Have you made lifestyle changes to "save the planet"?

@ladyluna (7004)
United States
July 29, 2008 10:56am CST
Hello All, Have you replaced your lightbulbs? Have you traded in your gas guzzler for a hybrid? Have you moved back to the inner city so as to not contribute to urban sprawl? It is with a heavy heart that I deflate the sense of cooperation and sincerity of a great many around the globe. If you bought in to the global warming skullduggery, and committed yourself to do whatever is necessary to save the planet ... then the following news is probably going to make you as angry as it does me. "New technology to scrub carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, all in an effort to save the world, is being opposed by - surprise, surprise - environmentalists. Although the technology to pull carbon from the air to reduce the overall carbon dioxide greenhouse gas footprint in the atmosphere - the primary gas that is responsible for global warming according to activists - is now available, environmentalists oppose the plan to implement it, citing it will “undermine attempts to promote greener lifestyles and industries.” If anything proves that the global warming agenda is more about government control and socialism than tackling the problem, this is it. Environmentalists don’t want to explore all options for helping reduce global warming; they are only interested in forcing lifestyle changes on humans around the world. http://www.skepticsglobalwarming.com/global-warming-myth/conspiracy/technology-scrub-co2-atmosphere-opposed-environmentalists/ And, here is a quote & link to a news story specifically describing the CO2 Scrubber: "Environmentalists may warn that so-called technological solutions to global warming undermine attempts to promote greener lifestyles and industries." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2061358/%27CO2-scrubberandrsquo-could-help-slow-global-warming.html
9 people like this
17 responses
• United States
29 Jul 08
The environmentalists may be right for the wrong reasons. You see, as the earth warms, CO2 in the oceans is released into the atmosphere. (Yes, it is true. Increased CO2 is because of a warming earth, not the other way around.) It is just like the CO2 bubbles in a soda pop leaving the liquid as it warms. Now, the thing of it is that if God designed the earth this way, for CO2 to be released from the oceans as the earth warms, there is probably some really darn good reason earth's atmosphere is supposed to have more CO2 as the earth warms. Until we figure out the actual role of this increased CO2 as the earth warms, we better not mess with the natural balence.
4 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
29 Jul 08
Hello Red, It seems all but impossible that the excuses offered by the left to not deploy this technology will force the absurdity of the intitial argument out into the light of day. Therein lies the value of this advancement -- not really in it's deployment.
3 people like this
@Smith2028 (797)
• United States
29 Jul 08
Ha. I have not, nor will I ever, change my lifestyle to "save the planet." The whole climate change is a farce. A short, and I do mean short dive into research will show many of the same things we are experiencing now also were around a couple centuries ago.... and there were no lightbulbs, no suvs, and no urban sprawl.
3 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
30 Jul 08
Hello Smith2028, Nice to visit with you again -- thanks for stopping by! You present an excellent point! Those of us who have been fighting the politicization of environmental stewardship have been presenting the historical contradiction of GW alarmism since the onset of the ruse. There have been many warming and cooling periods throughout the 'ice core' history of our planet. Add to that the corroboration from 'written hitory', and the 'incontrovertable' aspect of the GW argument goes right out the window. Geesh, the Viking colonization of Greenland in the 8th Century has been presented repeatedly, yet ignored every step of the way. Though, the real kicker is the evidence of a concurrent warming trend on other planets throughout our galaxy. It's kind of funny, but I once asked a 'gung ho' environmentalist how the GW theory explained the Martian warming, and her answer was that our human produced CO2 was leaking out of our atmosphere, and travelling through space to affect Mars. I asked her if she was aware that space is a vacuum, to which she responded with a look of bewilderment and a series of "um, um, um". Then came the flustered, angry defense of the indefensible.
• United States
30 Jul 08
Bingo.
