38 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
38 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

Carbon what?

by gforces
32 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
Here is some food for thought I received today...................





Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
Australians showed sense in resisting the govt pressure to agree to a carbon tax before the Copenhagen Conference - which seems years ago now.





Are you sitting down?

Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know, it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of Bali, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your $1 light bulbs with $10 light bulbs ...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.

I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire YEARS on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.

Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus "human-caused" climate change scenario.

Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention "Global Warming" any more, but just "Climate Change" - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.

And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.

But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?
  • Profile picture of the author rondo
    "Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus “human-caused” climate change scenario."

    They've just done it. Did you know the Australian Prime Minister announced the new carbon tax last week? In fact the TV ad campaign for the new tax started today.


    Andrew
    Signature
    Online courses
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4278977].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author gforces
      Originally Posted by rondo View Post

      "Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus "human-caused" climate change scenario."

      They've just done it. Did you know the Australian Prime Minister announced the new carbon tax last week? In fact the TV ad campaign for the new tax started today.


      Andrew
      Yes, I have family in Brisbane and south of Sydney, so I try and keep up with Australian news. I saw that announcement and notices about the ad campaign.
      Signature
      The Online Ninja - Spying Out The Internet For The BEST Resources, Tools & Techniques
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4279198].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    PLUS carbon is a needed element that degrades quickly in a way. It is generally HARMLESS! Some people EAT the stuff! JUST YESTERDAY I went to a new vitamin store and one of the products, which I believe was from "NOW", was ACTIVATED CARBON.

    Carbon dioxide is relatively harmless. For carbon on the outside of the planet to get to the point where it could even cause us to be sleepy, nearly everything here would be DOOMED! NEVER MIND though because we would probably be long dead because there would have to be so few plants on the planet!

    Incandescent lights are made of:
    INERT metal such as steel or copper. Just a LITTLE bit! Degrades quickly, is cheap, safe, etc....
    TIN. as I recall, INERT.
    LEAD. Okay, dangerous, but a very small amount.
    Glass. HEY, this is made from a natural element that generally comes from coral! Don't worry though, they generally use it after it has effectively become beach sand, so no creatures were harmed to make it.
    Inert gas or a vacuum. Either way, it is SAFE!
    LIGHT QUALTY: TRIED AND TRUE

    CFL bulbs are made out of:

    INERT metal such as steel or copper. FAR MORE than incandescent. It WOULD degrade quickly, if not for:
    PLASTIC or CERAMIC. Ceramic may be ok, but slows things down, but PLASTIC!!?!?
    TIN. as I recall, INERT.
    LEAD. Okay, dangerous, but more than an incandescent
    Glass. HEY, this is made from a natural element that generally comes from coral! Don't worry though, they generally use it after it has effectively become beach sand, so no creatures were harmed to make it. BUT....
    MERCURY, PHOSPHOROUS, etc.... DANGEROUS
    Inert gas or a vacuum. Either way, it is SAFE!
    LIGHT QUALITY: POOR

    Now, as to the LIE that they last longer? I happen to own a home. Some bulbs are hard to change. Some are close to 20' up. I think there is ONE that is at 10' in one part of one bathroom, the rest are higher up. I have one light that is on almost all the time. Another lights up about 4 hours every day.

    I have lived here for only about 12 years! I HAVE tried SEVERAL CFLs! I always buy the ones that say they will last the longest. At the local CVS, they have two GE(IIRC) bulbs that look IDENTICAL! ONE says it lasts 4 years. The other says it would last 6. PLEASE TELL ME how I can get them to come CLOSE to meeting their claims? I even screw them in touching only the base, and never touch the glass. GUESS WHAT!!!!!! Ten years is a LIE! I haven't had a light in that restroom for YEARS, because it isn't really NEEDED. If any light could last a decade, I would DEFINITELY use it!

    BTW where I live now it has, for YEARS, been illegal to build a laundry room, or provide certain lighting, without it being FLOURESCENT! At least THOSE bulbs are MADE to be flourescent, so they don't need the ballast that is disposed of with the CFL bulbs.

