to set an example by doing the right thing.
I also maintain that as "The greatest country in the world" (Not my statement by the way, but the consensus of what the overwhelming majority of Americans say), The United States and it's citizens should set an example. However it's not my business to make them do it, only for myself to put my money where my mouth is.

It's not a matter of fair or unfair, it's a matter of right or wrong.

I agree with you. However, I feel there are some people in our great land who do not know the difference between right and wrong and I am not speaking of anyone here on this site. I don't want to drift from the current topic nor start a rant about politics but I really wonder how some people think.

redhawk 03-20-2014 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schultzz (Post 215123)
I agree with you. However, I feel there are some people in our great land who do not know the difference between right and wrong and I am not speaking of anyone here on this site. I don't want to drift from the current topic nor start a rant about politics but I really wonder how some people think.

If it makes them money, makes them comfortable, makes things convenient, it's right.

If it doesn't it's wrong.

That's their criteria

cityboy 03-21-2014 06:49 AM

Looks like coal is not going away any time soon.

"coal remains the largest source of fuel for U.S. power plants. Through the first 11 months of 2013, the most recent data available, coal accounted for about 39 percent of the 3.7 trillion kilowatt hours of electricity generated in the country.

Natural gas accounted for about 31 percent of the total electricity output. Solar and wind combined for just 4 percent".

Contrast that with China's 90% use of coal. China is the largest manufacturer of solar panels. Talk about hypocritical. They sure are playing the West for suckers.

geogymn 03-21-2014 07:33 AM

I know this might be a na´ve question but.....Can't they develop a more efficient process to turn coal into energy?

cityboy 03-21-2014 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geogymn (Post 215149)
I know this might be a na´ve question but.....Can't they develop a more efficient process to turn coal into energy?

I don't think it na´ve at all. I don't know the answer but my faith in technology tells me that there will be a process developed. It might be too expensive though.
If it were me I would devote some of that green government subsidy to try and develop a more efficient and cleaner method of using coal for electric generation.

Troy64 03-21-2014 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by geogymn (Post 215149)
I know this might be a na´ve question but.....Can't they develop a more efficient process to turn coal into energy?

I am no expert, but coal can be converted into synthetic gas (syngas) to improve efficiency. Typically, and in the past, pulverized coal was burned to heat water to create steam. This steam was directed into a steam turbine. The steam turbine drives a generator, and the generator creates electrical power.

In a syngas plant, the coal is converted into gas. This gas is used by a gas turbine, and the gas turbine drives a generator. Higher burn temperatures can be used so efficiency rises.

If carbon capture is employed, efficiency drops rapidly and goes below the first example described. This is due to the large amount of energy required to capture, store and compress the carbon dioxide.

A new type of combined cycle plant combines a steam turbine and a gas turbine to drive a generator. Syngas is used in the gas turbine and waste heat is used to boil water for the steam turbine. This type of plant has the best efficiency to date (assuming no carbon capture).

DuctTape 03-21-2014 01:56 PM

Using plasma converters, most matter can be turned into syngas. The by product can also be commodities in the building trades. The added bonus with this type of energy generation is not just matter like coal, but even refuse can be feed stock for the generators. No more landfills. The technology is there, but old fashioned burning is still cheaper. End subsidies on the oil and gas producers and there is more than enough $ to research other sustainable technologies.

cityboy 03-22-2014 06:10 AM

Some more evidence that the warm up between 1975 and 1998 was not unusual. Since 1850 there were 2 other warm periods which rose just as much or lasted at least as long. The previous 2 periods were caused by natural variation. Keep in mind that during the current 15 year flat period CO2 has increased at a much faster rate than 1975 to 1998 despite the US and EU drastically reducing their output.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...ng_periods.png

TCD 03-22-2014 10:16 AM

Interesting info. Also worth noting that long terms graphs (Neil posted on another thread here some time ago) appear to show that historically, CO2 increases actually FOLLOW temperature increases. So at this point, despite the passionate "we know" positions that are being taken, no one actually knows what increased man made CO2 does to the climate. It's a first time experiment.

But I have long believed we should work our way out of fossil fuels for two reasons, neither of which has anything to do with climate:

1. Petroleum is a very useful chemical precursor to make many materials on which modern society depends. Burning it is not its best use.

2. The free market allocates resources well EXCEPT in cases where a limited resource will eventually run out. And even though it's not as close as shrill voices would like you to think, fossil fuel is limited and will eventually run out.

So, this is a case where we need to intervene to develop alternatives. Unfortunately, our people are stupid and our government is corrupt, so our intervention has all been towards technologies that don't work, but do funnel cash into campaign contributors' pockets.

randomscooter 03-22-2014 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCD (Post 215210)
But I have long believed we should work our way out of fossil fuels for two reasons, neither of which has anything to do with climate:

1. Petroleum is a very useful chemical precursor to make many materials on which modern society depends. Burning it is not its best use.

2. The free market allocates resources well EXCEPT in cases where a limited resource will eventually run out. And even though it's not as close as shrill voices would like you to think, fossil fuel is limited and will eventually run out.

100% agreed. I tried to say the same thing awhile back but didn't put it anywhere near as succinctly. :thumbs:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.