@gewcew23 (8007)
• United States
29 Jul 08
No, No, and No to your questions. When Al Gore starts caring about the environment I might start caring. The new green movement is the same as the old pinko movement, just using a different way of achieving what they want. The old adage the ends justify the means, will in this case that is exactly what they are shooting for. By undermine attempts to promote greener lifestyles and industries this scrubber defeats the movement. If it is possible to have your cake and eat it too why not. Why not have all the coal plant you can build, or the biggest hogs you can drive? The problem is that is freedom, and the new greenies/old pinkos cannot allow you to have freedom to do whatever you want to do. One last thing I have to add to this, the game that the capitalist greenies are pulling is all about the money. If there is no fear of global warming then there is no fear to buy eco-friendly products. If there is away to have clean air and pollute all day, then why carbon credits. Their is a reason that GE was pushing Warner-Lieberman, because they stood to make a killing.
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
29 Jul 08
I'm simply stunned that you have not replaced every lightbulb in your house, barn, chicken house, & maybe the goat pen with compact florescents, Gewcew. Stunned, I tell you (chuckle, chuckle). So, if I'm reading your response correctly, you're indicating that the primary difference between then and now is just the promotion of a different color choice from the Crayola 64? It used to be pink, and now it's green?
2 people like this
@dodoguy (1292)
• Australia
30 Jul 08
Hi Ladyluna, It's all a bit of a circus, really. Most people haven't woken up to the hard reality yet - namely that the Global Warming (which is or maybe WAS real) has little if anything to do with the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. To coin a phrase - it's the Sun, silly! The Sun is the one doing all the warming, not the carbon dioxide or methane or whatever. That's borne out not only by the fact that ALL of the planets in our Solar System are having their own versions of "Global Warming", but certain key studies have conclusively shown that our atmosphere isn't doing what it should be doing if it was actually being heated up by too much carbon dioxide. No, it's not carbon dioxide that's the culprit. It's the Sun. And there's nothing the Kyoto Protocol or any other Red Tape Brigade can do about it. So it's a little tiresome to see all these nonsense antics about trying to suck carbon dioxide back out of the air, and pump it into the ground or whatever. And I personally have a lot of difficulty stomaching all the Green hype - because it's all just pushing someone or another's political agendas. It would be nice to see a concerted effort to cut back on toxic pollution and reforest the globe instead of chopping down everything in sight. That would do a lot more to make the place more habitable and eco-friendly, which is desirable for everyone, including humans as well as pandas. But forget about trying to control Global Warming. That's way beyond the capability of the entire human race to influence - the Sun is just a wee bit too big to care much about what we might do here on our floating dirt ball. So if anyone wants to do something about the climate, then I reckon figuring out strategies to adapt to changing times would be a lot more sensible than wasting time and energy on trendy political fluff.
@dragon54u (31634)
• United States
3 Aug 08
Hey Dodo, where ya been? I haven't heard from you in a long time, hope you're well and happy.
• United States
30 Jul 08
The only thing I have changed in my life is recycled more and waste food less. That is pretty much it
2 people like this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
30 Jul 08
Hello StarChild517, I certainly can't fault either of your initiatives, from a 'responsibility' perspective. Recycling is good for the economy, and it keeps recyclables from cluttering valuable land-space (land fills). It's funny -- your response reminded me of my youth. I attended Catholic School, and the Nuns endlessly hammered home the point about not wasting food. I remember earnestly suggesting that we ship our lunch remnants to Ethiopia, which accomplished little more than rousing the frustration of Sr. Lorraine. Hey, at least there was no knuckle/ruler action. Fortunately, the Nuns who taught me were all pretty reasonable and level-headed.
1 person likes this
• United States
29 Jul 08
Haha, that kills me. I hate environmentalists, they're such fun suckers. But I still think global warming is a myth, so I'll do nothing to reduce my "carbon footprint". Apparently, though, neither will they...