    You see, FLOURESCENT bulbs need a BALLAST to work. So EVERY flourescent fixture has them. INCANDESCENT bulbs DON'T, so none of those fixtures have a ballast! You know that gadget between the screw part of the CFL and the tube? THAT is the BALLAST to convert your incandescent fixture into a flourescent one. Granted, it isn't the dangerous part, but it IS garbage that won't degrade!

    This is kind of like the toner cartridges for HP printers. The TONER lasts for maybe 1000-5000 pages. There is the most important part of the printer, the light sensitive drum, and it can last for HUNDREDS of thousands of pages, but HP included IT in that cartirdge. Its cost and complexity and waste go up.

    The ballast for a flourescent light could last for DECADES! The most common symtom of "failure" is probably buzzing, though the bulb may simply fail to start. Oh well, when you throw away a CFL, you throw away its ballast ALSO!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4279373].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      PLUS carbon is a needed element that degrades quickly in a way. It is generally HARMLESS! Some people EAT the stuff! JUST YESTERDAY I went to a new vitamin store and one of the products, which I believe was from "NOW", was ACTIVATED CARBON.

      Carbon dioxide is relatively harmless. For carbon on the outside of the planet to get to the point where it could even cause us to be sleepy, nearly everything here would be DOOMED! NEVER MIND though because we would probably be long dead because there would have to be so few plants on the planet!
      Irrelevant. But I'll play along. Let's use your argument that because someone eats a little carbon that it isn't harmful...

      So let's do a little experiment: Water is essential for life. Why don't we have Steve jug a gallon of water in a minute or two? Since water is good for us, nothing can go wrong, right Steve? Except that you'll probably die.

      Now for the relevant part: Ingesting carbon in very small amounts isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not carbon based emissions in our atmosphere trap heat from the sun.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280074].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

        Irrelevant. But I'll play along. Let's use your argument that because someone eats a little carbon that it isn't harmful...

        So let's do a little experiment: Water is essential for life. Why don't we have Steve jug a gallon of water in a minute or two? Since water is good for us, nothing can go wrong, right Steve? Except that you'll probably die.

        Now for the relevant part: Ingesting carbon in very small amounts isn't the issue. The issue is whether or not carbon based emissions in our atmosphere trap heat from the sun.
        Well, I DID speak to THAT also. As for danger, I HAVE drunk a gallon of milk in a few minutes. Water CAN shove electrolytes out of balance, etc... DUH! But I think it takes more than a gallon. Still, I had reasons for drinking milk or whatever that fast, They aren't common.

        As for carbon, I was saying that carbon ITSELF was relatively benign, and NOT like MERCURY!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280142].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kurt
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          Well, I DID speak to THAT also. As for danger, I HAVE drunk a gallon of milk in a few minutes. Water CAN shove electrolytes out of balance, etc... DUH! But I think it takes more than a gallon. Still, I had reasons for drinking milk or whatever that fast, They aren't common.

          As for carbon, I was saying that carbon ITSELF was relatively benign, and NOT like MERCURY!

          Steve
          No you didn't drink a gallon of milk in a couple of minutes.

          And no where did you mention mercury. But even so, your comments are totally irrelevant to the point of carbon emissions trapping the sun's heat and a classic straw man logical fallacy.
          Signature
          Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
          Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280193].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

            No you didn't drink a gallon of milk in a couple of minutes.

            And no where did you mention mercury. But even so, your comments are totally irrelevant to the point of carbon emissions trapping the sun's heat and a classic straw man logical fallacy.
            OK, I didn't time it, but I'm pretty sure I did. Frankly, after drinking it that fast, I start to wonder if I am lactose intolerant or something. I'm NT, but I wonder...

