Forums | MacLife

Fried Chicken · 2007-01-07 11:30 am

Well, I've decided to open this thread to talk about what people do about global warming. Right now, after studying Geography, researching myself, watching "An inconvenient truth", and personal observations over, I am convinced that global warming is not just a proven fact, but something that we absolutely need to take action against.
The question is what to do. I think that a major problem that we face right now is the current administration seems to be turning a blind eye to the problem, because a lot of their money comes from the oil companies. The oil companies are doing everything they can to discourage people from buying smaller cars, or generally doing anything that would turn people away from their products, and for some reason or another, the car companies follow the oil companies. This to me is probably one of the biggest flaws that we have right now in our capitolistic market. I understand that they want to protect their product, but I find the idea of letting the environment suffer in order to for them to keep making money as HORRIBLE...

So the question is what can be done. What can we as Americans do to help the environment?
This is a question that I have thought about, and I am not sure as to what the answer is.

I think that we as the american consumer do not have that many options to what we can do. There aren't any electric cars we can buy. We could buy a flexfuel car, but where the hell do you fill that up? Biodiesel is a nice alternative, but you need to be pretty dedicated to do that. We could of course buy a Hybrid, but that still runs on gasoline. I think that's exactly how the oil companies want it, but whatever.

Anyway, there are however small things that we can do to help save energy.
1. Don't drive as much. You don't need to drive across the street to McDonalds. You could just as well ride your bike, or go for a walk.
2. You don't really need a Cadillac Escelade to drive your children to wherever, a 4 dr. sedan will do.
3. You can in fact turn your lights off. It's not so much about the energy that's saved, but more about the idea that you are in fact consciously thinking about the environment.
4. You could very cheaply replace all your lights with fluorescent lights. They are very good, and if you can think in the long run, they will save you money.
5. However the biggest thing you can do is support companies and politicians who actively do something about global warming. This is I think the biggest thing you can do, because the people who can really make a difference need our support in order to make progress.

So, how do you guys stand? What have you done about global warming. How much do you care about global warming?

You could just as well look at the situation like this:
It's God's earth. He created something incredibly beautiful, and now we've moved in and are destroying it.

Steyr AUG · 2007-01-07 11:42 am

Support nuclear power plants.

thume · 2007-01-07 12:31 pm

I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth, and don't think I'll bother watching it.
I'm not really into those slanted, agenda pushing 'Documentaries'. roll

But if you are gonna watch it, you should balance it out with an episode of Penn and Teller bullsmurf: Environmental Hysteria.

As for not trying to leave a big footprint, in our household we:
- Don't own cars (walk, bike, public trans)
- Use those low watt bulbs ( I think they're about 10w or something, but not sure).
- Reuse bags (take them back to the store to use again and then eventually use them for trash).
- Recycle, it's optional here so it actually takes some extra effort.
- Let yellow mellow.

That's about all I can think of.

Fried Chicken · 2007-01-07 1:18 pm

thume wrote:
I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth, and don't think I'll bother watching it.
I'm not really into those slanted, agenda pushing 'Documentaries'.

But if you are gonna watch it, you should balance it out with an episode of Penn and Teller bullsmurf: Environmental Hysteria.

As for not trying to leave a big footprint, in our household we:
- Don't own cars (walk, bike, public trans)
- Use those low watt bulbs ( I think they're about 10w or something, but not sure).
- Reuse bags (take them back to the store to use again and then eventually use them for trash).
- Recycle, it's optional here so it actually takes some extra effort.
- Let yellow mellow.

That's about all I can think of.

Actually, I think you do so much more than the average american. Where do you live? You don't own cars?

akb825 · 2007-01-07 1:35 pm

I think that global warming is a problem, but I think it's also blown out of proportion. I don't drive a large car, though I do need to drive. (it would probably take a good 45 minutes to walk to the nearest shopping center, and likely hours to walk to school tongue Even if I had a bike, I think a 30 minute car ride would turn into too long a bike ride regardless) It's pure gasoline, but it does get good milage.