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
29 Jul 08
Hello Steeltownfan, Only time will tell whether this is as blatant a hypocrisy as many will suspect. I have long been a committed environmental steward. Not because of the environmental movement, but because I was taught as a youngster to leave something in as good as, or a better condition than when I borrowed it. So, I make a commitment to not litter. I avoid spending my hard-earned dollars with irresponsible companies like General Electric, and I promote responsible gardening and farming practices. Although, that does not mean that I am making an effort to reduce my carbon footprint. Heck, we even replaced incandescent light bulbs for compact florescents -- over five years ago. We certainly won't purchase CFs in the future because it is an irresponsible product i.e. mercury poisoning of people and the environment. Hopefully we'll soon see the latest in LCD reduced energy home lighting option hit the market. Much progress has been made in that regard. Bottom line, we like to keep our electricity bill down. We support environmental stewardship. Though, we couldn't give a 'hoot' (pun intended) about a carbon footprint. And, now none of us should have to. 'Cause, now there's a technological option to reduce CO2 emmissions without having to adopt a socialist lifestyle. I can already hear Al Gore kickin' & screamin'.
1 person likes this
• United States
30 Jul 08
Whatever. What I'm saying is that I'm not going to change my lifestyle because everyone wants me to believe this pack of lies about "global warming". If I make any eco-friendly changes, I can assure you it will be for my own benefit, not to "save the planet, man. Now c'mon, dude, let's go burn burn one in the bathroom before class, man. That'd be far-out."
• United States
29 Jul 08
I've cut my fuel consumption by 50%. I used to spend about $50 per week on gasoline, now I get by with just $25 per week. I make sure that I do everything, that requires driving, on my way to work or on my way home from work. I make sure my car is tuned up and the air pressure in the tires are correct. I've seen a slight increase in milage per gallon by doing this. I've also stopped watering my grass. I still water my plants and my garden, but I leave the grass to fend for itself. I also keep my central air conditioner set at 79 degrees. Believe it or not, you get used to it and it's quite comfortable. Those are some of the things I do to hopefully 'save the planet'. Lloyd
• United States
30 Jul 08
Congratulations! Thanks for sharing!
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
30 Jul 08
Hello Lloyd, Good for you, good for your wallet, good for your sense of well-being, good for our nation (reducing our dependence on foreign oil is a must), and good for the planet today and tomorrow. None can argue that pollution sucks! I have never met a single Human Being, nor do I believe that I ever will, who prefers a polluted world to a non-polluted world. Having said that, I would urge you to read the two links in my original post. The point of the post is that making lifestyle changes IN ORDER TO affect CO2 levels in our atmosphere is an 'empty' effort. The effort is noble on its own accord. In other words, making lifestyle changes toward an economic goal may fit in very well with an individual's or a nation's goals, however the whole concept of man-made CO2 as an atmospheric toxin is a ruse. If the environmental lobby really believed this 'bunk' about man-made global warming, then they'd be all over this CO2 scrubber advancement, instead of presenting the initial reaction that such a technological advancement could hamper their goals toward forcing people to live the way 'they' want them to live. This initial objection debunks the entire 'GW/man-made CO2 threat' argument. Which supports the science of the many that Al Gore and his 'hope to make a cap & trade fortune' buddies are, and have been full of bologna.
• United States
30 Jul 08
(Heavy sarcasm, in case you didn't follow).
@Destiny007 (5805)
• United States
30 Jul 08
The whole global warming thing is all about power and money... and the sick and twisted desire that America and every other country be reduced to a third world standard of living. CO2 is not even a major cause of global warming in the first place... the sun is. Man made global warming is a hoax... a scam... a damn lie perpetrated by individuals and organizations that want to control everything we do including where we set our thermostats, and backed by the liberals including McCain. This article further proves the assertions that myself and others have been making for a long time.... that it is all a scam based on money and power, and that the ones pushing the scam are a bunch of hypocrites and control freaks who should be thrown in prison and subjected to a massive regimen of high voltage shock therapy in an attempt to cure their madness. At least the truth is finally out... the envirofascists aren't really looking for a solution... they are looking to control everyone.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
30 Jul 08
Oh my Destiny, It took a minute for me to be able to type concurrent to the hearty belly laugh! As I read your response, I couldn't help but envision it as the plot of a screenplay. I take the liberty of laughing about this with you because we've been together (with your ideological twin) on the front-lines of this battle for some time now. Hopefully I'm offering a bit of levity, after prolonged battle fatigue. Can you also envision the plot adapted for the big screen? That'd be a heck of a contrast to "An Inconvenient Truth", wouldn't it???