            CFL bulbs are made out of:

            INERT metal such as steel or copper. FAR MORE than incandescent. It WOULD degrade quickly, if not for:
            PLASTIC or CERAMIC. Ceramic may be ok, but slows things down, but PLASTIC!!?!?
            TIN. as I recall, INERT.
            LEAD. Okay, dangerous, but more than an incandescent
            Glass. HEY, this is made from a natural element that generally comes from coral! Don't worry though, they generally use it after it has effectively become beach sand, so no creatures were harmed to make it. BUT....
            MERCURY, PHOSPHOROUS, etc.... DANGEROUS
            Inert gas or a vacuum. Either way, it is SAFE!
            LIGHT QUALITY: POOR
            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280223].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
    Originally Posted by gforces View Post

    Here is some food for thought I received today...................
    That email isn't even close to being correct.

    This isn't the first time this type of claim has come up -- scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey addressed similar rumors during the 2007 eruption of Kilauea in Hawaii. It's true that erupting volcanoes do emit some carbon dioxide, one of the "greenhouse gases" that contributes to global climate change. But according to USGS, human activities release at least a hundred times more CO2 every year than all the world's volcanoes combined.
    Eruption Corruption | FactCheck.org
    Signature
    Over 50 Dating
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4279683].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author rondo
    Tim the email was written about the carbon tax debate in Australia, so in the local context the numbers are close to being correct. ie The world's volcanoes probably do emit more CO2 than Australia does.


    Andrew
    Signature
    Online courses
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4279903].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by rondo View Post

      Tim the email was written about the carbon tax debate in Australia, so in the local context the numbers are close to being correct. ie The world's volcanoes probably do emit more CO2 than Australia does.


      Andrew
      ALSO, volcanos USUALLY aren't active! Een the ones in Hawaii that are "active" are relatively slow! They put out a relatively SMALL amount of CO2. But remember the one in WASHINGTON? Mount St. Helens Mount St. Helens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      OR the iceland one Iceland's volcanic ash drifts toward U.K. - World - CBC News

      EACH of those may have been FAR worse than EVERY OTHER VOLCANO ON THE PLANET COMBINED! NOT because they were volcanos, or active, but in the WAY they were active. Such a volcano apparently buried pompeii, etc...

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4279984].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post


        EACH of those may have been FAR worse than EVERY OTHER VOLCANO ON THE PLANET COMBINED! NOT because they were volcanos, or active, but in the WAY they were active. Such a volcano apparently buried pompeii, etc...

        Steve
        No. Not true. If you read that article I posted they go into the Iceland eruption:

        "But the Eyjafjallajokull volcano's CO2 production is still nowhere near swamping human efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. The EEA's statistics show that the EU's CO2 emissions dropped by 88 million tons between 2007 and 2008. To equal that amount, Eyjafjallajokull would have to keep belching CO2 at maximum capacity for 293 days. Forget worldwide proposed CO2 reductions over five years -- the volcano won't even negate one year's emissions drop in the EU alone. And a year's worth of gases from all volcanoes worldwide could be negated by a 0.5 percent to 1 percent drop in annual world CO2 emissions."
        Signature
        Over 50 Dating
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280131].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          No. Not true. If you read that article I posted they go into the Iceland eruption:

          "But the Eyjafjallajokull volcano's CO2 production is still nowhere near swamping human efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. The EEA's statistics show that the EU's CO2 emissions dropped by 88 million tons between 2007 and 2008. To equal that amount, Eyjafjallajokull would have to keep belching CO2 at maximum capacity for 293 days. Forget worldwide proposed CO2 reductions over five years -- the volcano won't even negate one year's emissions drop in the EU alone. And a year's worth of gases from all volcanoes worldwide could be negated by a 0.5 percent to 1 percent drop in annual world CO2 emissions."
          Well, frankly, I doubt anyone can really measure this stuff, but the idea was that the volcano quickly wiped out a good portion of gains. Nobody is saying that you can't beat their output in overall savings.

