General discussion

  • Creator
  • #2272776

    Global Warming Revisited


    by thechas ·

    Yes, I know that this topic has been visited before.

    I also understand that the majority of peers who have voiced their views on the subject believe that global warming is at best a non-issue.

    Still, I have come across new information that lends credence to the claims of environmentalists that global warming is happening, and we all need to take action in our daily lives to reduce our collective and individual impact on the environment.

    The first item I came across is the latest issue of “National Geographic”.
    The cover article on global climate change takes up about 1/2 of the issue.

    The stories are available on line at:

    Next, while the response is a bit tepid, even the Bush Administration is acknowledging that action needs to be taken to reduce human impact on the global climate.

    So, what are you doing on a personal and professional level to reduce environmental impact while saving money at the same time?

    Have you shown your managers and clients the cost payback in energy savings for both electricity and cooling costs they would have by switching from CRT to LCD monitors?

    With PC component reliability and functional life as high as it is, are you encouraging users to turn off their PCs each night?
    Or, at least having them set reasonable energy saving settings?
    For that matter, a PC that is off is NOT a security or virus risk!

    Outside of the IT realm, one thing that bugs me to no end is the number of buildings with dark colored roofs. It can cost twice as much to cool a building with a dark roof than a light colored roof.
    Unless you are far north of the 45th parallel, any heating benefit from a dark roof is more than offset by the increased cooling costs.
    For a commercial building, the “optimum” roof for year round energy cost control is a “green” roof planted with either grass or other green vegetation.

    From the information in the “National Geographic” article, it is clear to me that the earth’s climate is warming up. Left unchecked, this warming could be devastating to all life on earth.

    If we all take the time to think about the environment, and do a few little things to reduce our impact on the climate, perhaps, we can prevent the need for any draconian limits on industry.


All Comments

  • Author
    • #2716265

      Interesting points

      by guruofdos ·

      In reply to Global Warming Revisited

      You say ‘For that matter, a PC that is off is NOT a security or virus risk!’. I would dispute that and so would the US Department of Defence! All US Military computers MUST be left on at all times so the admins can deploy virus updates and security patches. According to DoD IT policy (certainly on every US and NATO base I’ve ever worked on), a computer switched off and unable to accept such security updates IS considered a security risk!

      Corporately, our entire IT infrastructure is being converted over to VIA Eden/Epia systems (from traditional power-hungry Pentium and Athlon processor based systems) as they have such low power consumption. I mentioned in a previous post ‘green’ computers using these with 12v battery supplies and wind chargers!

      Personally, I have converted my car (1991 Peugeot 309 1.9 Diesel) to SVO. Fossil fuels when they are burned take carbon (which has been locked in the ground and out of harms way) and add it to the carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, thus adding to greenhouse gasses. Straight Vegetable Oil on the other hand comes from plants. All the carbon in this oil has already been taken out of the atmosphere during the growing and burning it in a diesel engined vehicle only releases the same amount of carbon into the air, thus making zero net contribution to the carbon cycle and hence global warming. It’s also about a fifth of the cost of diesel if you buy it fresh from the store, and vitually free if you reprocess (filter to 1 micron and ‘dry’) used cooking oil (WVO – Waste vegetable Oil) from restaurants (who will gladly give it away rather than pay disposal charges!), contains virtually zero sulphur and the smell of cooking oil is much less noxious than hydrocarbon fumes!!

      • #2716250

        And some more

        by hereinoz ·

        In reply to Interesting points

        Your point about the carbon dioxide released from the vegetable oil is valid, Guru, and leads to another discussion that our politians love to rave about, and that is the planting of trees to reduce greenhouse gasses, and using those trees as a “credit” to offset the burning of fossil fuels.

        Don’t get me wrong, I fully support the planting of trees and I acknowledge that it is a really effective way of improving the climate in the area, but as a way to reduce greenhouse gasses on an ongoing basis, it is bunkum.

        The tree grows and in the process locks up carbon dioxide that is currently in the air – a good thing – but how long does the tree live? 100 years?? Perhaps. Then it dies and the tree falls over and decay sets in, releasing, you guessed it, carbon dioxide. So we have a typically short term “politician’s” solution.

        The only way to reduce greenhouse gases is to lock up the carbon dioxide that has been released by the burning of fossil fuels FOREVER, like it originally was. Let us hope we find a way to do this damnably quickly, because there is no other way that we can reduce greenhouse gases.

        Please don’t get confused with “reducing greenhouse gas emissions” and actually reducing greenhouse gasses. Reducing emissions is one thing, and something we should all work towards, but the root of the problem is that ANY greenhouse gasses emitted will NEVER go away – they will always be there – until we find a way to lock them up safely again. This is where our scientists and administrations need to be looking.

        And for all the people who will no doubt say that this is a load of claptrap and that climate change is not happening, just remember that industry around the world used to have the maxim of “The secret to pollution is dilution”, and they stuck by that, pouring their tiny amounts of waste into the huge lakes, until many of the lakes and rivers were toxic.

        Even if we stop emitting greenhouse gasses now, the climate will inexorably change unless we can take out the CO2 already there.

        Cheers, guys.

        • #2716020

          but how long does the tree live? 100 years?? Perhaps.

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to And some more

          Damn, such a theory just makes me al excited! A tree living 100 YEARS!! Man, now THERE’s a concept!

          On Vancouver Island, US owned Weyerhaeuser clear cuts NASTY hunks from the mountains, on the backside of course so that the general population travelling the highways don’t see the destruction though.

          While in the BC interior this weekend, I saw what a repsponsible logging company does, SELECTIVE forestry! Neat idea, proven to be efective all over Europe but it doesn’t cater to those who just want more and more lumber.

          Looking at one area that had been logged you can see all these little white sticks on the hill, upon closer inspection, they are little tubes with seedlings in them, they are like miniature greenhouses for the seedlings, ensuring greater growth rate and success.

          The US solution, found all over the Island, is to clear cut and hire a bunch of hippies, stoners and detention center kids to chuck new seedlings all over the hill. With less than a 10% survival rate, this is just playing a game to make it appear as if they are replanting the hills. Then when it proves useless, as it did in the 90’s, they use it as a method to open new areas to logging in order to sustain their industry, citing the regowth rate is too slow for the logging process.