• Singapore
31 Jul 08
Hi ladyluna, I have not made any changes to my present lifestyle because I find it hard to adapt into the changes such as using less plastic bags. As we know plastic bags are biodegradable material and will give off poisonous gas into atmosphere if being burnt but there is 1 issue that needs to consider which is without the plastic bags, what are you going to use to contain the food swills? Are the people going to use paper bags? Paper bags do not hold long when it is damp, so is there any other ways to hold the food swills without using plastic bags? I have been using energy saving light bulbs all day long.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
31 Jul 08
Hello my friend, Wow! That's a really great question! We have become very dependent on plastic. Plastic food containers, plastic bags, plastic medical equipment and parts, plastic automotive parts, plastic this and plastic that. I'd say that you've brought up a fine point indeed, Titanium!
• Singapore
31 Jul 08
But nobody seems to take care of it, environmentalists have been encouraging to use less plastic bags but people need to use it. Imagine what kind of a world without plastic bags?
1 person likes this
@Zmugzy (773)
29 Aug 08
Regarding the "new technology to scrub the air" quote - it is rather an inefficient way of doing things and to suggest that just because people oppose it means they must be socialists (and there's nothing inherently wrong with that) is a rather ridiculous link to make. You could just as easily... in fact it would make more sense to suggest that those who oppose it have more business sense than those who favour it. It there are more efficient means of tackling global warming by developing alternative technologies to fossil fuel. For example, by building vast solar farms in the world's deserts. According to German scientists by covering just 0.5% of the world's hot deserts 'concentrated solar power' (CSP) could provide the world's entire electricity need. CSP technology is already being used in California, Nevada, Spain and Australia. This kind of technology along with wind power, hydro, biomass and geo-thermal will eventually make Europe and the USA no longer reliant on oil production in the unstable regions of the middle east. Many new opportunities for business entrepreneurs are out there. Could it be that those who blindly deny man-made global warming and the large oil corporations that spoon feed them their anti-green propaganda are against new technology and new business innovation? Do they want us to be reliant on Saudi Arabian oil for the next fifty years? Yes I do what I can as an individual to be more energy efficient but only political international cooperation will truly tackle global warming.
@xfahctor (14118)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
30 Jul 08
It seems a number of years ago, that popular science published an article on this very technology. It also seems to me it said that it would have unintended consiquences on the atmosphere that would actualy be detrimental to it. This is only from memory however. To your point. I agrea, basicaly anything that condradicts the prescriptions they offer is off the table and begats a rabidly negative response from them. I believe it is mostly politicaly and idealogicly motivated. I would much compair it to the war in Iraq, no matter how well things may go now, they will never admit they were wrong because it doesn't fit in to the feel-goody, warm and fuzzy idealology they hold and shove down our throats. butI digress, so no one go in to an Iraq discussion here, it was just used to illustrate my point. What do I do To "save the earth"? I do what I have done all my life. I dont litter. I turn off a light in a room I'm not in. I don't dump poisons down my sink. and I DON't use those toxic, mercury laden toxic lightbulbs everyone is pushing now. Basicly good things that everyone should simply because golobal warming hoax or not, we should do what we can to take care of the environment we live in. I like fresh air to breath, clean water to drink and regularly available electricity. these don't have to be in the name of "saving humanity form global warming". It's just good common sense. My 17 year old daughter, who describes herself as a confirmed but sensable liberal, was attending a presentation at her high school by one of Al Gore's cronies, I don't know exactly what the details were but it was somethng to do with global warming and his movie. Durring the question and answer period after, when all the other sheeple students and facyluty were either praising