          ON THE OTHER HAND, let's talk REASON here! If you put 100tons of CO2 in the air over a day, will there be 100tons of the CO2 that you put in the air, at the end of the day? NO WAY! The very fact that I can even make that ASSERTION proves me correct, because we are STILL here to discuss it. After all the fires, volcanos, creatures breathing, etc.... You see it is NOT a function of how much you put out, but how QUICKLY you put it out, and how many things are there to clean it up! Put a small candle in a bell jar with some plants, and some lizards, and feed the lizards, and water the plants, and everything may survive NICELY. Put a LARGE candle in a bell jar, with no plants, and do everything else the same and within a couple hours the flame could be out and all the lizards could be DEAD!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280180].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Not really Andrew. The main part of that email has been going around for at least six years. It doesn't mention just Australia. So the anti carbon tax people in Australia just dug it up to help their side of the debate, but the numbers are just way wrong.

      Originally Posted by rondo View Post

      Tim the email was written about the carbon tax debate in Australia, so in the local context the numbers are close to being correct. ie The world's volcanoes probably do emit more CO2 than Australia does.


      Andrew
      Signature
      Over 50 Dating
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280101].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author rondo
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        Not really Andrew. The main part of that email has been going around for at least six years. It doesn't mention just Australia. So the anti carbon tax people in Australia just dug it up to help their side of the debate, but the numbers are just way wrong.
        He is the anti carbon tax people in Australia!
        Plimer is a well-known Australian climate change/carbon tax sceptic.



        Andrew
        Signature
        Online courses
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280249].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sloanjim
    is that really true? Where the source? I have seen so many Mcblogers sprouting B*S* I take it with a pinch of salt. Show us the scientific source for this..

    Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
    One article i did read alst year kind of brough it all home. Shipping. 99% of ships sailing our oceans emit TONS of CO2. It's a very diry combustion method. No attpemt has been made at all to clean this up. The figures were massive. So whilst we are all getting carbon taxed to death...shipping isn't even being touched.


    We should just let it go....let the planet heat up 2 or 3 C over the next couple hundred years. by then oil will run out and things shoud go back over the next 1,000 years or so. No doubt we will have wiped each other off the planet by then any how. Good day.
    Signature

    15 Minute Forex Bar Trading System Free at
    http://www.fxscalpingmethod.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280123].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sloanjim
    Which numbers?

    but the numbers are just way wrong.
    Signature

    15 Minute Forex Bar Trading System Free at
    http://www.fxscalpingmethod.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280129].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Well, you quoted some in the post above this one.

      Originally Posted by sloanjim View Post

      Which numbers?
      Signature
      Over 50 Dating
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280140].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
    The lack of logic here is amazing. Even if the facts are correct, the volcano didn't "negate" anything. In reality, carbon in the atmosphere was reduced by "every singele effort" made in the past5 years. Logic dictates that we add human emissions and volcanic emissions to get the total. And since human emissions are lower, the total sum is also lower.

    And since we can't control volcanos, maybe we should be even more concerned about the emissons we can control?
    Signature
    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280174].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Right, but more importantly the facts are not correct. The truth is just about the opposite of what they are saying. The volcano would have to keep erupting for almost a year straight just to equal the amount of the carbon reduction in one year in the EU alone.

      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post



      The lack of logic here is amazing. Even if the facts are correct, the volcano didn't "negate" anything. In reality, carbon in the atmosphere was reduced by "every singele effort" made in the past5 years. Logic dictates that we add human emissions and volcanic emissions to get the total. And since human emissions are lower, the total sum is also lower.

      And since we can't control volcanos, maybe we should be even more concerned about the emissons we can control?
      Signature
      Over 50 Dating
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280199].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post



      The lack of logic here is amazing. Even if the facts are correct, the volcano didn't "negate" anything. In reality, carbon in the atmosphere was reduced by "every singele effort" made in the past5 years. Logic dictates that we add human emissions and volcanic emissions to get the total. And since human emissions are lower, the total sum is also lower.