I don't quite buy into your whole "car companies do everything that the oil companies want them to." When the gas prices rose, hybrids and were selling like hot cakes. I'm sure the oil companies wanted 5 MPG hummers everywhere, though. Things like turning off lights and getting fluorescence make sense (since they're better for both the consumer and environment), and our lights have been pretty much all fluorescence ever since the energy crisis in California.

Though I admit I haven't researched it, I know that the Bush administration has put in money for alternative fuels such as hydrogen. I really hope the fusion experiments in the near future are a success. A scientist recently discovered a much more efficient method of containment, which will hopefully speed the process. Though not immediate, it will be important for our future. It may also lead the way for cheaper hydrogen for use in other areas. I think research is the most important thing we can do to combat global warming and all the other problems of our current sources of energy.

I do believe, however, that global warming is actually more of an acceleration of the Earth's natural cycle. This planet has gone through hot and cold cycles all the time, but now we're accelerating the path along the hot cycle, which will also shorten the time until the next cold cycle. (or ice age) Also, there have been worse global warmings in the past due to things such as volcanic eruptions and releases of methane, so this isn't exactly anything new and unprecedented, only the cause of it is.

Fried Chicken · 2007-01-07 1:56 pm

thume wrote:
I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth, and don't think I'll bother watching it.
I'm not really into those slanted, agenda pushing 'Documentaries'.

But if you are gonna watch it, you should balance it out with an episode of Penn and Teller bullsmurf: Environmental Hysteria.

I actually think they bring up a very good point. Penn and Teller never actually said they don't care about the planet, and what they brought up was a real problem that will hinder us more than help us in trying ot prevent global warming. If people become extreme, they become stupid, and nobody will listen to them.
The reason that I am beginning to believe that Global warming is in fact a problem is after I started studying Geography, and I learned about the winds and currents and whatnot, and then I saw what the scientists are saying, and I understood what they were talking about.

I myself am actually really "bad" for the environment. I use a lot of energy to keep my standards of living high, and what I want to actually support is not people going out and buying tiny little cars that go from 0-60 in like a million years. I want to support very strongly technologies that will let us keep our standards of living while doing something about global warming. That's what I want. We should get our energy not from coal, but from stuff like Solar panels, Biodiesel, Wind Farms, etc. etc. etc.

If we can do that, then we can increase our standards of living, and decrease our energy output, and of course our dependence on foreign oil.

George Bush went into Iraq with very little evidence of WMD's. He pretty much sentenced 3000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's to death and spent billions of dollars, all with a little bit of evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMD's. There is overwhelming proof of global warming, and even if a fraction of what scientists say is right, just that alone should be enough to have us do something.

thume · 2007-01-07 2:31 pm

Fried Chicken wrote:
I actually think they bring up a very good point. Penn and Teller never actually said they don't care about the planet, and what they brought up was a real problem that will hinder us more than help us in trying ot prevent global warming. If people become extreme, they become stupid, and nobody will listen to them.

I agree with you 100%, I love P&T Bullsmurf.

You are obviously making educated decisions, which is what counts.

Tetrachloride · 2007-01-07 2:55 pm

Nearly every year is warmer than the year before. So, global warming is an accomplished fact. Other climate changes are evident. In my area, there's no snow. The lowest temperature of the past 3 weeks was 25 F. Golf courses have not closed. Geese have not migrated as far as usual. Arctic ice cap is disappearing.

What my family does about it ? Nobody has an SUV and never has.

I do less driving anyway, as I do more shopping online.

333imacman · 2007-01-07 3:00 pm

I generally support this Bush administration, but if you watch the documentary, "Who Killed The Electric Car?", you will soon see that hydrogen is a very expensive technology that won't be useful for many many years to come. Bush should be putting money into better, cheaper technologies that we could use in the near future.

Tallgeese · 2007-01-07 4:00 pm

Bah. As I heard someone say a few months back "switching to solar or hydrogen is like curing alcoholics by switching them from vodka to rum."

Whatever "alternate" energy we pick, it will soon be overtaxed as well.

Reduced consumption is the only answer.

D'Eyncourt · 2007-01-07 6:29 pm

Tallgeese wrote:
Bah. As I heard someone say a few months back "switching to solar or hydrogen is like curing alcoholics by switching them from vodka to rum."