it or asking questions to confirm their fears, she stood up and asked the man about the report that Al Gore's house used twice as much energy as the average american dwelling and about his use of private jets and convoys of SUV's. The guy just stammered and studdered for a moment and said something like " I can't comment on that, I really don't know anything about that report". And then went on to the next question. I was SO frikkin proud of her, lol. There is actualy a study out now that demonstrates that the planet stablized it's temp about 10 years ago and has actualy dropped a fraction of a degree in the last few years. I believe it was out of australia. We as a species haven't been around long enough to underestand what happens over time on this earth. We think too much in terms of human time. We look at it as, if we haven't seen it in our life time, or even in a few hundred years, or even in a thousand years, that it is unusual or must be caused by us. the universe doesn't follow human time, it follows it's own and it's concept of time is vastly gargantuine in terms of our conception. In order to understand what is normal and what is not, we would have to have been watching these things up close and personal for millions of years and even that would be the blink of an eye in terms of cosmic time. The earth has been here for billions of years and even though we think we can understand everything that has hapened or even know everything that has happened, we don't know a fraction of it. It is arrogent to think that in the short time humans have been on this earth that we can understand everything about it and how it works. Even more, it is almost the HEIGHT of arrogence to think we can control it.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
30 Jul 08
Hello X, Thank you for a terrific response. I absolutely agree with you that our concept of time is so miniscule as compared to cosmic time. And, that we are in our infancy regarding a true understanding of how and why 'it' all works. As such, you're absolutely 'spot on' that it is unquestionably arrogant for us silly Humans to believe that we might be able to control the cosmic heartbeat of our planet.
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
30 Jul 08
The planet is just fine. Those light bulbs they want you to buy are way too expensive. I don't care how long they last. Global warming is such a farce.
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
30 Jul 08
Hello Irishidid, Before I get side-tracked in replying to your response, I did want to follow up to learn if you had any particular feedback relating to the CO2 scrubber, and the environmental objection to implementing the technology? As for the cost of the CF bulbs: Are they that much more expensive? I honestly don't know because Hubby & I replaced all of our incandescents with compact florescents when we remodelled, and put 'can' light fixtures throughout the house. At that time (approx. 4-5 years ago) the CF bulbs were about $5 each. We're always interested in lowering the electric bill, so we decided to run a comparative experiment. We have not had to replace a lightbulb since. Though, our electricity co-op has been giving them away at every meeting. So, I now have a surplus of 8 compact florescents -- which I will no longer replace with -- because of the mercury fume toxicity threat and because we prefer 'golden glow' lighting to harsh, flickery, 'blue' lighting. Go figure, eh? When the new LED home lighting options begin to make their way to the market, we will change out all of the compact florescents. That is IF the LED options turn out to be as dynamically energy efficient as they are claimed to be. I wholeheartedly agree that GW is a manipulative farce. However, reducing our national electric load, thereby reducing our dependence on foreign oil is a must. That is, at least until we can get Congress out of the way of clean coal/liquified coal, domestic drilling, and perhaps nuclear -- if smart nuclear technology is applied.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
30 Jul 08
Hello Kennyrose, Absolutely; hypocrisy should never be shielded or excused!
@irishidid (8687)
• United States
30 Jul 08
The last time I checked the light bulbs were around $7.00 in my area. I'm all for anything that will lower in bills. I find it irritating that the electricity in my area is so high and for no reason I can find except for greed. I'm all for the scrubber if it works. I'm not surprised the global warming fanatics are against it. They can't make money if the problem (in their imaginations) doesn't exist.