      And since we can't control volcanos, maybe we should be even more concerned about the emissons we can control?
      OK everyone! This means I am a multi millionare! YEAH! Never mind all the taxes or expenses I have had. I sill have all that stuff that was stolen and missappropriated. I guess I get to inherit that ship my father sold, and the other ship that another persons kids took, etc... WOW! I'M RICH! And Enron should start up again, they took ALL that money! WOW, I have to get on the phone to tll all those people they can continue!

      One problem though. One place sued me for $5000. I only paid them $4000. Do I ask for the $4000 or , because of the hassle and attempt, $5000, or do I just forget the whole thing because kurt says I still have the money?

      So what are loans, credit cards, and mortgages for anyway?

      Confused!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280206].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kurt
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        OK everyone! This means I am a multi millionare! YEAH! Never mind all the taxes or expenses I have had. I sill have all that stuff that was stolen and missappropriated. I guess I get to inherit that ship my father sold, and the other ship that another persons kids took, etc... WOW! I'M RICH! And Enron should start up again, they took ALL that money! WOW, I have to get on the phone to tll all those people they can continue!

        One problem though. One place sued me for $5000. I only paid them $4000. Do I ask for the $4000 or , because of the hassle and attempt, $5000, or do I just forget the whole thing because kurt says I still have the money?

        So what are loans, credit cards, and mortgages for anyway?

        Confused!
        Yep, you're definately confused. No argument from me on that point. But another classic example of a strawman fallacy. Keep going, you're on a streak.
        Signature
        Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
        Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280257].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

          Yep, you're definately confused. No argument from me on that point. But another classic example of a strawman fallacy. Keep going, you're on a streak.
          Well, YOU are the one that said A+B=D. You TOTALLY skipped over C. I was just saying how it would affect the eocnomy if they did the SAME! The part about being confused was sarcastic.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280357].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Oh for god's sake people...........

    If you are still getting your freaking panties in a bunch over carbon - go join a volunteer effort to replant the areas that humans are desertificating. THOSE are the areas that are heating up and used to spike statistics. Warming is localized phenomenon, not global.

    There has always been tons of carbon released into the air after a warming spell - the only difference is that we have cleared out all of nature's balancing attributes.

    Worry about being inside of the damned 6th major extinction and see what you can do to mitigate the pollution you cause and the land clearing that is going on. It doesn't matter if it gets colder or hotter -- once too much land is cleared, nothing is going to make much of a damned difference.

    Get your science from scientists - not politically edited trash.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280184].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kurt
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Oh for god's sake people...........

      If you are still getting your freaking panties in a bunch over carbon - go join a volunteer effort to replant the areas that humans are desertificating. THOSE are the areas that are heating up and used to spike statistics. Warming is localized phenomenon, not global.

      There has always been tons of carbon released into the air after a warming spell - the only difference is that we have cleared out all of nature's balancing attributes.

      Worry about being inside of the damned 6th major extinction and see what you can do to mitigate the pollution you cause and the land clearing that is going on. It doesn't matter if it gets colder or hotter -- once too much land is cleared, nothing is going to make much of a damned difference.

      Get your science from scientists - not politically edited trash.
      I do get my info from REAL scientists, not some pseudo-scientist like Art Robinson. It's funny how you use Art as your source...He also believes radiation is good for us.

      And many REAL scientists tell us global warming is a major cause of the extinctions and desertification you are (rightfully) worried about.

      Raising the Earth's temp by a couple of degrees sure isn't going to help desertification.

      And while you are on a soap box preaching about planting plants, I am actually spending my time on helping people produce clean energy. So don't wag your finger in my face.

      BTW, the warming is GLOBAL. Deal with it.
      Signature
      Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
      Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280241].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      Oh for god's sake people...........

      If you are still getting your freaking panties in a bunch over carbon - go join a volunteer effort to replant the areas that humans are desertificating. THOSE are the areas that are heating up and used to spike statistics. Warming is localized phenomenon, not global.

      There has always been tons of carbon released into the air after a warming spell - the only difference is that we have cleared out all of nature's balancing attributes.

