Darwin got it wrong!

[Isthmus]

We aren't really discussing a generally accepted theory, so I don't see where that's valid. We are discussing the myth that there is consensus regarding AGW.

well it is a valid statement. perhaps not in the context you are describing.

How has he, or you, reduced your actions that require the burning of fossil fuels?

Well since once again you are trying to make your point by attacking the poster let's see. I live in the most densely populated city in the country; I live in an apartment instead of a house; use triple-paned insulated windows throughout; have installed insulated blinds on all windows; have everything plugged to surge supressors and regularly kill the supressor switch when I'm away for extended periods; have switched every bulb in the house to Compact fluorescent light bulbs; I joined a CSA so most of my vegetable consumption is from within less than 100miles of the city; I got rid of my car and take public transportation or walk everywhere (or rent a car when I want to go out of town); I recycle all paper products, plastic and metals (living here requires it); and I use fabric grocery bags instead of plastic. I'm positive that I could do much more, but I have a funny feeling that my overall energy consumption is considerably lower than that of your average american. Granted, part of the reason that is, is a function of living in NYC. And no, I'm not a granola or a preachy environmentalist, nor do I live any less comfortably.

He doesn't understand why the world would want to continue burning fossil fuels, but he continues to.

I'm not reading that from the responses posted thus far. It seems more like he is aware of the fact based on what I'm reading. Perhaps he is not addressing the issue rather than not being aware of it?

He can't understand why the world would be just like him.

Now you're attacking someone personally... again. That's not necessary is it. Lets have a friendly discussion without making it personal please.

Maybe, but it's doubtful. We need electricity, and we need gas.

We need neither. We got along pretty well without them for thousands of years. That said, if what you mean is that in order to continue living in the manner we have become used to over the past 100 years or so, then yes you are right about electricity. However, Gas (I'm assuming you meant gasoline) is not a necessity. There are various alternatives to gasoline and various alternate methods of transportation that don't require the burning of fossil fuels. That said, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, none offer the amount of energy per measure of fuel and level of flexibility for the price as gasoline currently does. That however has been a function of supply, and as supplies become further strained, that equation has a very real chance of changing in the near future. What we don't currently have a valid alternative for today is oil, but not as fuel. As a synthetic building material (mainly in plastics), basic ingredient in synthetic fertilizers, lubricants of all types, and the basic ingredient in literally thousands of every day chemicals we have no current alternative that is as easily retrievable or cost effective.

If you want to put economic pressures on poor Americans, then yes they will change, but I don't really see putting economic pressure on poor Americans as being a good thing to accomplish ANY goal. It just makes them poorer and more in need of financial assistance.

The issue is not about americans, regardless of economic background and it has nothing to do with anyone's desire to impose hardships on anyone else. The truth is that we have somewhere around 5% of the world's population and consume somewhere about 40% of the world's energy resources (that figure is rapidly changing as formerly poor, high population countries rapidly industrialize). To put it simply, finite and declining energy resources, coupled with rapidly increasing global demand equates to higher prices and more limited supplies, not just in the US, but everywhere. The way to adapt to the changing environment is to either be willing to pay more, change the way we live and/or consume energy, and find alternative ways of doing the same thing. For most people it will have to be a mixture of all three. The point is that ultimately, assuming there are no major breakthroughs in energy sources in the immediate future, adapting won't really be a matter of choice, but of necessity.

And urban living isn't the norm around the world because it makes practical economic sense. It's the norm worldwide, because they have a much higher population density than we do. Of a list of 240 countries, we are 140th in population density. The only European countries with a lower population density are : Iceland, Sweden, and Finland

Actually you are incorrect in your assumption here. Large population density is predominantly a factor of urban living, coupled with increased non-agrarian economic opportunities that tend to cluster in urban centers, not the other way around. Most of the world's population has been moving to urbanize for purely economic reasons. In fact, there are relatively few countries that have relatively high population density outside of urban centers (ie. in rural areas), and most of those that do find themselves in that position, largely because modern basic medicine and basic sanitation have drastically reduced mortality rates at all ages, but traditional reproductive practices have not changed.