1 person likes this
@Guardian208 (1095)
• United States
8 Aug 08
Absolutely. I no longer speak. I've decided to take a stand. Top scientists, yes TOP scientists, have determined that every time we speak we expel heat and carbon dioxide into the air. All speech emits 98.6 degree heat into the environment along with the carbon dioxide. I WILL NOT be party to such an attack on our earth. So from now on I will only email, text message and myLot to communicate. I encourage all others to take a similar stand. For more info go to: www.ForeverHoldYourPeace.com
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
8 Aug 08
Well hey there Guardian, Thanks for sharing this new 'save the planet' plan. Although, before you fully cloister yourself you might want to consider the following: Yesterday, I ran across a news article pointing to the decline in the 'greenie' trend/fad. Unfortunately, I didn't save the article. I got a hearty chuckle from it, and moved on. Anyway, since the cost of living has risen so, and since being a greenie is quite expensive (especially without a trust fund), the average young person is abandoning their commitment to the movement. Far be it from me to suggest that you might be taking on this cloistered position in support of the 'greenie' trend. BUT, if you are, then you may want to consider that your 'martyr' points will not be as high now, as they would have been say six months ago. I certainly don't want to dissuade your 'one-man show', I just wanted to pass this along in the spririt of full disclosure. I would like to look into your ForeverHoldYourPeace plan, unfortunately the link is not accessible. I'm being directed to a GoDaddy option to purchase the web name. So, might you re-post the link? That way, I too can consider cloistering. Heck, if for no other reason than to give myself a powerful tool for not having to talk to my nut-job neighbor!
@ruby222 (4847)
30 Jul 08
I expect there are many of us who have made small changes to try and keep in line with the `save the planet` theme,one major thing for us has been the amount of recycling that we do,instead of just the odd bit or two,we now recycle a vast amount of the waste that we have.I am intrigued by the solar panels and the electricity generating windmills too.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
30 Jul 08
Hello Ruby222, We have residential solar hot water collection panels. They're a useful technology, albeit terribly inefficient. We live in the desert southwest, so the inefficiency is compensated for by the prevalence of clear, sunny days here. Photovoltaics (solar electricity) is utterly useless without adjunct power storage. Right now, today, we cannot store solar electricity for more than about 24hrs. without a significant loss. Wind is the same as solar electricity. Without a viable storage medium, the influx of such alternatively generated power puts the power grid, and yours & my electrical items, at great risk of brown out or surge damage or destruction. (Think of a massive power surge during a severe thunder storm.) Without a viable storage medium, batteries if you will, we cannot temper or control wind or solar generated electricity. This means that it thrusts on to the current grid, then wanes as it's transmitted. The waxing and waning of the moon is great. No so of the waxing and waning of electricity onto our national grid, which is downright dangerous. I have long supported renewable energy. Though, that is absolutley not the focus of this discussion. You may wish to read through the rest of the discussion, as the underlying current is not an earnest examination of what we are each doing to "save the planet".
1 person likes this
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
30 Jul 08
Great info, Tizzo!!! To be more specific, I was referring to large-scale influx of alternatively generated power on to the grid from emerging solar and wind farms. For example: I am a member of an electricity co-op. We currently have a gubernatorial initiative mandating a certain percentage of wind power being supplied to the grid. Not surprisingly, wind farms have begun to emerge. My energy co-op exhaustively looked into purchasing wind power from a new wind farm in the eastern part of my state. However, there were/are two significant, detracting considerations: One is the high cost of purchasing wind power. I.e., new facilities have not had any time to amortize their start-up costs, so the initial costs are quite a bit higher than say coal generated electricity. And the second (and this is the biggie) is that the more individual units there are collecting/distributing power on to the grid, the higher the volume of amperes entering the grid at any one time/location. The issue is that the rate is not levelized. So, the power distributor must always be able to compensate for the ebb & flow of the amperes, so that there is enough power to supply the current need, yet not so much that a surge will flow through the line, thereby damaging residential and commercial appliances, tools, etc... And the heart of the problem is that there is no way to regulate commercial wind & PV without a viable storage medium. I've been pondering a small-scaled, base-line nuke, artificial wind turbine application to regulate the ampere load. However, I'm only exploring it theoretically, as I'm certainly no inventor. From the standpoint of individually generated wind or PV, I completely agree with you. Once we veer off into commercial wind/PV generation, we're looking at a whole new Pandora's Box of issues.
30 Jul 08
Well it all sounds very complex to me,and as long as we are trying to do our bit,then that is all we can do,but it looks very like you are into it in a big way,but very well done you.