          Instead of realizing they are simply ruining our country to support their own, they are given more land to log.

          I know several loggers and they would ALL rather work for Canadian operated companies as the practice is much more acceptable, even to them as loggers.
          Their former Canadian employers were pushed to downsize by the softwood lumber treaties and the Weyer take over of most of North Vancouver Island.

          Now I can see many aspects that I agree with behind Capitalism, or the concept of capitalism anyway. I don’t think moving your overly gluttonous business into another country and spitting upon their want to protect their land is acceptable though.

          Here’s an idea, start building PLASTIC homes in the USA. Americans wouldn’t mind the plastic world, society is already plastic so the curve isn’t too great. It would allow them to smoke out the country and produce noxious gasses that are so fondly protected in the USA. Or just start using resources responsibly and the need for destruction wouldn’t flow into other countries and they could all support themselves.

          There is a few 100+ year old trees on the island, where thee used to be ONLY 100+ year old trees. It is a SMALL protected forest aea called Cedar Gove, it is a tourist attraction that attracts hoards year round as if they were viewing rare museum artifacts, ‘100 year old trees, whatever next!? ‘

          [u]HERE’S HOW IT WAS THEN AND IS NOW[/u]

          In BC, the practice USED to be to remove all trees in an area. It would then be 40-70 years before the forest was ready to be removed again.

          Now what they do is they mark all the trees that start to show growth problems, brown canopy or branches growing lower on the trunk. These are removed immediately, other ‘healthy’ trees are left to grow and will provide greater board feet of prime lumber when felled. This forestry practice has been proven as a way to keep a sustainable forest and logging business in sync.

          Weyer still believes in tossing seedlings all ovr a hill and cla cuttign what they now deem is THEIR land.

          This is why the Clayquot indias wre blocking th erods and spikig trees, many Canadian loggers working for Weyerhaeuser at the tim, were laid off or fired for also reusing to log the area.

          Clayquot sound is a PRISTINE and most beautiful place to visit. The natural forsts, wildlife and utdeveloped land is a testament to Canada’s love for it’s natural beauty. MOST of the sound is inaccessible by car and has water access only, making it a truly breath taking and privaleged experience to see.

          When Weyer loggd out their land, they started to move to Clayquot sound and look at the MILLIONS to be made on the masses of ancient, majestic trees.

          Fortunately I was in the sound kayaking about three month ago and it is still stunning, thanks to a few die hard protesters, tree huggers or greenies (whatever you choose to call them) that put their lives on the line to protect what they felt THEIR land was built around.

          God I hate gluttony ! Isn’t that a sin? Yet it is also the food of America, overconsumption and abuse of resources.

          The most God faring nation in the world, promotes sin as it’s means to build a better empire. And the people just line up for more.

        • #2705778

          Plastic Houses

          by voldar ·

          In reply to but how long does the tree live? 100 years?? Perhaps.

          Hi Oz? nice talking to you again

          Could be a good idea…but…if you look deeper, you will find that is not so good…My bro is architect, and he can tell you that will be a full box of problems :P…fire rating, resistance etc. and don?t forget, Plastic is a derivate from oil?so?we?ll just change Scylla for Caribda.

          I am agreeing with what you said, and I will add another – the wood is the single ‘prime material’ for which you don?t need to make many expenses to reach it! So was, it is and will be a big attraction for all the industries related! Single way to keep the ?lung of the earth? (forest) is to learn how to exploit without making major wounds.

          About global heating?hum?the pollution is one major problem, at least, until the big guys will not switch for the alternative resources?I don?t see a BIG progress otherwise. Maybe in 20 years we?ll solve this problem?but I am sure this is not a simple ?changing lane?!

          My theory is that the human became an intelligent creature when he first time built a tent (he transformed his natural environment) problem is…when he will become also responsible????…Hope sooner that I am thinking

          Best regards

      • #2715831

        While not so common with diesels

        by hal 9000 ·

        In reply to Interesting points

        There is a far lower quantile of H2SO2 produced as well. The only down side is that your car smells like a fish shop as you drive along but currently on the up side as you say the used oil is free and while I’m not sure about the UK I’ll be betting tax free as well.

        That was one of the great mysteries to me when leaded fuel was withdrawn from the pumps over here as the powers that be admitted that there would be a far higher levels of H2SO2 being emitted that would return to earth as H2SO4 “Acid Rain” which has been a common event in Europe for many years now.

        Go figure that one out it’s way beyond me.


        • #2715072

          Tax free? I wish!!

          by guruofdos ·

          In reply to While not so common with diesels

          Nope! Customs and Excise here levy a tax on ANY fuel used in vehicles. If you could run your car on water, they would tax that too!

          If you run a car on PVO or SVO (Pure/Straight Vegetable Oil), then you CAN just buy it at the supermarket and throw it in the car…technically.

          However if you run a car on reprocessed WVO (Waste Vegetable Oil) then technically by processing the oil and refining it (by separating out the crap and the glycerol) you are a fuel producer and what you produce IS taxable.

          Here’s the rub…reprocessed vegetable oil is taxed at half the duty of fossil fuels, so it still represents a huge saving over buying real diesel.

          To add to the headache, if you buy diesel at the pump, you pay tax at the point of purchase. If you make your own ‘bio-diesel’, you are taxed on the amount you produce and use (or sell), but the tax is payable monthly in arrears by filling out an appropriate form, then waiting for the bill to arrive!

          Messed, or what?!!! You’d think the government would encourage the use of cleaner ‘carbon neutral’ fuels which promote a cleaner environment (even if the streets will end up smelling like a chip shop….beats diesel fumes any day!!). Nope…..they want their pound of flesh or their ‘tax pound’ any way they can screw it!

        • #2705676

          I suppose that makes sense in some perverted sought of way

          by hal 9000 ·

          In reply to Tax free? I wish!!

          But then again who has ever heard of a Government handing money back to the tax payer.

          What you described above sounds very much like “Sir Humphrey Appleby” the permanent undersecretary in “YES MINISTER.” I don’t know about over there GOD but here it was considered as a MUST SEE TV show by Politicians as it gave them ideas on how to run their departments.

