Interesting Commentary on Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9507864#post9507864 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Then please do. Are you denying the fact that it is the U.S. that is commonly held up to blame for this "crises" While other "poor" countries are given a free pass ?
I'm not denying that the US is often treated as the figure head for human induced climate change, and for good reason, but it's not only the US getting the blame. And what do you mean "poor" countries? There should be no quotation marks around the word poor. They ARE poor. When 2% of the world's population owns 90% of the world's wealth, it's pretty hard to make a case against developing nations for the CURRENT problems.
 
Last edited:
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9508615#post9508615 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
We end up trying to think of ways that we matter. In our infinite arrogance it usually turns into a mission of "saving" something.

this is a very common problem for affluent people. This feeling is why we give change to the "homeless" or go to the dog pound to get a mutt instead of a pure breed retriever or don't hold developing countries to the same Kyoto standards.
You, my friend, need to get up out of your chair right now, walk over to the nearest person and get a nice long hug. Maybe even cry a little. You have some deep pain that needs healing. Even I would give you a hug. That's how serious I am.
 
If it was not an us vs. them there would be no debate would there? We could all just hold hands, sway back and forth :dance: and sing kumbaya. :love2:


Well kumbaya is one of the only things I truly hate, but i digress.
What worries me is that you feel so defensive about the subject. You are starting to act like exxon.

:lol: I agree totally! Refer to my earlier posts. That's all this comes down to. People who live in prosperous countries like ours have to much time on our hands. We end up trying to think of ways that we matter. In our infinite arrogance it usually turns into a mission of "saving" something. In the end we just screw it up even more.

Sounds like you don't like it when people try and do some good. Calling them arrogant doesnt make you look any better. There are plenty of people doing their bit for our future.


And this is where your argument loses ALL credibility.
Please don't feel like I am picking on you, but again this is a very common problem for affluent people. This feeling is why we give change to the "homeless" or go to the dog pound to get a mutt instead of a pure breed retriever or don't hold developing countries to the same Kyoto standards.
I think if this were a REAL issue the people squawking the loudest (hippiesmell and reefers in general) would put their own prescription into action. Instead we burn untold amounts of energy for what, a tank full of fish?

Nice. I guess its nice and comfy watching other people do the work to try and save your way of life. Do you always have a go at charities?

I don't burn untolds amount of energy for a tank full of fish. The quantity is very measurable and I am trying to reduce it with every evolution of the tank. In fact on the weekend I managed to reduce my constant energy consumption by 20W. My goal (a long way off atm) is to be carbon neutral or even negative. Hopefully within 10 years.
 
The only problem with carbon neutral homes is that things like solar power, wind harnessing, thermal heating etc is that this technology is not cheap by any body's standards and they are inefficient to boot and bio fuels will add to the CO2 problem not reduce it. Only a small proportion of people would be able to afford these types of power alternatives and the idea of carbon credits being used to offset carbon footprints (like Al Gore uses) is laughable. The most viable form of energy thats also efficient is Nuclear power until such time that fusion becomes a reality.

Maybe we already have alternative ideas to combat CO2 that don't require us all to revert back to third world society's!!

A new catalyst that can split carbon dioxide gas could allow us to use carbon from the atmosphere as a fuel source in a similar way to plants.

"Breaking open the very stable bonds in CO2 is one of the biggest challenges in synthetic chemistry," says Frederic Goettmann, a chemist at the Max Planck Institute for Colloids and Interfaces in Potsdam, Germany. "But plants have been doing it for millions of years."

Plants use the energy of sunlight to cleave the relatively stable chemical bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms in a carbon dioxide molecule. In photosynthesis, the CO2 molecule is initially bonded to nitrogen atoms, making reactive compounds called carbamates. These less stable compounds can then be broken down, allowing the carbon to be used in the synthesis of other plant products, such as sugars and proteins.

In an attempt to emulate this natural process, Goettmann and colleagues Arne Thomas and Markus Antonietti developed their own nitrogen-based catalyst that can produce carbamates. The graphite-like compound is made from flat layers of carbon and nitrogen atoms arranged in hexagons.

The team heated a mixture of CO2 and benzene with the catalyst to a temperature of 150 ºC, at about three times atmospheric pressure. In a first step, the catalyst enabled the CO2 to form a reactive carbamate, like that made in plants.
Oxygen grab

The catalyst's next useful step was to enable the benzene molecules to grab the oxygen atom from the CO2 in the carbamate, producing phenol and a reactive carbon monoxide (CO) species.

"Carbon monoxide can be used to build new carbon-carbon bonds," explains Goettmann. "We have taken the first step towards using carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as a source for chemical synthesis."