      Worry about being inside of the damned 6th major extinction and see what you can do to mitigate the pollution you cause and the land clearing that is going on. It doesn't matter if it gets colder or hotter -- once too much land is cleared, nothing is going to make much of a damned difference.

      Get your science from scientists - not politically edited trash.
      Sal that reminded me of a conversation I had the other day with a friend who's up here visiting from Fl. I told her how NY has the largest state park in the lower 48 and in addition has over 4 million acres of farm and pasture land. None of which takes into account things like the Catskills or other wilderness areas in the state.
      Just the Adirondacks and farms and pastures account for over 10 million acres of green.
      She replied that it could be put to better use:confused:
      I said what better use is there then to have a 10 million + acre air purifier?
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280256].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Kurt - Art? Who the F is Art and why would you assume that is where I get my info? Trying to discredit my sources isn't logical as you have no knowledge of who those sources are - and those sources aren't TV or Internet in MANY cases. I do like a few sources better than others though - one of them is NASA. Do you have a problem with NASA?

    Are the Himalaya scientists who got so furious at IPCC for saying their glaciers are in trouble also cranks and idiots?

    Second - when earth warms, all planets are warming - are you going to save them, too? The last sun cycle was pretty strong. What were we going to do about it?

    Third - Earth is not warming -- check your statistics and sources, yourself before telling me to "deal with it". Who are YOUR sources? Did you check the "scientists" credentials that signed the KAYOTO compact? Those hairdressers and restaurateurs are formidable aren't they?

    Fourth - why do you think I was specifically wagging my finger at YOU? This is about you? Okay, whatever.

    Fifth - 30,000 scientists disagree with what you are saying. Granted, not all are climatologists, but they are degreed in sciences, not hair dressers. Someone tried to discredit the whole lot of them because a couple died after signing the petition. They knew what they were signing while alive, so dying discredits them? Again - whatever.

    Sixth - did you know when they were screaming that Russia was burning due to global warming that just West of that area they were experiencing very normal and pleasant weather and the crops were actually doing very well compared to the previous few years?

    Do you realize how many areas are experiencing colder than usual weather right now....because the sun isn't as active as they expected and the tilt of the earth has shifted a little bit? Make sure to check the dates on satellite photos before you presume there's no snow up there. Also, where there are underwater volcanoes going off is not the best example of "global warming". Molten hot lava has a way of heating up the areas that it is spewing into.

    Did you know that if you cut the forests at the bottom of a glacier, it will not get the normal amounts of snow whether it is colder or warmer? No snow on a glacier is not indication of warming - it is indication of desertification.

    Last -- I am impressed with, and applaud, your efforts to create sustainability. You and I both know things aren't right here -- even though we disagree very broadly on the base issues. I also do what I can to cut my "carbon footprint" in as many ways as possible.

    From what I can see, it doesn't matter why people think we are in deep dooky as long as we are all pulling our weight in any way we can to put it all back together.

    I don't see giving politicians more money as an effective way to do so. They waste or pocket so much of what they already get, why give em more. Give the money to the scientists to empower them to get the fixes made - no matter what their views on how we got to this point. If they have a good answer - go for it.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280442].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    heysal,

    CAREFUL! That poll that says "fox viewers are stupid" claims it because they say things like what YOU are saying! They figure that they are so smart they know EVERYTHING, figure all must bow to them, and those that don't are simply STUPID!

    Ths is NOT to say I disagree with you! I am VERY sensitive to the heat! VERY sensitive! I have avoided parties when others HAPPILY went because it is TOO HOT! People say "nice day", and I think "YEAH RIGHT, FOR YOU!". Ironically, I tend to handle the cold rather well. Anyway, lately it HAS been hot. My A/C is out and, for various reasons, I may not get it fixed until next wednesday. YIKES! OK, it is HOT! I ADMIT IT! My point? I had the SAME problems over 40 YEARS ago! BTW back then, they said we were headed for another ICE AGE!