          Talk about life imitating art but it is a scary thought.

          Actually does the same apply if you filter out the gunk in the car with the necessary filters? That way it may be possible to place a fairly large filter under the car to collect the waste and then dispose of it at a latter time. But then again I suppose if there was no tax applied that way they would then create a tax on the waste and charge you on that!


    • #2716253

      Here’s another

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Global Warming Revisited

      Hi Chas, not too much to say on GW really, I think people pretty much know my take.

      A really cool Canadian awareness site is I have met and worked with Mr. Suzuki and his daughter a few times and this guy is really fascinating. He used to do a science/ecology show on Canadian TV but since has retired to work on the DS Foundation.

      Just thought you’d find him interesting.

      • #2716162


        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to Here’s another

        You’re right, that is a cool awareness site. It offers plenty of information about the environment (particularly in Canada), and I can see that Mr. Suzuki really knows his stuff.

    • #2716251

      What President bush has said

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Global Warming Revisited

      “Addressing global climate change will require a sustained effort, over many generations. My approach recognizes that sustained economic growth is the solution, not the problem ? because a nation that grows its economy is a nation that can afford investments in efficiency, new technologies, and a cleaner environment.”

      – President Bush

      • #2716158

        I don’t trust him

        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to What President bush has said

        From an optimistic point of view, I would say he hasn’t done enough to protect the environment, but from a realistic point of view I would say his administration just couldn’t care less of the environment. He has one of the worse records in history regarding this issue. He may have some fine proposal on his page, but they hardly match reality at all. In fact, he didn’t even mention this at the republican convention. For him it is far more important to help big companies make money at the expense of the environment than global warming. This became evident ever since he pulled out of the Kyoto treaty (, when he denied support for the Kyoto treaty ( and when he tried to actually cover up global warming (,6903,1046363,00.html).

        • #2716101

          We Republicans LOVE dirty air

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to I don’t trust him

          We love dirty air.

          We live to drink polluted water – especially when served chilled with radioactive ice.

          We want to be exposed to contaminants.

          We want old people to die on the streets.

          We want little children to starve to death.

          We want……..

          If that’s what you think, it’s no wonder you “don’t trust him”.

          By the way, well before Bush became President, the US Senate voted 99-0 to reject Kyoto.

          You really are misinformed.

          (I thought it was 99-0, he said it was 95-0. I’ll have to do some digging.)

        • #2716076

          It’s not what I think

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to We Republicans LOVE dirty air

          It’s not what I think, it?s what I see. Kyoto war rejected “after” Bush was elected, and he rolled back some of the reforms to protect the environment from the Clinton administration. It’s not that I think Republicans love dirty air, but Bush is one that particularly shows he does.

        • #2716060

          Kyoto was already dead when Bush arrived in office

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to It’s not what I think

          Kyoto failed to pass the Senate in 1997.

          George W. Bush became president in 2001.

          Do your homework.

          By the way, Al Gore, as Vice-President (and President of the Senate), “signed” and submitted the Senate resolution rejecting the Kyoto Treaty as it was submitted at that time.

          Get over it, already.

        • #2716048

          Then why…

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to Kyoto was already dead when Bush arrived in office

          If that is so, then why didn’t the Bush administration do anything to bring it back?

        • #2716025

          So you admit that your previous statement. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then why…

          ….was a mistake?

        • #2716004

          No, not really

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to Then why…

          No. I say IF that is so. I still believe the Bush administration is responsible for many of our current and future environmental issues.

        • #2715999

          Yes, it IS so, no “if” about it.

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then why…

          And he won’t support the treaty because it’s a bad deal for America – and virtually every U.S. Senator, of both parties, agrees with him.

          By the way, Kyoto is a treaty. The President can certainly support or choose not to support a treaty, but he can’t simply give it a blanket seal of approval. To make a treaty valid, the U.S. Senate must approve it by a two-thirds majority. So if Kyoto failed to muster any support, look to the U.S. Senate. (Who, in this case, did something right.)

        • #2715986

          Can you explain?

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to Then why…

          Can you explain why the Kyoto treaty was such a bad deal for America? Isn’t the world and our environment that important?

        • #2715949

          Yes, I can explain

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then why…

          With the words of the honorable Jack Kemp, in their entirety, as follows:

          “Golbal bureaucrats…..continue their expansion of global government under the pretext of protecting mankind’s common interests (i.e. saving the planet).”

          Full text:

          From Kyoto to Bonn, no science equals nonsense

          July 23, 2001, was supposed to mark the “rebirth” of the Kyoto protocol on global warming. On that date, international negotiators in Bonn, with the conspicuous exception of the United States, reached an agreement in principle that modifies and obfuscates the point of the 1997 Kyoto accord, which was to drastically throttle back energy use (and, not coincidentally, economic growth) in the name of slowing global warming. Watered down or not, the Kyoto-Bonn axis leads nowhere so long as it ignores sound science in favor of fads, pseudo-science and selective manipulation of data by global bureaucrats and the media.

          Bureaucrats were desperate to “rescue” Kyoto from President George W. Bush’s firm rejection in order to continue their expansion of global government under the pretext of protecting mankind’s common interests (i.e. saving the planet). To keep Kyoto on life support, the Bonn brigade made huge concessions toward allowing agriculture, tree-planting and pre-existing emissions cuts to count toward the goal of reducing CO2 emissions – precisely the issues the E.U. countries refused to negotiate with the Clinton administration. Now that the United States is not an active negotiator, the European Union caves to the (old!) U.S. position.

          Euro-hypocrisy on Kyoto is reaching mammoth proportions. As columnist Robert Samuelson pointed out, Europe claims moral superiority over the United States because they’ve “done more” to reduce CO2 emissions, but “Europe’s performance reflects different circumstances – and luck.”

          Emissions cuts in Europe mainly come from closing down old, polluting East European power plants, North Sea gas flowing into the United Kingdom and slower economic growth. There’s the answer to controlling CO2 emissions: slash growth, make everyone poorer and foreclose economic opportunity for millions of aspiring Third World workers and entrepreneurs.