Future refinements could allow chemists to reduce their dependence on fossil fuels as sources for making chemicals. Liquid fuel could also be made from CO split from CO2, says Goettmann. "It was common in Second World War Germany and in South Africa in the 1980s to make fuel from CO derived from coal," he adds.

The researchers are now trying to bring their method even closer to photosynthesis. "The benzene reaction currently supplies the energy that splits the CO2," Goettmann says, "but in plants it is light." The new catalyst absorbs ultraviolet radiation, so the team is experimenting to see if light can provide the energy instead.
Recycled carbon

Joe Wood, a chemical engineer at Birmingham University in the UK, is also researching ways of fixing CO2. "There's growing interest in using it as a recycled input into the chemical industry," he says.

The Max Planck technique has only been demonstrated on a small scale and it has a low yield of 20%, he points out. "But it looks quite promising," he adds. "The catalyst can be made cheaply and it works at a relatively low temperature."

The products of the technique are well suited to making drugs or herbicides, says Wood, "so hopefully they can improve the efficiency and scale it up."

http://www.newscientisttech.com/article/dn11390-catalyst-could-help-turn-cosub2sub-into-fuel.html
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9511594#post9511594 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus

Maybe we already have alternative ideas to combat CO2 that don't require us all to revert back to third world society's!!

Carbon monoxide, benzene, herbicides! Yikes that doesn't sound very green. Plus it doesn't punish the evil oil companies so it isn't a good idea just like carbon scrubber technology isn't.

The only option is a gradual shift to earth friendly alternative energy sources :rolleyes: .
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9507864#post9507864 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
They don't have the time to talk themselves into the idea that we mere mortals have any influence on Mother Nature.

To think we humans don't have an influence on Mother Nature is very short sighted. I've seen coastlines altered by man, entire fish populations reduced to the point of commercial extinction by overfishing, Garbage floating on the ocean far offshore and the sick and dead animals that ate that garbage, formerly pristine creeks closed to shell fishing due to human run off pollutants, I can go far offshore (well out of sight of land) and look towards the US Coast and pick out the major cities by their yellow smog of pollutants high in the air over them, and the list goes on. These are things I've witnessed for myself, not from listening to some else but actually seen with my own eyes. That is quite an impact on nature by man, and the list doesn't stop there. Rather difficult to look out at all that and think we don't have a real and tangible impact on Mother Nature.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9511594#post9511594 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus
bio fuels will add to the CO2 problem not reduce it.

Just an interesting point on bio diesel. It seems phytoplankton is popular choice to grow for the oil content to use in fuel production. Where it gets interesting is that some of the folks working with this are looking at (some prototypes have been done with sucess) using the CO2 emissions from power plants as a CO2 source to grow thicker algae cultures.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9511594#post9511594 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Cronus
Maybe we already have alternative ideas to combat CO2 that don't require us all to revert back to third world society's!!
I don't know how practical that solution you posted is, so I can't comment directly on that. But, even if it was practical, or if some other technology could be used, how are we going to implement them? It's called, *gasp*, carbon caps and regulation. But that's out of the question right? We have to wait until the corporations spend millions (or billions) out of the kindness of their own hearts. I urge all of you to read about sulfur dioxide trading and see how well that worked, then tell me why there is so much opposition to doing the same thing for CO2. You can make fun of Gore all you want for his carbon trading, but it's a great system if only there was a little more support for it.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9515052#post9515052 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Aquaticman74
Sad.... I thought this was RC not the yahoo message boards.



:rolleye1:
If you get the "Guiliani '08" out of your signature, your complaint might have more credibility. :rolleye1:
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510090#post9510090 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
I'm not denying that the US is often treated as the figure head for human induced climate change, and for good reason,

This is why I don't trust anything that comes out of your bong hole! You and your ilk love to blame America for all of the worlds ills and global warming is just another handle for you to grab onto. If the inventor of the Internet didn't fabricate this it would be something else.


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510090#post9510090 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
And what do you mean "poor" countries? There should be no quotation marks around the word poor. They ARE poor.

I meant exactly what you think I meant. Is this why you would want to let them not abide by the Kyoto treaty?


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510090#post9510090 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
When 2% of the world's population owns 90% of the world's wealth, it's pretty hard to make a case against developing nations for the CURRENT problems.

An individual or a country can not OWN wealth, it's earned. The fact that you have been duped into thinking we OWN the wealth implies that you also believe we prevent others from having it. Like money is a finite resource or something.


<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510090#post9510090 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
it's pretty hard to make a case against developing nations for the CURRENT problems.