    BTW I fly jets as little as possible, drive little, and car pool. When I am gone from my home, the A/C is off, and the heater only makes sure the temp stays above 55 degrees fahrenheit. I could name some big pro carbon tax people that EACH put out THOUSANDS of times the CO2 I do. And have several homes putting out hundreds of times what mine does. One person made ONE TRIP that put out MUCH MORE than I do in one year, and possibly more than I have in my entire life(taking into account the people that were to be on the trip). And that includes school busses, cars, trains, and jets I have taken.

    GRANTED, I took ONE trip once that was the same distance, but it used less than 1/7th the fuel, and transported about 300 times as many people. Hard to believe, but TRUE! The fuel used cost approximately $280,000 per hour(I heard at the time they each used $40,000 per flight hour). Those are based on standard configurations. We probably aren't allowed to know the EXACT details. This means the cost of the fuel, round trip, was approximately $5,600,000. That's a LOT of money to spend on jet fuel! I wonder how much CO2 and CO THAT put out!

    There was something called a "joy ride" that even scared new york, and IT cost about $40,000 per hour. I forget how long it flew, but taking into account distance, takeoff, and landing, you can bet it was at LEAST close to an hour. A 30 minute flight requirs the engines to run an average of one hour, to taxi, get to wheels up, "fly"(The time THEY count), and get from wheels down to the gate. So if they tell you a flight will take 30 minutes, it is 1 hour gate to gate.

    And those are people that want ME to spend over 10 times as much for a bulb I technically can't legally dispose of, and accept inferior light, so I can reduce my carbon foot print. BTW I probably use about half the power of most people. I USUALLY even wash my own dishes, even though I DO have a nice dishwasher. I USUALLY don't cook. My refrigerator is usually closed.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4280711].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Carbon credits really are a joke.
      When you think about it the whole problem started when we started tearing down the areas that clean our atmosphere and replaced them with areas that pollute our atmosphere. How stupid was that?
      Now it doesn't matter one bit if a factory pollutes or our cars pollutes. As long as we keep destroying the earth's air filtration systems we're screwed, period.
      Sure cutting down on co2 and other 'pollutants' is a good idea (so is closing the door after the cow got out) but it won't matter if we don't have the natural mechanisms in place to clean our air and keep it clean.
      A lot of humans don't have any understanding of the balance of life or how the earth, plant, animal, and insect kingdoms depend on each other to survive.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4281135].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dagaul101
    Carbon footprints is a controversial issue for those who prefer the status quo, but I think if we can do something we should, regardless of what other factors come into play
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4283828].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    BW wthout radiation, everything on this planet would be DEAD! NAH, scratch that! If we never had radiation, life as we know it, ANYWHERE on the planet, would not even have STARTED!

    We all wait for this big thing in the sky to make its appearance! We have created TIME based on it. Many used to WORSHIP it! Some still may! There have been HORROR stories about it having some problem. The day is timed based on it! Benjamin franklin didn't think we followed it close enough, so he supported changing our time TWICE every year!

    WHY? WHY? WHY?????????????? One word! RADIATION! OH, it may only put out two wavelengths of radiation the average creature depends upon, but they are important. So WHO KNOWS?

    Saying that radiation is bad is like saying damage is good.

    Just yesterday I watched a video about the shattered glass fallacy. A hoodlum broke a window, in a baker's shop, and people mused about it. ONE said it would HELP the economy, since the baker would now have to get t fixed, and would have to pay a glaser, etc... I'm SHOCKED they didnt talk about how the policeman could get the report and chase down the crook, possibly get injured, and go to the hospital for stitches and they might find cancer and put him in for chemo, etc... BAM, MILLIONS of dollars could pass hands!

    Anyway, the baker came by, said they were crazy. He said "I WAS going to buy a new suit and put THESE people to work, but NOW I will pay and end up no better off". And the whole story assumes the baker has the money, is stingy, and the glaser needs the money. We DON'T need money exchanged! We need the ECONOMY to improve. Oh SURE, they LOOK the same! The economy usually moves money. But people can move ahead. There can be peace. All needed businesses are supported on a constant basis. With a riot or a war, there is NO peace, people can lose everything, plans must be stopped, and it only supports businesses which generally AREN'T needed.