          The Wall Street Journal pointed out that the Kyoto-Bonn accord “is sketchy, and details are to be worked out over the course of the next year to 18 months.” In short, it’s an excuse to keep the Kyoto process alive, save the face of bureaucrats who have built whole careers out of global warming hype, and justify domestic tax hikes and restrictions on energy use that just grow the power of government, domestically and internationally.

          The United States doesn’t escape the clutches of the new “Kyoto-lite” accord just by virtue of Bush’s opposition. Rules on energy use, agriculture, taxation and industrial activity that are imposed abroad in the name of Kyoto can be exported in many ways, especially to U.S. companies that have a growing presence in every corner of the globe.

          The Achilles’ heel of the Kyoto process has always been science, not politics, and not economics, devastating though this treaty would be to the world economy. Global-warming theory is built on uncertainty, and it’s no closer to being proven than the proposition that the sun rises because the rooster crows.

          The science of climate change becomes less certain the more we know. Even the recent National Academy of Sciences report requested by the Bush administration warned that politics was fast overtaking true scientific inquiry: “If scientific participation in the future becomes less representative and governmental representatives are tied to specific postures, then there is a risk that future … efforts will not be viewed as independent processes.”

          Most government reports on climate change have ceased to be independent of global-warming politics. As Dr. Fred Singer points out in commenting on the NAS report, “The Academy report stands or falls principally on whether the climate warmed in the past 50 years and especially since 1980. The overwhelming bulk of data from different independent sources shows no such warming trend. We are not talking just about science but about evidence. A full-scale open debate is in order to settle this matter.”

          Climate change is the subject of debate within the scientific community. We still have a primitive understanding of the chemical and physical interactions between human industrial activity and the “natural” climate. People are part of nature, too. We do belong on this planet, after all.

          It’s too bad the Bush administration has not taken the issue of scientific uncertainty dead-on when it comes to global warming because it has left them at a political disadvantage. In combatting the fear-mongering coming out of Europe, the president shouldn’t hesitate to go after the pseudo-scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto mindset, using the genuine spirit of intellectual inquiry to ward off the attack of the global bureaucrats. Otherwise, more events like Bonn (next stop: Marrakesh) will strengthen Kyoto’s status as a “vampire treaty” – dead, but still preying on the living.

          – Jack Kemp

          (He could have made a fine president.)

        • #2715948


          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then why…

        • #2715947

          And More

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then why…

        • #2715946

          And Even More

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then why…

        • #2715945

          Not to mention – Environmental Marxism

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then why…

        • #2715944

          Not to mention – Environmental Marxism

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to Then why…

        • #2715940

          In reply to the Kyoto treaty rejection arguments

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to Kyoto was already dead when Bush arrived in office

          I read the sources that indicate why the US rejected the Kyoto treaty, and I say those are all just lame excuses to help environmentally hostile companies save money. The purpose of the treaty was to agree to cut greenhouse gas emissions, which result mainly from burning coal and oil, by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Its development began with concerns presented at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro about the effects of climate changes; such as the movement of agricultural zones, the melting of polar ice caps and rising sea levels.

          The major concern for the US was that fines for violations of the treaty would be around the billions of dollars. Out of the greenhouse gas emissions, the one we must worry about most is Carbon dioxide, which is mostly produced by burning fossil fuels in power stations. It is naturally converted to oxygen by plants, but deforestation is reducing the planet’s ability to absorb CO2. If we go on at this rate it is estimated that we will have about twice as much atmospheric carbon dioxide by 2030, and about three times that much by 2100. But of course Bush and his buddies probably won’t be around by then, so what do they care.

        • #2715907

          So we disagree . . . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to In reply to the Kyoto treaty rejection arguments

          What else is new?

          By the way, LOOK OUT! THE SKY IS FALLING!

        • #2715781

          Pure ignorance

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to In reply to the Kyoto treaty rejection arguments

          The SKY IS FALLING? What kind of a comical spin are you trying to put on a global issue?

          This is the exact mentality that needs to be stopped dead, maybe a little selective people logging is in order.

        • #2715766

          The Global Warming “scare”. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to In reply to the Kyoto treaty rejection arguments

          …is no more than a “sky is falling” scare.

          It’s utter nonsense, and anyone who believes it based on the “science” (and I use that term lightly) presented thus far, is a dupe.

        • #2715740

          Global warming is quetsionable by some

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to In reply to the Kyoto treaty rejection arguments

          The cold, hard FACT that our own industry poluutants and emissions are killing us directly is not.

          So do we dismiss the fact that our pollutants and industry emissions kill thousands of our own people each year because some people feel global warming is a farce?

          Great mindset.

        • #2718459

          Gee Max, what does that make me

          by thechas ·

          In reply to In reply to the Kyoto treaty rejection arguments


          Between what NASA research I have read, the National Geographic article, even the statement from the White House, I can find no evidence to not conclude that man is altering the global climate.

          True, the climate is probably not in the dire straights that some environmentalists claim.

          Still, can mankind afford to take the chance that we won’t tip the climate into an irreversible warming cycle?

          The longer we wait to act, and the more tepid our response, the more drastic and draconian the impact of the “cure” will be.

          From my point of view, the threat posed to the environment is every bit as imminent as you see the threat that Saddam Husein posed to US national security.

          I would not be opposed to paying double the taxes I now pay, and 15 to 20% more for goods and services IF that money was directly invested in environmental protection and climate preservation.


        • #2718450

          Chas – You and I are both. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to In reply to the Kyoto treaty rejection arguments

          ….reasonably intelligent and fairly well-informed people, at least I think we are. So I guess we both have to wonder which one of us is the real “dupe”.

          I don’t believe that people are causing global warming any more than I believe that people cause sun spots. Not even one iota. And any suggestion by the Bush administration that we are is, most likely, just playing the issue in a politically safe way – not really buying into the silly notion, but not dismissing it either.

          And one of the primary reasons I don’t believe it is because of the people advancing the argument – the extreme left, the wacko Al Gore type people, the Marxist thinkers, and so on. (And the same ones who were using the same scare tactics with their global cooling scare in the 70s.) Those are the people I don’t trust. Therefore, I need proof – real proof – and none has been advanced. Just like the old saying, “show me the money”, well, show me the proof – proof that can’t be challenged in any way whatsoever.