• Philippines
30 Jul 08
No I didn't make any changes on my lifestyle to save the planet earth. I think having plants around your home would save. How would it help if we replaced light bulbs? I haven't heard anythin about that. Changing gas guzzler for a hybrid would be an expensive cost for me so I can't do it just yet. We cannot move as well because that would cost too with the crisis on the economy I cannot afford much of anything to save the planet all I can do is save our stomachs from aching so I earn for food. I believe I can help with the plants at this time.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
30 Jul 08
Hello P3halliwel, It's nice to visit with you again. You might want to re-read the original post, and/or read the other responses to get a broader 'feel' for what this discussion is really about. This is not an earnest examination of what each of us may or may not be doing to "save the planet". As such, I'd say that your focus on 'feeding your family' fits right in with the intent.
@wisedragon (2325)
• Philippines
30 Jul 08
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not the only issue. The world's supply of fossil fuels is finite. It will inevitably run out in a few decades. If we don't shift to alternative energy, imagine what will happen when there's no more oil. People won't be able to go to work anymore.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
30 Jul 08
Hell Wisedragon, Sorry, but I would argue both of your suppositions. First, CO2 is not 'an' issue. I will remind all that the original IPCC report, which got this whole ruse/scheme started was signed off by four (yes, that's 4 scientists). There has never been a 'concensus' as evidenced by the legal action taken by numerous scientists (who the UN fraudulently linked to that original IPCC report) to have their names disassociated from that same report. The UN has since then quietly disassociated those names, leaving just the original four signatories who agreed with the original IPCC findings. Counter that with the Oregon Petition, which began in the late 90s and has grown to over 31,000 signatures of 'bona fide' scientists, including nearly 33% with PhDs in related scientific fields. The below excerpt is from the "Center for Global Food Issues" website. [i]".... The forecasts of desperate temperature increases all come from computer climate models, notes Robinson. But the computer models keep forecasting more warming than we get. In fact, 70 percent of the earth’s recent warming occurred before 1940, while virtually all of humanity’s greenhouse gas emission has occurred since that date. The Earth’s net warming since 1940 is a tiny 0.2 degree C. “If CO2 isn’t causing our tiny warming, then banning all our energy will simply make people poor and helpless, says Robinson, “The cold spells and heat waves nature will always throw at us, will then indeed, threaten human lives on the planet.” [/i] http://www.cgfi.org/2008/05/27/over-31000-us-scientists-deny-man-made-global-warming-by-dennis-t-avery/ As to your second point: With the same fervor, and commitment to the scientific model as embraced by those who denounce the GW/man-made CO2 argument, the "Peak Oil Theory" has been challenged on many, many fronts! Let us remember that the Peak Theorists warned that we'd run out of oil in the 1970s. Then again in the 80s, using different 'models'. Then again in the 90s, straight on through to today. Though, while those Peak Theorists (who hail from 'Big Oil" companies) keep telling us that "oil is a finite, valuable commodity", exhausted oil wells specimens from around the globe have mysteriously been re-supplied. Real science, and profit-driven psuedo-science are not to be confused as one in the same. I would urge us all to remember that statistics can be adapted and molded to 'prove' any supposition imaginable. It's just a matter of creativity vs. integrity.
• United States
29 Jul 08
that is interesting but I question the sweeping generalization of the use of "environmentalists". I am sure not every single enviromentalist group or individual would agree with this position and it seems that this artical is more anti-enviromentalist propaganda then anything really. Just my opinion though.
@ladyluna (7004)
• United States
29 Jul 08
Hello Lisaradgirl, Did you read the UK Telegraph link? That is not propoganda. Instead, it is a factual presentation of the info about the newly developed CO2 Scrubber equipment. You cannot simply dismiss this as propoganda without earnestly considering that there is a seemingly viable technological advancement that will reduce or eliminate CO2 levels in our atmosphere. CO2 as an atmospheric pollutant, while a higly controversial theory, is the heart of Al Gore's & the Environmental lobby's message. Now, a viable option is presented and the anticipated response is: "Environmentalists may warn that so-called technological solutions to global warming undermine attempts to promote greener lifestyles and industries." While I certainly respect your right to your opinion -- how can you not view this as highly hypocritical?
1 person likes this