________________________________________

 

[Frisco]

I keep seeing references to Sarah Palin's "rise to power."

Could somebody here please outline the aspects of this "power" she has acquired?

 

[Isthmus]

I keep seeing references to Sarah Palin's "rise to power."

Could somebody here please outline the aspects of this "power" she has acquired?

Well she's definitely mastered the rare magical art of transmuting fringe weirdos into electable political candidates. I think that's more of a dark magic though.

 

[jamor]

I keep seeing references to Sarah Palin's "rise to power."

Could somebody here please outline the aspects of this "power" she has acquired?

Confusing to me too - apparently she is the front runner right now for the next presidential election when I watch the news.

 

[ElasticNinja]

H
So, you still burn fossil fuels.

You haven't changed your electric consumption... imagine that.

I dont think you get it.
Airtricity is Irelands leading renewable energy generator.
They also supply my home with Natural Gas.

FYI, I bike 26 miles to work, each way, daily. I don't do it for the environment. I do it for my health.

Congrats

I have a smaller carbon footprint than you do. Not because of the environment, but because it makes fiscal sense to me.

Assumptions FTW

When you make the true life changes that you expect of everyone else... then you can preach about people wanting to burn fossil fuels.

My view is that governments need to is that governments need to work on stopping the use of fossil fuels for ELECTRICITY production (I've outlined this before)
They need to incentivise research in fields such as (improving) hydrogen combustion cars, and fusion energy.

People themselves can switch to the best energy provider, and not drive their 14 yr old kids the five minute walk the bus stop.


FYI, I dont believe in a lot of the silly ideas to reduce emissions.
Burning crops being one of the main ones, which just makes food more expensive for the worlds poorest.

EDIT: My main view regarding fossil fuels is that they should not be *wasted* on electricity production
We need oil for plastics, gas for cooking, bogs for biodiversity, coal for- well coal is crap, maybe the odd rural fireplace fire...

As for transport, its emmissions must be gradually reduced, however there is no currently viable alternative to fossil fuels for things like planes.

 

[byteware]

well it is a valid statement. perhaps not in the context you are describing.

It's a valid statement, but since the discussion is over whether or not there is a consensus, I don't see how it's relevant

Well since once again you are trying to make your point by attacking the poster let's see. I live in the most densely populated city in the country; I live in an apartment instead of a house; use triple-paned insulated windows throughout; have installed insulated blinds on all windows; have everything plugged to surge supressors and regularly kill the supressor switch when I'm away for extended periods; have switched every bulb in the house to Compact fluorescent light bulbs; I joined a CSA so most of my vegetable consumption is from within less than 100miles of the city; I got rid of my car and take public transportation or walk everywhere (or rent a car when I want to go out of town); I recycle all paper products, plastic and metals (living here requires it); and I use fabric grocery bags instead of plastic. I'm positive that I could do much more, but I have a funny feeling that my overall energy consumption is considerably lower than that of your average american. Granted, part of the reason that is, is a function of living in NYC. And no, I'm not a granola or a preachy environmentalist, nor do I live any less comfortably.

Believe it or not. I've done everything that I see you have, except got rid of the car. No public transportation at my residence, and I can't ride my three kids on my bike for 10 miles.

I'm not reading that from the responses posted thus far. It seems more like he is aware of the fact based on what I'm reading. Perhaps he is not addressing the issue rather than not being aware of it?

HIS statement:

Still I cant find a reason why we would want to continue burning fossil fuels at the rate we do in the first place though

Now you're attacking someone personally... again. That's not necessary is it. Lets have a friendly discussion without making it personal please.

No, I'm specifically responding to his statement (That I quoted above).

He hasn't changed the comfort level of his life, and wonders why everyone else doesn't want to.

Everyone else doesn't want to, for the same reason that HE doesn't want to.