          And as I’ve said on many occasions, “global warming” and keeping a clean environment are not related. I’m all in favor of the things that help clean-up and keep clean the environment. I just don’t need scare tactics to sway me. And no, the “just to be safe” argument won’t fly either. That’s just more nonsense.

        • #2718301

          Max – proof or caution?

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to In reply to the Kyoto treaty rejection arguments

          Let me get this nasty little tangent out of the way quickly, as I’m sorry to everyone for bringing it up… But there will be more after it which is more directly related to the theme of the thread…

          How is it that you demand proof of Man’s affect towards the environment, but you go without it in the case of WMD? As I read your above post, I kept replacing the global warming concept with war in Iraq, and you have the exact opposite feelings there. Feel free to take this offline.

          Now, enough of that and back to the environment.

          Chas stated that he is no “Sky is falling” environmentalist. But he does worry that we are not tending our house, and that if we continue to ignore this issue, [or abuse it, depending on your lean] we may be in more trouble than we bargained for…

          You don’t need a scientific study to know that creating lawns in the desert will make the area more humid – and that the specialized plants and animals there may not thrive there as well. Ditto with the reverse…

          Do you not believe that we should maintain a certain level of Nature health for the long run? Should we at least discuss and argue this sort of thing rather than dismissing it entirely?

        • #2715933

          Political Pendulum

          by thechas ·

          In reply to We Republicans LOVE dirty air

          The environmental movement is so new in the US that the political pendulum is still making very wide swings.

          Interestingly, the laws that the EPA and related environmental action are based on were passed during the Nixon administration. Since then, every Republican administration has worked to weaken the environmental law and the enforcement thereof.

          Every Democratic administration has to work very hard to just bring environmental policy back to where it was. It is nearly impossible to make improvements.

          Under the current administration, the Republicans have found the best way to allow polluters to get away with their crimes against the environment.
          Take away the ability of the EPA to monitor and enforce the laws.

          (Off the soapbox.)

          Until we have a major environmental crisis, or irrefutable proof of the damage that human activities are causing the environment, the proponents of unfettered business activities and environmental responsibility will continue to be opposing forces.


      • #2716081


        by neilb@uk ·

        In reply to What President bush has said

        When Bangladesh and Florida and God knows where else gets washed away – and it will – in not too many years time it will be all our faults for wasting energy and resources but most of all it will be the fault of the USA.

        Check sometime how much of the World’s resources you guys WASTE on a per capita basis. Until then I think that you should keep quiet and keep your heads below the parapet else they’ll get shot off for sure!

        Yes. it will take generations but at least the rest of us have started to do something!

      • #2716045

        I agree with that!

        by admin ·

        In reply to What President bush has said

        Of course, we all need to make buying decisions to support those that do invest in “efficiency, new technologies, and a cleaner environment.” on a personal level.

        There is no better place for Capitalism and Democracy to merge than in taking care of the planet that supports us IMO.

    • #2716243

      Some sources you can check

      by aldanatech ·

      In reply to Global Warming Revisited

      Here are some sites you can check for more information about this administration’s handle of the environment. Please note that I refer to Bush as either himself or his administration:

      3-13-2001 CNN – Bush reverses stance on CO2 emissions.

      3-29-2001 CNN – Bush pulls out of the Kyoto treaty.

      4-17-2001 USA Today – Bush auctions the rights to offshore Florida oil drilling.

      4-13-2001 Washington Post – Bush relaxes standards on appliance energy efficiency.

      4-12-2001 Washington Post – Bush makes it harder to put species on the endangered list.

      4-6-2001 San Francisco Chronicle – Bush removes protections for marine wildlife.

      4-4-2001 USA Today – Bush declares open season on the national parks.

      5-17-2001 The NEPDG’s report – Bush releases his energy plan.

      5-8-2001 CNN – Bush tries to build more nuclear power plants.

      5-7-2001 White House briefing transcript – Bush refuses to ask Americans to conserve.

      7-24-2001 Washington Post – Bush isolates United States in denying support for Kyoto treaty.

      8-9-2001 Washington Post – Bush eases rules on wetlands development.

      8-8-2001 Washington Post – Bush eases Clinton rules on industrial pollution.

      11-7-2001 Washington Post – Bush closes office dedicated to protecting the Everglades.

      12-11-2001 Washington Post – Bush changes the rules for nuclear waste-storage facility.

      1-15-2002 UPI – Bush plans to store–rather than destroy–nuclear weapons slated for reduction.

      1-15-2002 Washington Post – Bush relaxes environmental rules on wetlands development.

      1-14-2002 Washington Post – Bush muzzles Fish and Wildlife objections to wetlands development rules.

      3-30-2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer – Bush rejects environmental review of drilling for oil in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

      2-15-2002 CNN – Bush backs Yucca Mountain nuclear waste site.

      2-15-2002 Washington Post – Bush releases his laughable global warming plan.

      2-14-2002 Washington Post – Bush pursues drilling for oil off the coast of California.

      6-14-2002 Washington Post -Bush refuses to enforce an important provision of the Clean Air Act.

      6-7-2002 Associated Press – Bush won’t halt oil drilling in California like he did in Florida.

      4-26-2002 Washington Post – Bush lets mining companies dump waste into streams.

      11-12-2002 Chicago Tribune – Bush reverses snowmobile ban in Yellowstone Park.

      2-2-2003 Washington Post – Bush weakens “dolphin-safe tuna” regulations.

      3-1-2003 Washington Post Bush opens Alaska forest to logging.

      5-28-2003 Mother Jones – Bush ensures that hydrogen cars will still pollute.

      9-21-2003 The Observer – Bush tries to cover up global warming.,6903,1046363,00.html

      8-29-2003 Washington Post – Bush chooses not to regulate auto emissions.

      8-29-2003 Associated Press – Bush cuts Energy Star program.,2610,106400,00.html

      8-23-2003 Washington Post – Bush relaxes clean air rules.

      10-15-2003 Washington Post – Bush uses EPA funds to make campaign ads.

      10-11-2003 Washington Post – Bush proposes loosening protections of endangered species.

      I hope these sources can be of good use to you.

