Fyi

[wds21921]

I'm posting this for the group. I've had several discussions with more than a few people on RC who say global warming is nothing more than a normal cycle.
After much debate I was happy to see this posted today.
This isn't specific to discredit one company but to show that there is more than a little validity and it is in fact a fact.



WASHINGTON - ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday.

The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report.

Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants.

ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming.

But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company.

Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.

Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming.

 

[ronert]

Re: Fyi


Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts.


That's easy to say about many 'experts' on both sides of this issue.

But, don't construe this to mean that I'm defending Exxon.

 

[wds21921]

Understood, earily that sounds very familiar, that paragraph I mean.

 

[kaptken]

I read that article today too. I like to keep up on environmental news for many reasons. It seems that amongst the profesionals around the globe who devote their lives to climate study, the question is no longer "IF" but how much and how fast changes are happening. True, there are natural cycles, but then you add the man made effect on top of them.

One bit of info that has come out of the global study is that of all the CO2 dumped into the air over the past 150 years of global industrialization, about 40% of it has been absorbed by the oceans of the world. so that we only have a 100 ppm rise in CO2 instead of 166 ppm rise. but as we reefers know, when you add CO2 to your tank water it forms an acid which then nutralizes some of your alkalinity. and the same has been measured in the oceans. the average PH of the oceans has dropped something near, 0.1 in PH over that time.

so the warming of the oceans and acidification of sea water is having a negative effect on coral growth on reefs in many parts of the world. We can try this experiment at home. turn up the lights, turn off the chillers and stop adding buffer to our tanks and see what happens. I think we already know.

well, since we are on the subject, here is a good source of daily news on global warming , study, solutions, and the current world politics there of .

http://www.climateark.org/

they scan the news papers, magazines and scientific journals of the world every day and link them all together for us. It's my daily read, just because i like to know . It's not like we are helpless here. there is plenty we can do. it will just take time.
good post wds.

 

[Safir]

One of our products is CO2 fire suppresion systems, and I heard from one of the techs today that it may become illegal sonner than later to release CO2 into the atmosphere, like halon or freon.

 

[Gordonious]

Thanks for the post wds and everyone else for your comments. I also try to keep updated on issues such as these.

I can tell you one thing if you have not watched incontinent truth PLEASE watch it soon. I can tell you that every chart, graph, and concept he discusses I have seen before from at least two of my professors most of which have their doctorates.

We now know the truth, but the issues has been talked about and discussed for so long no one seems to get excited about it much any more. The thing that worries me most is that if the average young American thinks they can make no difference in a state or national election I know their has to be a large percent that think they can make no difference on the environment.

I try to do my part by recycling, using cold water for laundry, reusing many things, but I think there are bigger ways to make a difference. Probably the biggest impact we have on the environment is how we power our homes. There are ways that you can support "green power" if you will, such as wind and solar power.

If you don't think you can make a difference buy spending a little money on environmentally safe power sources how about getting your work or school involved. It's hard some times to get big businesses to start to use this power when your boss may have another richy rich friend in the coal factory, but it's worth a shot.

I've been working with my school to get them to buy a percentage of their power from wind power and know a good amount about it.

Ok, I talked enough. If you want to discuss any of this or get any more info PLEASE talk to me. I would love to share my opinions.(as if you couldn't already tell)

 

[kaptken]

well, I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a total ban. we are just too dependant on things that make co2 to eliminate all of them any time soon. fire suppression seems like a very minor contributor. how many go off each day? besides, they mostly store CO2. I think you are safe for a while. the big contributors are still coal, oil, nat gas, forest fires and just plain old forest decomposition and waste decay. mostly our energy sources and food supplies and waste disposal. Oh and don't forget every breath 6.5 billion people take, and all the farm animals we grow for burgers and bits. and all the waste from both. lots of raw material there going to waste. one of those articles on the site is about turning chicken fat into biodiesel for your truck. rather than throw it away or make cat food. recycling carbon.