That's not an attack. That's a statement.

We need neither.

We could all move somewhere where air conditioning isn't necessary for people's survival (It's pretty hot here in the summer, and without air conditioning, lots of people would die), but that would take gas.

Right now. In our society as it is. We. Need. Gas. We. Need. Electricity.

We got along pretty well without them for thousands of years.

You do watch what happens currently when we have a high heat wave, and lots of people die?

Heat waves kill more people in the US than the other top natural disasters combined... and that's with air conditioning.

That said, if what you mean is that in order to continue living in the manner we have become used to over the past 100 years or so, then yes you are right about electricity.

Or without losing most of our civilization as people can't get food, or water, or cooling, or heating. Those are very important things to. I don't know about you, but I like living.

However, Gas (I'm assuming you meant gasoline) is not a necessity.

At this point, there is nothing that we can change our fleet of food transportation vehicles to use that can replace gasoline on our roads. We NEED gasoline.

Do we NEED it FOREVER? Hopefully not. But right now, We NEED gasoline.

(And no.. diesel doesn't count, because it's basically the same thing from the same source. Yes I know that's an overgeneralization, but let's all look past that for now).

The issue is not about americans, regardless of economic background and it has nothing to do with anyone's desire to impose hardships on anyone else. The truth is that we have somewhere around 5% of the world's population and consume somewhere about 40% of the world's energy resources (that figure is rapidly changing as formerly poor, high population countries rapidly industrialize). To put it simply, finite and declining energy resources, coupled with rapidly increasing global demand equates to higher prices and more limited supplies, not just in the US, but everywhere. The way to adapt to the changing environment is to either be willing to pay more, change the way we live and/or consume energy, and find alternative ways of doing the same thing. For most people it will have to be a mixture of all three. The point is that ultimately, assuming there are no major breakthroughs in energy sources in the immediate future, adapting won't really be a matter of choice, but of necessity.

I don't argue any of that. It also wasn't being discussed.

Actually you are incorrect in your assumption here. Large population density is predominantly a factor of urban living, coupled with increased non-agrarian economic opportunities that tend to cluster in urban centers, not the other way around. Most of the world's population has been moving to urbanize for purely economic reasons.

Any proof to support your statement that I'm wrong and it's not just population density that pushes other countries to urbanize? Or is that just your opinion?

In fact, there are relatively few countries that have relatively high population density outside of urban centers (ie. in rural areas), and most of those that do find themselves in that position, largely because modern basic medicine and basic sanitation have drastically reduced mortality rates at all ages, but traditional reproductive practices have not changed.

Actually, they very much HAVE changed. Reproduction rates in industrialized nations are slowing. You have countries bribing their citizens to reproduce. Literally. Offering them money. Offering to have people come into their homes and do their laundry.

 

[byteware]

I dont think you get it.
Airtricity is Irelands leading renewable energy generator.
They also supply my home with Natural Gas.

I get it.

You don't get it.

You haven't changed your life. You wonder why everyone else doesn't want to change theirs?

Assumptions FTW

I have a fairly small carbon footprint. It is possible to get smaller than me, but not likely.

My view is that governments need to is that governments need to work on stopping the use of fossil fuels for ELECTRICITY production (I've outlined this before)
They need to incentivise research in fields such as (improving) hydrogen combustion cars, and fusion energy.

Horrible. Governments need to leave fossil fuel use alone.

If they want to stop the use of fossil fuels, provide a cheaper alternative.

Every single person in the entire world will switch in an instant to save money.

When we build our home, we are having solar panels installed. Complete solar power to power our home. Why? Because we will save more on our monthly electric bill than it will add to our mortgage.

People themselves can switch to the best energy provider, and not drive their 14 yr old kids the five minute walk the bus stop.

Right, because we can just switch to the OTHER power lines that are running down the street. FYI, that's not really an option.

EDIT: My main view regarding fossil fuels is that they should not be *wasted* on electricity production
We need oil for plastics, gas for cooking, bogs for biodiversity, coal for- well coal is crap, maybe the odd rural fireplace fire...