    • #2716168

      Well at one place recently

      by hal 9000 ·

      In reply to Global Warming Revisited

      I installed a Solar Power Backup system in place of the aging diesel generator that they had in place and it seems to work very well. Currently its been in place for under 1 year at the moment but so far they have had no problems when mains power droops out. Of course I’ll need to see in in operation for several years to make a final decision but at the moment it looks promising.

      Incidental the roof is mostly Solar Panels mounted with about a 3 – 4 inch air gap so there is a considerable saving on cooling costs right there. But I personally think dark roofs is a left over from Colonial English days where the people wanted to make their new country feel/look like home so they chose dark colors for the roofs because that was what they where used to and while it made some sense in England it is anything but useful here in the northern part of AU as it gets very hot with high humidity as well.


      • #2716154

        Good job!

        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to Well at one place recently

        Great job Col. It is people like you that give us a more promising future. Keep up the good work.

    • #2716043

      Conservative approaches to Energy are always good!

      by admin ·

      In reply to Global Warming Revisited

      No matter whether or not Global Warming is positive or negative, the conservation of the Earth and Energy is always a smart move in the long term for everyone.


      • #2716037

        I agree

        by aldanatech ·

        In reply to Conservative approaches to Energy are always good!

        Conservation of energy and the environment is positive for all of us in every way.

      • #2716017

        As I’ve always said

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to Conservative approaches to Energy are always good!

        Regardless of Global Warming, our pollutants are killing us, FACT.

        We canot live on Carbon Monoxide, we die, thousands of people die every year from Carbon Monoxide poisonig, our #1 vehicular emission.

        When it comes to making personal sacrifices though, we find out just how selfish people REALLY are and how little they care about anythig other than thir own creature comforts and habits.

        Whenever pollutants are brought up, there are always people statig that GW is a farce, not living underneath the thinning ozone as we are in Canada of course, we have seen drastic climate chages here and it has effected MANY industries and livelihoods, this isn’t even considering the effects on plants, animals and humans pollutants have.

        People ae blind to the fact the we are killing ourselves because GLobal Warming is stil in question, my point is that regardless of global warmin, we canot breath the air we manufacture, neither can anything else we require to survive such as plants and animals. We are happily creating the end of our existence, the world will live without us as it always did before us.

        Is this because everyone is on some trip that God has decided where we will begin and end or somehing? Do people feel God will see us through while we disrespect the world HE created?

        Instead of having faith, trying taking responsibility for your own actions and reduce your own energy consumption while becomig more aware of how you can help save civilization, or else the terrorists just don’t matter do they?

        • #2716015

          Minor correction

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to As I’ve always said

          #1 vehicular emission should have been “#1 most harmful” vehicular emission.

        • #2715778

          In the beginning God only asked us to do a few things…

          by admin ·

          In reply to As I’ve always said

          One was to be caretakers of creation. Of course from the KJV it says we are to have dominion over the earth, but this was from a time when Dominion meant something like having dominion over your kingdom- i.e. taking care of it. This lies in stark contrast to our sports and war society where it is misunderstood for “dominating” in the modern sense, like you would in Unreal or SoF2 for instance, which those who know me know I love to dominate like that too- it’s just a completely out of context different word. 🙂

          Check out the book “Dominion” for some insight into this from GWB’s speech writer Matt Scully. He applies it to the ethical treatment of animals in a Christian manner, but the same can be said of all the Earth. At least Christians, Jews and Muslims- the major religions that all draw from the Torah and come from the faith of Abraham- are given the responsibility to care for creation.

          And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”–Genesis 1:24-26 KJV

          Notice it’s over all the Earth. It is us who are responsible for it.

          Here’s a link to the book:

        • #2715739


          by oz_media ·

          In reply to In the beginning God only asked us to do a few things…

          I’ll have a read.

    • #2716021

      My “Democrat” Boss

      by maxwell edison ·

      In reply to Global Warming Revisited

      Not too long ago, I made the suggestion to replace (most of) our CRT monitors with LCD flat screen monitors, and to specify LCD flat screen monitors for all future computer purchases. I gave several reasons for the suggestion, including less desk space and less energy consumption, which also included eliminating an additional heat source (a double-energy savings).

      His reply: Our electrical costs are included in our rent payment. I’m not going to spend money to save someone else a few dollars on his energy bill.

      So much for a “principled” Democrat. (His “words” and “actions” are always in conflict when it comes to practicing what he preaches – i.e. how he votes.)

      • #2716012

        Does that imply the nature of a democrat or an idiot?

        by oz_media ·

        In reply to My “Democrat” Boss

        Please don’t say it’s the same thing.

        Your boss has his head in his wallet, we all know where that is kept.

        Try telling him that he’s losing his hair from the radiation on his monitor, he’ll probably be vain enough to see a need for change if it saves his vanity.

      • #2715987

        Not all Democrats are environmentalists

        by thechas ·

        In reply to My “Democrat” Boss

        It’s obvious from your comment that your boss is not a committed environmentalist.

        Of course, his actions typify why we need government standards if not involvement when it comes to both environmental and social issues.

        By and large, the US consumer will go with what is cheapest to them, so long as the cheapest option meets their needs.

        Unless all competing companies are required to produce environmentally friendly products no one company will take the initiative to spend the RD funds, or raise their product cost.

        Same for paying a just wage. WalMart and other companies get away with paying cleaning companies fees that will not allow the firm to pay their workers even minimum wage because there is not enough government oversite.


        • #2715801

          That’s right

          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to Not all Democrats are environmentalists

          And that is why the Bush administration is so enthusiastic about giving breaks to big companies regardless of their environmental impact.

        • #2715796

          Don’t you EVER have anything to offer. . . .

          by maxwell edison ·

          In reply to That’s right

          …other than those silly and meaningless platitudes?

        • #2715780

          Don’t you have anything to ofer

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Don’t you EVER have anything to offer. . . .

          …other than those silly and meaningless comments you make in an effort to diminish someone’s else’s comments?

        • #2715745


          by aldanatech ·

          In reply to Don’t you EVER have anything to offer. . . .

          Yeah, the truth.

        • #2715784

          Agree – kinda

          by sullyman ·

          In reply to Not all Democrats are environmentalists

          I totally agree that cheap in most cases wins out to recycleable/enviromental. But….