 

[wds21921]

Recently on channel 10 (Philly) they were showing some huge wind fans that were being imported from India to be used somewhere in the USA (I can't remember where).
A few weeks earlier there was also a show on PBS showing some of these in Colorado, if my memory serves me correctly?
The output on these were very good but the complaints where from nearby residents who said they were unsightly.
Personally, I'd rather see a huge wind fan rather than a Nuke tower (no offense Ken).
IMO for whatever it's worth, I think it's time for our legislators and politicians to quit doing lip service, which they've done for 40 years, and actually start doing something about this.

Even for those on the other side of the debate, you cannot dispute the overall health benefits.

As Gord said, individually we can make somewhat of a difference but much of this is really dependent on Industry and large companies which in the last 6 years have been given almost carte blanche to disregard most federal regulations.

On the good side, I have been seeing at least some REAL attempts by more than a few manufacturers at driving this new ecological friendly energy production. Part of it may be due to the lower costs of the tehcnological factors but I would like to think it's more of people taking responsibility and gaining a conscience. Call me idealistic.

Regardless of who, how, or where, we are all partially responsible for the end results.

 

[Gordonious]

We are still working on finalizing the Universities purchase of some green power. One of the possibilities if it comes to having to rally the student body against "the man"(lol the school president) is to have what I think the wind companies called a blade event.
We would have the wind company drive a single blade from one of these wind towers down and park it in a parking lot of everyone to see. This wouldn't be one in the back of a pick up truck this thing would take a large tractor trailer to pull it down here.

If we end up doing this I will be sure to let everyone know. Would be an awesome site.

Jon

 

[kaptken]

No problem wds, having been involved with building a bunch of those "cooling towers", I have a strong interest in energy resources. and i like to keep up on the latest developments.

right now, wind power is the fastest growing segment of our national power supply. but it is still small. large companies like GE and westinghouse have taken advantage of the trend simply because it involves building large mechanical equipment, which will need lots of maintence and spare parts over time to keep them running. but still, they have managed to bring the cost of wind power from them inline with fossil fuel. so it is being promoted by industry, and government. it supports the local grid monopoly of large central stations feeding the transmission grid toll road. but it is still clean power.

right now the bottle neck and main thing driving up the cost of solar again has been a shortage in silicon refining capacity. but refiners are finally building new plants that will double production of silicon in the next 3-5 years. the first come on line in late 2007-2008. that will start dropping the cost of solar again from the current price of $4.88 per watt. 3 years ago it was lower at about $4.30 per watt. but as solar power grew , they started competing with the micro chip industry causing the shortage and driving up the price. so it is estimated that in the next 5 years the cost of solar might drop to about $2.50-$3.00 a watt. like on this chart.

http://www.solarbuzz.com/

then solar will really take off with more capacity at half the cost. even so, it will still be a small percentage of our power supply, but growing. and new forms of organic solar material might make it even less expensive. to the point we start to use them to cover the walls of homes and buildings with them and solar clear glass for windows, all making power. Like astro power's former office building. just off 896. they used solar glass walls and clear solar windows and sky lights that looked like stained glass to enclose the building , all making power. even though its empty today, its still making power for the neighborhood. it was a demo project, only because it was not cost effective at that point. soon it will be.

then i can build my solar home with green house aquarium room. and grow really nice corals in an indoor wading lagoon with zero CO2 power from my home solar system. wouldn't that be fun? Having a shallow sandy lagoon with rock piles indoors you can wade through and tend your corals?

right now in Delaware, every kilowatt hour of electricity we burn produces 1.96 pounds or 16 cubic feet of CO2 , and one gallon of gasoline makes 19.5 pounds or 159 cubic feet of CO2. that's where a lot of it comes from.

 

[Tbor]

It's easy to blame industry, but it us the consumers who drive the industry. And unfortunately until costs of fossil fuels really skyrocket people won't think twice about driving 60miles one way to work or heating old farmhomes with windows that haven't been replaced in 100 years, powering useless street lights and... well you get the picture.
Really at this point I think it's not worth the argument of how much impact industrialization has had on an unstable system, but instead we should be discussing what is within our power to actually change and how much time we have to react.
And, to lighten the mood, I like your Freudian slip, Gord. I assume you mean inconvenient truth not incontinent,
although Gore certainly seems that way at times LOL!

 

[wds21921]

HAHAHAHAHA !

 

[kaptken]

Great!! I caugth that slip too. but... what more can we say?