I completely agree with you. Until we come up with a decent alternative. We are stuck with what we have.

That being said, I'm all for installing bio mass generators on farms, waste dumps, and waste processing stations to produce electricity. Now, that would be of a great benefit in my view.

As for transport, its emmissions must be gradually reduced, however there is no currently viable alternative to fossil fuels for things like planes.

We just had a solar plane complete a 24 hour flight a couple of weeks ago.

It's coming. It's just not there yet.

If EESTOR would hurry up and produce something... that would help.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I get it.

You don't get it.

I do get it
It seems you are reading my posts wrong or perhaps are letting your emotions rule.
We have a lot of common ground

You haven't changed your life. You wonder why everyone else doesn't want to change theirs?

I havent much, no

I have a fairly small carbon footprint. It is possible to get smaller than me, but not likely.

That wasnt a sarcastic congrats dude

Horrible. Governments need to leave fossil fuel use alone.

Byteware, I've noticed you have a lot of governments...
We have them for a reason
Where there is no government, there is no hope

If they want to stop the use of fossil fuels, provide a cheaper alternative.

Every single person in the entire world will switch in an instant to save money.

Agree

When we build our home, we are having solar panels installed. Complete solar power to power our home. Why? Because we will save more on our monthly electric bill than it will add to our mortgage.

Thats good to hear
Solar panels make sense where you live (as opposed to British Isles)

Right, because we can just switch to the OTHER power lines that are running down the street. FYI, that's not really an option.

I know, I know
But my family supports the cleanest provider, which will encourage other providers

Alas, its not my fault my country wasnt forward thinking enough in the seventies to go ahead with its nuclear programme

 

[ElasticNinja]

I completely agree with you. Until we come up with a decent alternative. We are stuck with what we have.

We do have the alternitives Byteware, we do!

That being said, I'm all for installing bio mass generators on farms, waste dumps, and waste processing stations to produce electricity. Now, that would be of a great benefit in my view.

Indeed, this is happening to an extent here

We just had a solar plane complete a 24 hour flight a couple of weeks ago.

It's coming. It's just not there yet.

I know about this solar plane thing
Its great
But sloowww

If EESTOR would hurry up and produce something... that would help.

What pisses me off - my government keeps telling us to get electric cars as they are green.
But - our electricity, its 83% coal/gas/oil & 7% peat eek: peat!)
At least the Greens tried to start a debate on nuclear (they are not pro-nuclear, however they are my states realistic party, and personally best IMO - tiny though and they will be wiped out next election as the are in government w/ the party that left the boom go unchecked...)

 

[Isthmus]

Any proof to support your statement that I'm wrong and it's not just population density that pushes other countries to urbanize? Or is that just your opinion?

Try looking at most introductory political economics text books. They will address the issue, much as described above and in far more detail. I also spent several years (no longer) working in this very field (development economics), so yes my professional experience has seen much of the same thing. The experiences of no two countries are the same, of course, but as a general trend, the flow of populations from rural environments to cities have happened as described above.

Actually, they very much HAVE changed. Reproduction rates in industrialized nations are slowing. You have countries bribing their citizens to reproduce. Literally. Offering them money. Offering to have people come into their homes and do their laundry.

Check those figures again. The number of countries experiencing flat or negative population growth are few, relative to overall numbers, and most (not all) are in Europe and north america. In most of the rest of the world, and especially in a small handful of countries in Africa, Latin america and especially Asia, population growth continues for much the same reasons described above. In much of subsaharan africa, aids and war have served to curtail projected population increases, while china and much of latin america (again not all of it) have seen dramatic drops in birth rates, but because of sheer numbers of people coming of reproductive age, population momentum still gives them very large growth rates (and that is expected to persist for 2 or 3 more decades).