          WalMart and other large big box retailers get away wih paying low rates due to sheer volume, and size. Cleaning companies, wholesalers, etc CHOOSE to do business with WM – can’t blame WM for getting the best price. If someone doesn’t want to work for WM has to pay, then don’t……

      • #2715775

        Thats what my “Republican” boss said too! ~LoL~

        by admin ·

        In reply to My “Democrat” Boss

        Maybe its more to do with what it takes to be a boss than political persuasion 🙂

    • #2715939


      by voldar ·

      In reply to Global Warming Revisited

      will never happen to me” is the most used formula when you ask most of the peoples about this subject. In fact, many of them don’t even know what are CO and CO2 (and there are quite some in here, in TR), sometimes they don’t even know what a hell are you asking them for (Kyoto treaty).
      Many of us will take the side of what it is most convenient to our way of thinking, which is by the way, sometimes, not very bright.
      Maxwell had stated so many replies to a previous post (I tried to read them all, but then I stopped – all the replies where from the same and only source). As engineer, when I used to check a problem, trying to solve it, I always wanted to have as much as points of view as I could. One source point of views it is mostly a dead end for solving a problem.

      And yes, hey guys, you have never grown up until now? NOBODY will do something if it doesn’t GET something in return (?because it’s a bad deal for America?), so … forget about Global Warming. Long leave the oxygen masks fabricants!!

      P.S. ? there is also true that from the ?greenies? you hear some very strange, laugh making demands. Sometimes I ask myself if they are aware about what they are talking. It looks to me that sometimes they go way too far from what is humanly accepted. But well, everybody needs to gain a living, so ? there will be always extremists (whatever your ?side? is).

    • #2715782

      12 million litres of MISSING oil!

      by oz_media ·

      In reply to Global Warming Revisited

      In Vancouver, as I am sure in MOST cities, there is an oil recyclig program in place. There are several deopts as well as MOST major gas staions have an area for you to dispose of used oil, which is rerefined and reused.

      An interesting statistic has been thrown around during the latest pollution campaign (that’s when people get together to promote reycling and better use of resources). They say that 12 MILLION litres of oil were sold last year that the waste has been unaccounted for?
      okay, so your rings ad valves need work, you SCRAPED through aircare somehow and simply burn the oil in your car, nothing to recycle.

      12 MILLION litres though? They have an ad about how BC has some of the the best skiing in the world, pristine mountais, untouched snow and an oil slick running down it. Okay maybe a littl harsh but where did all that oil go? The reservoir? The dump? The garage still? Who knows, but 12 million litres of waste oil have not been accounted for, in a province that prides itself on it’s environmental awareness.

      Makes you wonder what other places in the world are like, how many millions/billions of litres/quarts of waste oil have not been recycled?

    • #2715770

      Chas- I am more concerned about enviromental caretaking than Global Warming

      by admin ·

      In reply to Global Warming Revisited

      HEre’s why:

      I think Global Warming has become a smokescreen to divert attention from real life things we CAN and SHOULD do.

      We do not know if we can do much at all about Global Warming at this point. The data is not all in on it. Should we study trends? Yes, but pragmatically as individuals we would be much better off doing things like installing energy saving devices, cutting down on personal transportaion, getting white roofs, recycling, becoming responsible consumers etc.

      I was glad to see those in your post, because I know you care about your enviroment from the previous discussions.

      If we do these things, we will have done what we can about global warming anyway. If we don’t do these, even if global warming turns out to be natural, we will have other major problems. I always cringe when I hear global warming as a wake up call- to me, the truth is that our children and their future generations being able to live well on a sustainable planet is the wake up call we should strive for and make all of our buying decisions around.

      That’s where it is at really in America or any Capitalist country really- It is up to us, the consumers, to reject what we do not want and pay for what we do want with our purchases and to extend that into our governments and businesses as much as we can. Even my boss will start conserving energy the day we employees get a large contigent of workers requesting this.

      We vote for what we want with our wallets. Don’t buy energy wasting devices and buy those that don’t and supply and demand will take care of it.

      • #2715768

        Absolutely Correct

        by maxwell edison ·

        In reply to Chas- I am more concerned about enviromental caretaking than Global Warming

        Environmental Caretaking – I love the term.

        Global Warming – A leftist scare tactic based on unfounded and questionable science (at best), which is no more than an effort to spread global Marxism by advancing a fabricated problem.

        The former is a worthwhile effort.

        The latter is utter nonsense.

        And the former will never be as well served until the latter is dismissed as nonsense.

        • #2715735

          Or simply ignoreduntil otherwise proven

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Absolutely Correct

          GW is a natural phenomenon as everyone knows, whether we have fuelled its progress or not is still to be determined.

          the bottom lie is that we ae destroying the life on our planet, regardless of how many believe or disbelieve in GW. I don’t think the issue should be shelved but those who study these natural phenomenon should continue to do so until conclusive evidence s found.

          In the meantime, we have saved each other AND our planet by being more concious of our pollutants and consumption of unrenewable resources.

      • #2718453

        US economy no longer a true free market

        by thechas ·

        In reply to Chas- I am more concerned about enviromental caretaking than Global Warming


        I agree with you up to the point of allowing the market to decide.

        On a very real level, the US economy is no longer a true free market.

        The majority of manufacturing companies in the US (if not the world) are NOT interested in providing products to “niche” markets.
        Without government mandates, companies will NOT invest R&D funds in things like energy conservation or environmentally friendly manufacturing processes.

        One need only look at the US automotive industry to see that this is true.
        Without the CAFE standards, Detroit would not build ANY high mileage vehicles. Anyone who wanted a fuel efficient vehicle would be forced to by a Japanese or Korean car.
        It’s not so much that Detroit can’t compete in the efficient vehicle market, it’s that they DON’T want to be in that market at all!
        Detroit has never tried to make a “quality” fuel efficient vehicle. The fuel efficient offerings are always cheap tin boxes.

        I worked in the appliance industry in the 1980’s. There was a lot of reluctance on the part of the US appliance manufactures to replace mechanical controls with electronic controls on ranges. The main problem was that they could not afford the cost of development to switch the top end ranges over to electronic controls, and did not want to install electronics on the general purpose ranges before they were on the top end ranges.