Whatever "alternate" energy we pick, it will soon be overtaxed as well.

Reduced consumption is the only answer.

Not quite. People have to recognize that there are a couple different problems which are partially overlapping. Reducing consumption is a good idea in itself but it only delays the problem of global warming (given the assumption that human-generated greenhouse gases are the primary contributor to this). Even if we were able to somehow reduce general consumption to, say, 1/4th current levels but we do nothing about how we generate greenhouse gases, then in about 100 years when human population quadruples we are back to where we are currently.

On the other hand if your concern is with global warming, then you should be focused on reducing current levels of greenhouse gases. One way toward this is to replace the carbon dioxide which is being added to the atmosphere by burning oil and natural gas with biologically-generated fuels such as ethanol or biodiesel--while this does not reduce carbon dioxide generation, at least it is a start towards this goal by being relatively greenhouse gas neutral (this is, of course, an idealized though possible future scenario not reflecting what happens currently which has oil-consuming tractors and trucks involved in production and transport of bio-fuels).

*****

Switching topics slighly: you might note that the compact fluorescent bulbs do have a problem not related to energy consumption. Remember that when they do burn out--while they have a much longer life than standard filament bulbs, eventually they will burn out--do NOT throw them out with the rest of the trash. Each bulb has a bit of mercury in them and should be sent to your local hazardous wastes recycling center (this link is US-specific) where you should send computer parts and batteries and such.

Fried Chicken · 2007-01-07 7:23 pm

333imacman wrote:
I generally support this Bush administration, but if you watch the documentary, "Who Killed The Electric Car?", you will soon see that hydrogen is a very expensive technology that won't be useful for many many years to come. Bush should be putting money into better, cheaper technologies that we could use in the near future.

Yep, I watched that along with "An Inconvenient truth". It really brings Bush's oil ties to the front. I think it is a real shame that he doesn't do anything about it simply because he is tied to oil. Actually it's more than a shame, it's horrible.

I just hope the next president doesn't buy this hydrogen bullsmurf, and does in fact support electric cars, because I do believe they have a future, along with Biodiesel and even Ethanol.

Tallgeese · 2007-01-07 7:43 pm

Somewhat on topic:
GM to bring out hybrid full-size trucks this fall.

DukeofNuke · 2007-01-07 9:25 pm

Fried Chicken wrote:
333imacman wrote:
I generally support this Bush administration, but if you watch the documentary, "Who Killed The Electric Car?", you will soon see that hydrogen is a very expensive technology that won't be useful for many many years to come. Bush should be putting money into better, cheaper technologies that we could use in the near future.
Yep, I watched that along with "An Inconvenient truth". It really brings Bush's oil ties to the front. I think it is a real shame that he doesn't do anything about it simply because he is tied to oil. Actually it's more than a shame, it's horrible.

I just hope the next president doesn't buy this hydrogen bullsmurf, and does in fact support electric cars, because I do believe they have a future, along with Biodiesel and even Ethanol.

The threadapult is aiming at Minithink
Watch "Fahrenheit 911" to find out more about Bush's ties to Mid-east oil.

I have replaced all the lights in my house with CF.
I no longer drive a V8 pickup, but a 6 cyl compact.
I added insulation to the roof.
I recycle when I can, but you know, the river is just the place for old tires!

Tallgeese · 2007-01-07 10:13 pm

Fahrenheit 9/11 = suck
An Inconvenient Truth = good

IMO

DukeofNuke · 2007-01-07 10:21 pm

Tallgeese wrote:
Fahrenheit 9/11 = suck
An Inconvenient Truth = good

IMO

No argument.
F/911 lays out connections between Bush family and Saudi royals.
Really, my only point.
Except, perhaps, to parapharase Charlie Daniels, "...a rich man goes to college, a poor man goes to war..."

Metacell · 2007-01-08 1:39 am

The solution: Kill Everyone Now.

Aqua OS X · 2007-01-08 1:49 am

thume wrote:
I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth, and don't think I'll bother watching it.
I'm not really into those slanted, agenda pushing 'Documentaries'.