    And YEAH, I know, MAYBE you meant nuclear radiation. MAYBE he said that. But HEY, some have done this with ME, SO....

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4540685].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author krzysiek
    Even though the debate here is highly controversial, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the carbon tax is more scam than legit. Why? Because our retard*d Government is pushing something that we don't want - and they pushed it so hard that they got it. We didn't want it, but they made us get it.

    As if putting a carbon tax on Australia is actually going to achieve any type of significant result globally.

    Want to introduce a carbon tax? Introduce it for all countries then, not just a select few. Beginning with China would be a great option (if it was absolutely essential to introduce the carbon tax).

    There is no doubt that our current Prime Minister is unfit to serve the position that she has wrongly obtained.

    So much for "global warming"... yeah, the world is "cooling". How are we meant to pin "carbon" on that.

    Maybe if the powers that be were not so fixed on their profits, we wouldn't even have a problem with carbon, or a problem with relying on oil. There have been, not many, but have been, discoveries where alternate fuels could be used. Yes, water does come to mind. But then we'll get the "you can't defy the laws of Physics" people coming out of their holes not realising that the "laws" of Physics are not being broken. If there was not such a greed for money, and willingness to supress technology and advancement, I don't think we'd have an issue.

    Let's hope that whatever is coming in 2012 sets the world straight.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4541059].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by krzysiek View Post

      Even though the debate here is highly controversial, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the carbon tax is more scam than legit. Why? Because our retard*d Government is pushing something that we don't want - and they pushed it so hard that they got it. We didn't want it, but they made us get it.

      As if putting a carbon tax on Australia is actually going to achieve any type of significant result globally.

      Want to introduce a carbon tax? Introduce it for all countries then, not just a select few. Beginning with China would be a great option (if it was absolutely essential to introduce the carbon tax).

      There is no doubt that our current Prime Minister is unfit to serve the position that she has wrongly obtained.

      So much for "global warming"... yeah, the world is "cooling". How are we meant to pin "carbon" on that.

      Maybe if the powers that be were not so fixed on their profits, we wouldn't even have a problem with carbon, or a problem with relying on oil. There have been, not many, but have been, discoveries where alternate fuels could be used. Yes, water does come to mind. But then we'll get the "you can't defy the laws of Physics" people coming out of their holes not realising that the "laws" of Physics are not being broken. If there was not such a greed for money, and willingness to supress technology and advancement, I don't think we'd have an issue.

      Let's hope that whatever is coming in 2012 sets the world straight.

      You have a point. The WORLD RECORD for most polluted cty is currently held by a CHINESE city. I doubt any on the planet, outside of maybe china, comes close! If that happened in the US, the government, EVEN DECADES AGO would have been breathing down their necks!

      I heard just yesterday how china is using a trick to export THEIR waste! THIS time LEAD in HONEY to the US! Yet they STILL can't contain all that carbon! And I mean CO, CO2, and SOOT! Get them to stop exporting waste in products they sell, and cut back on THEIR carbon footprint, and others can fall into line. The idea of having an allowable measure determined by an IGNORANT group, and encourage industry shifting through an exchange is not only dumb, but should be illegal. You can end up gambling on a game that is rigged and would likely lead to extortion.

      CHINA doesn't care about its citizens, so I can understand it, but others should try to improve things without even being told. I know the US in the early twentieth century was bad, but that was THEN! TODAY, as in the last 50 years? well, I think I could smell some oil from some oil pumps they had in california. I definitely smell manuer on the farms. anheuser bush let out that characteristic brewery smell. But that was it. MY big complaint WAS the cars and buses. Today even THEY are cleaned up. Not perfect, but FAR better than before. My biggest complaint NOW is senseless rules/traditions leading to more garbage, and noise pollution.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[4541441].message }}

Trending Topics