It is these "poor" developing countries that are some of the worst offenders of Co2 emissions.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510439#post9510439 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
You, my friend, need to get up out of your chair right now, walk over to the nearest person and get a nice long hug. Maybe even cry a little. You have some deep pain that needs healing. Even I would give you a hug. That's how serious I am.

Here you go again with you sniveling sarcasm instead of actulay dealing with my comment. As far as needing some healing goes...After I made that post I had a nice dinner, a night cap and then a peaceful nights sleep. My conscience is cleeeen my boy. I, unlike you don't feel the need to be some kind of self proclaimed eco warrior with a god complex. YOU are the one with the ego problem. freud would have a field day with you.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9513593#post9513593 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
To think we humans don't have an influence on Mother Nature is very short sighted. I've seen coastlines altered by man, entire fish populations reduced to the point of commercial extinction by overfishing, Garbage floating on the ocean far offshore and the sick and dead animals that ate that garbage, formerly pristine creeks closed to shell fishing due to human run off pollutants, I can go far offshore (well out of sight of land) and look towards the US Coast and pick out the major cities by their yellow smog of pollutants high in the air over them, and the list goes on. These are things I've witnessed for myself, not from listening to some else but actually seen with my own eyes. That is quite an impact on nature by man, and the list doesn't stop there. Rather difficult to look out at all that and think we don't have a real and tangible impact on Mother Nature.

I don't deny that we make a mess but when I say influence I am addressing this notion that we can change the global climate, nock the earth of it's axis or swoop in and save the earth from sudden demise. This is the height of arrogance. This is were the modern environmentalist movement has crossed the line into a religion.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9510439#post9510439 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
You, my friend, need to get up out of your chair right now, walk over to the nearest person and get a nice long hug. Maybe even cry a little. You have some deep pain that needs healing. Even I would give you a hug. That's how serious I am.

You should hug Bushes instead. :lol:
 
Dr. James Hansen accuses White House of 'Nazi' tactics:

Dr. James Hansen accuses White House of 'Nazi' tactics:

Dr. James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies testified before the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee today. He stood by his view that the Bush Administration's information policies smacked of Nazi Germany.

Dr. Hansen took particular issue with the administration's rule that a government information officer (a political appointee) listen in on his interviews with reporters and with the administration's refusal to allow him to be interviewed by National Public Radio.

"This is the United States," Hansen told the House Oversight and Government Affairs Committee. "We do have freedom of speech here."

"When I testify to you as a government scientist," he said, "why does my testimony have to be reviewed, edited and changed by a bureaucrat in the White House?" Sitting beside him was one of the bureaucrats Hansen was talking about: Philip Cooney, chief of staff to the White House Council on Environmental Quality from 2001 to 2005.

Cooney, an official of the American Petroleum Institute before going to the White House, acknowledged having reviewed some of Hansen's testimony as part of a long-standing practice designed to result in consistency.

Full L.A. Times article here.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9516013#post9516013 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
This is why I don't trust anything that comes out of your bong hole! You and your ilk love to blame America for all of the worlds ills and global warming is just another handle for you to grab onto. If the inventor of the Internet didn't fabricate this it would be something else.

I meant exactly what you think I meant. Is this why you would want to let them not abide by the Kyoto treaty?

An individual or a country can not OWN wealth, it's earned. The fact that you have been duped into thinking we OWN the wealth implies that you also believe we prevent others from having it. Like money is a finite resource or something.

It is these "poor" developing countries that are some of the worst offenders of Co2 emissions.
Do you even know how much CO2 per capita the US produces? As I said, there is a REASON why the US is the poster child. link
China and India are considered developing, but they are major contributors and should be held to higher standards than the other developing countries at this time. Poor countries are such small contributors, they are NOT some of the worst offenders as you claim. And my comment about 2% of the population owning 90% of the wealth was to point out the fact that the developed countries caused this problem, and we have the responsibility to fix it. Or do you think the undeveloped countries built all the factories and bought all the cars?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9516132#post9516132 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Here you go again with you sniveling sarcasm instead of actulay dealing with my comment. As far as needing some healing goes...After I made that post I had a nice dinner, a night cap and then a peaceful nights sleep. My conscience is cleeeen my boy. I, unlike you don't feel the need to be some kind of self proclaimed eco warrior with a god complex. YOU are the one with the ego problem. freud would have a field day with you.
Lol, settle down. There was only a small amount of sarcasm in that post. Anybody who feels that helping the poor or adopting homeless dogs is the result of a personality fault must be at least a little sad inside. And I don't have a god complex, I just don't think humans are as weak as you think we are.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9516201#post9516201 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
I don't deny that we make a mess but when I say influence I am addressing this notion that we can change the global climate,
Just another in a looooooooooong list of things that were once deemed impossible.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top