It was clearly funded by "big hippie"

reece_james · 2007-01-08 3:23 am

Global warming is complete twaddle. What is happening is that data is being recorded in certain areas which is showing an overall increase.

When you look at cyclic theories, 100-130 year cycles seem to happen often and recently, we have been breaking 130 year old records. This also implies that IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE!

Now one of the more plausible theories that I have heard is that deforestation of tropical areas and replanting in temperate areas is to blame. The theory goes that temperate forests average a higher temperature than tropical rain-forests. Tropical is cooler than barren land which is cooler than temperate forest. The problem is that a lot of tropical forest has been destroyed and has been replaced with temperate forest in barren temperate areas.

The main reason why this theory isn't shown often is simply due to the fact that it puts the greenies and most government policies to blame. Go figure.

Edit: Also don't forget cases like the ice age melt in England that melted a Mile of ice in a few months... (I don't think that we caused that), or even that the Romans experienced a period of increased temperatures.

Last edited by reece_james (2007-01-08 3:32 am)

Aqua OS X · 2007-01-08 3:53 am

reece_james wrote:
Global warming is complete twaddle. What is happening is that data is being recorded in certain areas which is showing an overall increase.

When you look at cyclic theories, 100-130 year cycles seem to happen often and recently, we have been breaking 130 year old records. This also implies that IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE!

roll watch the movie.
Ice core samples can go back hundreds of thousands of years.

Last edited by Aqua OS X (2007-01-08 3:58 am)

C. Ives · 2007-01-08 7:51 am

Global warming has made it warm enough in my part of the country to drastically reduce my heating bill, thereby reducing my energy consumption significantly. Global warming is helping me save the Earth!

Defunker · 2007-01-08 9:46 am

reece_james wrote:
Global warming is complete twaddle. What is happening is that data is being recorded in certain areas which is showing an overall increase.

When you look at cyclic theories, 100-130 year cycles seem to happen often and recently, we have been breaking 130 year old records. This also implies that IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE!

Now one of the more plausible theories that I have heard is that deforestation of tropical areas and replanting in temperate areas is to blame. The theory goes that temperate forests average a higher temperature than tropical rain-forests. Tropical is cooler than barren land which is cooler than temperate forest. The problem is that a lot of tropical forest has been destroyed and has been replaced with temperate forest in barren temperate areas.

The main reason why this theory isn't shown often is simply due to the fact that it puts the greenies and most government policies to blame. Go figure.

Edit: Also don't forget cases like the ice age melt in England that melted a Mile of ice in a few months... (I don't think that we caused that), or even that the Romans experienced a period of increased temperatures.

http://www.gillie.sturcbecher.dsl.pipex.com/chart1.jpg

I like this chart. You see, you skeptics can look at it and say, "Hey look! There was a spike in the levels of CO2 just 20,000 years ago, just like what's going on today! Global warming isn't our falut." Then I point out that that previous rise in CO2 levels took place over about 8,000 years, where as the current rise in CO2 levels has risen about as much as it has in the past, but has done so in far less than 500 years.

Last edited by Defunker (2007-01-08 9:47 am)

Fried Chicken · 2007-01-08 5:45 pm

C. Ives wrote:
Global warming has made it warm enough in my part of the country to drastically reduce my heating bill, thereby reducing my energy consumption significantly. Global warming is helping me save the Earth!

Actually, not all change caused by global warming will be bad.

But the bad far outweighs the good.

Aqua OS X · 2007-01-08 10:44 pm

Defunker wrote:
reece_james wrote:
Global warming is complete twaddle. What is happening is that data is being recorded in certain areas which is showing an overall increase.

When you look at cyclic theories, 100-130 year cycles seem to happen often and recently, we have been breaking 130 year old records. This also implies that IT HAS HAPPENED BEFORE!

Now one of the more plausible theories that I have heard is that deforestation of tropical areas and replanting in temperate areas is to blame. The theory goes that temperate forests average a higher temperature than tropical rain-forests. Tropical is cooler than barren land which is cooler than temperate forest. The problem is that a lot of tropical forest has been destroyed and has been replaced with temperate forest in barren temperate areas.