Don't take my word for it though, feel free to look it up.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Check those figures again. The number of countries experiencing flat or negative population growth are few, relative to overall numbers, and most (not all) are in Europe and north america. In most of the rest of the world, and especially in a small handful of countries in Africa, Latin america and especially Asia, population growth continues for much the same reasons described above. In much of subsaharan africa, aids and war have served to curtail projected population increases, while china and much of latin america (again not all of it) have seen dramatic drops in birth rates, but because of sheer numbers of people coming of reproductive age, population momentum still gives them very large growth rates (and that is expected to persist for 2 or 3 more decades).

Don't take my word for it though, feel free to look it up.

Indeed
This is population stages, and they are surprisingly accurate
Of course there are exceptions to it (eg Ireland), or places where the government has interfered (eg China, thankfully IMO)

www.ehow.com/m/how-does_5152183_stages-population-growth.html

 

[Bob Maxey]

I Love those pictures of Sarah.... much easier to use silly pictures than to form cohesive and thoughtfull sentences, I suppose.

Bob Maxey

 

[Bob Maxey]

Confusing to me too - apparently she is the front runner right now for the next presidential election when I watch the news.

I must admitt, I did not know much about her untill McCain chose her. I think her "power" comes from recognition. Of cource, fame alone is not a measure of power in all cases. She is on the right, so the left hates her and writes about her and forum posters write about her without knowing much at all. Perhaps power and fame are sometimes used interchangeably.

She was made fun of on SNL, so she is rather famous for that. She became more famous when her daughter became a big news story.
Fame is often incremental or it happens immediately.

I think she will be more famous if she decides to run, but that is perhaps a never to be.

Add it all up and she bcomes someone everyone seems to know. Not sure how much actual power she has, though.

Bob Maxey

 

[hakr100]

I must admitt, I did not know much about her untill McCain chose her. I think her "power" comes from recognition. Of cource, fame alone is not a measure of power in all cases. She is on the right, so the left hates her and writes about her and forum posters write about her without knowing much at all. Perhaps power and fame are sometimes used interchangeably.

Bob Maxey

Mrs. Palin is the official spokesperson for Boobus Americanus. Standing in the wings? Michelle Bachman, Christine O'Donnell, Sharron Angle.

I've closely followed the "career" of Mrs. Palin since McCain chose her. She is the most intellectually lazy pol who ever walked onto the national stage, I won't deny her appeal to her fellow non-thinkers: the stupid go for demagogues. I also find her morally reprehensible. When her underaged daughter was knocked up, she invited the father of the baby to move into her house.

 

[Isthmus]

I Love those pictures of Sarah.... much easier to use silly pictures than to form cohesive and thoughtfull sentences, I suppose.

Bob Maxey

I guess then, after reading many of your posts, that it is preferable to take cheap shots a people rather than engage them in actual conversation. Had you bothered to read any of my other posts, you would have noticed that that particular post was intended to generate a laugh.

 

[hakr100]

Originally Posted by Bob Maxey
I Love those pictures of Sarah.... much easier to use silly pictures than to form cohesive and thoughtfull sentences, I suppose.

Bob Maxey

I guess then, after reading many of your posts, that it is preferable to take cheap shots a people rather than engage them in actual conversation. Had you bothered to read any of my other posts, you would have noticed that that particular post was intended to generate a laugh.

How much do you have to know about Mrs. Palin to conclude she is an uniformed, intellectually lazy ninny?

 

[batgeek]

How much do you have to know about Mrs. Palin to conclude she is an uniformed, intellectually lazy ninny?

pretty much the first time i heard her "speak".

 

[Vihzel]

Are we really off track?

 

[hakr100]

Not at all. The thread started off with a post wondering if Palin and O'Donnell represented backwards steps in evolution.

 

[byteware]

I havent much, no

You haven't changed your life for a reason. That's the same reason everybody else intends to keep burning fossil fuels at the same rate that they currently are.

Byteware, I've noticed you have a lot of governments...

No, just one

We have them for a reason
Where there is no government, there is no hope

And when they are not tightly controlled by the people, there is no hope.