        My point, we do not get to choose what products are offered to us. We can only decide to buy or not buy. Our choices are driven by marketing departments and focus groups taking into account the latest style trends more than function issues.

        Anyone remember avocado green and harvest gold appliances? While it was a choice over white, it was a choice based on what the companies wanted to offer us.

        As far as having the choice of environmentally friendly products, we are in a catch 22 situation. Until the market is large enough, these products won’t be offered. Conversely, until environmentally friendly products are generally available, people will still buy the best compromise they can get when they need a new appliance.


        • #2718221

          Good point, although I draw a different conclusion.

          by admin ·

          In reply to US economy no longer a true free market

          While: “the US economy is no longer a true free market” is unfortunately true today, to me this is EXACTLY why we need to return to our roots. Your example of automakers is good. The government SHOULD NOT bail them or any other company out. This is what screws stuff up.

          The auto companies and their workers start screaming that they are entitled to be in business and the government slaps tariffs on imports and gives the locals- who have demonstrated they can’t run a business already- gives them MORE money. This is exactly why the tea was thrown in the harbor but instead of throwing in again we just need to stop buying the stupid crap that is being subsidized.

          If Autos, Appliances and for that matter Milk and Meat weren’t subsidized and a free market developed in the US again we would have a country and an economy to be proud of!

          Instead we think the Farmers, the Automakers, the Appliance Industry and a whole host of others are entitled to develop products they can’t sale on the world market and still pawn it off on us.
          That’s why my last laundry set came from Sweden. These appliances use so little water and power that it is unbelievable almost. The washer uses something like 40 gallons a load less and both are recommended for off-grid solar homes because power consumption is very low. I would have loved to have bought locally, but the local “marketing departments and focus groups taking into account the latest style trends more than function issues” appeared to me to have their heads so far up their rectums that it would of been a disservice to support them at risk of them running out of air before they figured out that they actually had a vision problem, much less that they couldn’t breath and so on.

          It’s not China or foriegn market competition that’s killing us and our jobs, it’s our inability to let go of industries and methods that are antiquated and expecting tax dollars to not only continue to support them, but continue to INCREASINGLY support them.

          If bigger government would have fixed this issue we would have stayed with England at the time. More taxes and legislation will only decrease our economy in the end. Of course, in the short term we can fuel the economy with war, but people do get weary of supporting wars eventually too.

          I understand your point, but with the internet I ordered a case of Salsa Lizano from Costa Rica a few days ago and it arrived in 5 days. We can get whatever we want almost instantly from anywhere on earth which to me changes: “we do not get to choose what products are offered to us.” somewhat in this era. We are not limited by Sears or Target or Costco anymore- even groceries come online. In countries with sane marketers, ecologically efficient appliances abound and are readily available. When we all start buying them and refuse to vote for people who bail out these American appliance manufacturers then there will arise new American businesses with vision to capture these markets. To an extent, this is already happening. Those of us on the Digital side of the Digital divide are shopping much more internationally and smarter. I still believe that the free market will return to America someday, I just hope it’s sooner than later.

        • #2712298

          Swedish washers

          by cactus pete ·

          In reply to Good point, although I draw a different conclusion.

          Just curious – did a swedish company make that swedish washer/dryer the way they did because the Swedish government said they had to meet certain requirements? Or do you think the company simply invested in the technology themselves because they thought they could sell more units that way?

          I’d be interested in finding that out.

        • #2712294

          Some fun about Swedeish appliances

          by oz_media ·

          In reply to Swedish washers

          My Brother used to own an Ikea store in Richmond. I worked down th eroad at a cabinet maker who supplied/modified MOST of Ikea’s kitchens.

          cabinets were made locally and sent down the road to Ikea. We had to make the cabinets to Swedish appliance dimensions (meaning cutting them down by a couple of inches). The customer would then buy a kitchen from Ikea, appliances from wherever and Ikea would hae US install them.
          The first thing we did was build a 2 1/4″ spacer to get the cabinets high enough to fit the North American alliances (the same 2 1/4″ we had removed for Ikea).

          Needless to say, the customer paid through the nose for all this additional labour so they could have a “Swedish kitchen” made in Richmond BC of course. DOH!

        • #2712081

          Since 1986 over 10 million Toyotas produced in the US

          by admin ·

          In reply to Some fun about Swedeish appliances

          We are a Global economy for sure. I don’t like my appliances because they are Swedish. I like them because they save tons of water and electricity. 🙂

          Even my American motorcycle has a lot of foriegn made parts on it. It seems to me it’s we consumers and American workers who haven’t woken up and smelled the real coffee. I laughed a bit when when helping my Union friend put an alternator on his old American Ford. He’s a carpenter and won’t get a new one because he wants his all-American. The new alternator was in American packaging, but according to the sticker it came from Mexico.

          We already live in a world economy. My point would be why can’t some Canadian firm make kickin A cabinets and get well known for them and charge a craftsmens price? I have noticed that since the purchase of my appliances, which are still going strong years later, I may buy an American tagged set next time. I like the Whirlpool Duets and here they have killer water and electricity specs. I was all happy to see these in an American appliance, feeling that me and everyone else who bought this were making a difference as to what was being developed right here. I expressed this to the salesman and he informed me they were actually from Germany 🙂 Oh well, at least they can get around the tariffs this way I hope! 🙂

        • #2712087

          Of course the marketing packet said a Farmer invented them for his Mother..

          by admin ·

          In reply to Swedish washers

          But they do have inspection stickers on them saying that they meet government standards, so you may have a good point.

          Whether or not they manufactured them through government intervention or of their free accord, I, the consumer in the USA, made my choice with my dollars of my free accord.

          I do see though where theChas point of this not happening without government intervention is well taken in the context of color schemes and getting what you want. PErhaps I should thank the Swedish government for making it possible for me to be offered such a good choice. 🙂 I would also thank the American government for this if they did it, it is a better thing than we have, and I will vote at the ballot and with dollars for a better thing too.

          Ideally though, the Government should NOT be in the business of taxing choices consumers would like to make and bailing out companies making poor choices. This is why we split off from the last government and now 200 years later its back- but this time we are doing it to ourselves. 🙁

Viewing 9 reply threads