The main reason why this theory isn't shown often is simply due to the fact that it puts the greenies and most government policies to blame. Go figure.

Edit: Also don't forget cases like the ice age melt in England that melted a Mile of ice in a few months... (I don't think that we caused that), or even that the Romans experienced a period of increased temperatures.
http://www.gillie.sturcbecher.dsl.pipex.com/chart1.jpg

I like this chart. You see, you skeptics can look at it and say, "Hey look! There was a spike in the levels of CO2 just 20,000 years ago, just like what's going on today! Global warming isn't our falut." Then I point out that that previous rise in CO2 levels took place over about 8,000 years, where as the current rise in CO2 levels has risen about as much as it has in the past, but has done so in far less than 500 years.

Claiming global warming is cyclical is like sleeping next to someone who farts under the sheets, and blames the smell on the Snuggle freshness that has left, yet will return once the sheets are washed. Sure, they get a little stinky if you don't wash them, but it's not like they start to smell like smurf.

And now it's 11pm and that person just consumed an Enchilada Grilled Stuffed Burrito and some Mexican tap water.

Last edited by Aqua OS X (2007-01-08 10:50 pm)

reece_james · 2007-01-08 11:18 pm

Well considering that the CSIRO has shown that the current weather conditions are cyclic in Australia...

I just can't believe the number of people believing all this global warming hype! It's like people believing Elvis is alive.

Oh then we get really stupid ideas like, "Lets turn off all the lights in Sydney for an hour to save the planet", oh, wait a tick, you can't just turn off a coal power plant, it's gona burn just as much whether we use the power generated or not.

This is all media and do gooder hype. Global warming is not proven, nor is it factual. You can throw as many statistics as you want. I can still show you statistically that global temperature is inversely proportional to the number of Pirates in the world. So if you want to stop global warming, become a pirate! Means diddly squat.

If you want to be very correct, the planet is actually cooling on average. When it was first formed it was very very hot, now it's not...

Last edited by reece_james (2007-01-08 11:18 pm)

Forums | MacLife

#1 2007-01-07 11:30 am

Global Warming...

#2 2007-01-07 11:42 am

Re: Global Warming...

#3 2007-01-07 12:31 pm

Re: Global Warming...

#4 2007-01-07 1:18 pm

Re: Global Warming...

thume wrote:

#5 2007-01-07 1:35 pm

Re: Global Warming...

#6 2007-01-07 1:56 pm

Re: Global Warming...

thume wrote:

#7 2007-01-07 2:31 pm

Re: Global Warming...

Fried Chicken wrote:

#8 2007-01-07 2:55 pm

Re: Global Warming...

#9 2007-01-07 3:00 pm

Re: Global Warming...

#10 2007-01-07 4:00 pm

Re: Global Warming...

#11 2007-01-07 6:29 pm

Re: Global Warming...

Tallgeese wrote:

#12 2007-01-07 7:23 pm

Re: Global Warming...

333imacman wrote:

#13 2007-01-07 7:43 pm

Re: Global Warming...

#14 2007-01-07 9:25 pm

Re: Global Warming...

Fried Chicken wrote:

333imacman wrote:

#15 2007-01-07 10:13 pm

Re: Global Warming...

#16 2007-01-07 10:21 pm

Re: Global Warming...

Tallgeese wrote:

#17 2007-01-08 1:39 am

Re: Global Warming...

#18 2007-01-08 1:49 am

Re: Global Warming...

thume wrote:

#19 2007-01-08 3:23 am

Re: Global Warming...

#20 2007-01-08 3:53 am

Re: Global Warming...

reece_james wrote:

#21 2007-01-08 7:51 am

Re: Global Warming...

#22 2007-01-08 9:46 am

Re: Global Warming...

reece_james wrote:

#23 2007-01-08 5:45 pm

Re: Global Warming...

C. Ives wrote:

#24 2007-01-08 10:44 pm

Re: Global Warming...

Defunker wrote:

reece_james wrote:

#25 2007-01-08 11:18 pm

Re: Global Warming...

Board footer