 

[ElasticNinja]

You haven't changed your life for a reason. That's the same reason everybody else intends to keep burning fossil fuels at the same rate that they currently are.

You want me to not use electricity?
Besides that I cant vote!

No, just one

Typo soz
It was supposed to read you have a lot of of hate for governments

And when they are not tightly controlled by the people, there is no hope.

CALIFORNIA!
Wait arent they fcked?
Dont get me wrong I am a very democratic guy
But MOST people dont educate themselves and make stupid decisions (happens w/ referenda in my state all the time), thats why we have politicians (although most federal US ones seem terrible )

 

[byteware]

You want me to not use electricity?
Besides that I cant vote!

You want anyone else to not use electricity?

Typo soz
It was supposed to read you have a lot of of hate for governments

There is a difference between distrust and hate.

I don't hate my government. I'm actually quite proud of it. But I do know the potential for harm that is available to our politicians and I believe we should not give them the chance to be harmful, if we can help it.

CALIFORNIA!
Wait arent they fcked?

Absolutely not. They just voted that down with a referendum.

All joking aside, California is screwed because they keep trying to GIVE to the people, beyond the means of government.

Politicians are trying to "buy" votes by GIVING from the government.

Well, to fund this giving they've been getting funds from some very interesting places.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article14722.html

Going into your bank, if you haven't made contact with them in a year and taking your safe deposit boxes, or bank account balances.

And no, paying your bills doesn't count as contact.

Dont get me wrong I am a very democratic guy
But MOST people dont educate themselves and make stupid decisions (happens w/ referenda in my state all the time), thats why we have politicians (although most federal US ones seem terrible )

Politicians are people.

If you leave your money unguarded in a room full of people, eventually it will get stolen.

If you leave your rights unprotected in a capital full of politicians, eventually they will be gone.

 

[ElasticNinja]

Politicians are people.

If you leave your money unguarded in a room full of people, eventually it will get stolen.

If you leave your rights unprotected in a capital full of politicians, eventually they will be gone.

Politicians are people yes
But - they would not be able to take away your rights just for their own selfish reasons - the vast majority have a concsience (even our frnzZz like PaLiN [well maybe ]), and democracies work on majorities.
Maybe I am to idealistic, but even the politicians who I disagree with most in Ireland, I firmly believe they are democratic and in the end, do not want to "hurt" us.

Now UKIP/BNP.. Well :rolleys:

 

[byteware]

Politicians are people yes
But - they would not be able to take away your rights just for their own selfish reasons - the vast majority have a concsience (even our frnzZz like PaLiN [well maybe ]), and democracies work on majorities.
Maybe I am to idealistic, but even the politicians who I disagree with most in Ireland, I firmly believe they are democratic and in the end, do not want to "hurt" us.

Now UKIP/BNP.. Well :rolleys:

They don't walk in one day and say "Hmmm... today I think they don't deserve to vote any longer".

They take away your right to choose. One by one they begin to make your choices for you. They know what's right for you. You can't be trusted to make the decision on your own.

For instance, seat belts. Aside from Children (who cannot make the decision for themselves), the government has no business telling you how safe you have to be. If you choose to be unsafe, then that is your RIGHT.

Slowly but surely, the government begins to control more and more of your life. Eventually they will tell you what is healthy enough for you to be allowed to eat it.

 

[ElasticNinja]

They don't walk in one day and say "Hmmm... today I think they don't deserve to vote any longer".

They take away your right to choose. One by one they begin to make your choices for you. They know what's right for you. You can't be trusted to make the decision on your own.

For instance, seat belts. Aside from Children (who cannot make the decision for themselves), the government has no business telling you how safe you have to be. If you choose to be unsafe, then that is your RIGHT.

Slowly but surely, the government begins to control more and more of your life. Eventually they will tell you what is healthy enough for you to be allowed to eat it.

I'm sorry Byteware, now I 100% believe you hate governments.