need to come to grips with is that we will have trade offs on almost everything - from energy production to food consumption to the housing we live in to the entertainment we enjoy.... All are concerned with the choice - and the trade off.
Oil or more accurately petroleum. CO2 emissions.... even given that we do not contribute enough CO2 to affect the weather in a major way - it would be good to get away from petroleum - for geopolitical reasons and for renewable energy reasons...
Vaccinations. they offer the species, as a whole, protection - but the trade off is that some within the species will be susceptable to a specific vaccine... and might suffer severe consequences (for the most part, we cannot predict who).
Nuclear energy - the waste product is with us - for a very long time... and is deadly....
Selenium?! a problem? in the west - it caused major problems - but this was because it was not then known as an environmental toxin. Now? it is, and is controlled... to me, we know the problem with selenium... ok? so now we manufacture, and control the environmental release of selenium.... But then again, I do believe that we can evolve technology to reduce issues... rather than avoiding technology to reduce issues.... but hey? that is just me!
This is just in a [] of searching:
Soft Marine Corals Dying Due to Global Warming:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071112105938.htm
Another study says that reefs are dying worldwide "killed by disease and high sea temperatures." Global warming isn't specifically mentioned here:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050830072609.htm
According to source, California fires are consistent with climate change:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/08/050830072609.htm
Extreme weather predicted by models, and people are noticing these changes:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2006/0205-harder_rain_more_snow.htm
Insects notice a change, too. Entomologists are noticing species moving to higher latitudes and altitudes, where those fore-mentioned extreme weather events cause them to go extinct:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2000/10/001010073015.htm
Another group of scientists finds that as plant growth is stimulated by CO2, this in itself creates a new source:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071114111141.htm
Stimulated plankton growth can starve the deep oceans of oxygen (though there's a bright side here)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071117121016.htm
Independent of climate change, atmospheric CO2 acidifies the ocean:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/03/070322110240.htm
I have to include a simple one for following the money (looking at the organizations). This predicts feedback mechanisms triggered by higher CO2 will increase the temperatures much more than previously predicted:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060522151248.htm
This is only what I could find on one science-reporting site in one hour. I'm not seeing it just from scientists in just the climatology field; I'm seeing it from scientists in several fields. New ones come out every week. I've seen more of these come out four times a week. They are all pointing that global warming is real, and that the effects are likely underestimated, not overestimated.
Perhaps people here could understand why I'm skeptical about global-warming skeptics. One single argument is not count much against all that I'm reading. I can't believe that all of this is a "conspiracy." It's several different fields confirming it. Nor is all a matter of who is funding: it would take the gross cash resources of Exxon to fund all this. And I'm certain where their money is going...
I invite people to follow the money on these. As I said, the last one is a softball.
Just like the pharmaceutical industry's ability to keep cannabis illegal. If it were legal across the country, chemo and AIDS patients who spend $800-1,000 per month on the synthetic THC (manufactured by Solvay Pharmaceuticals) could get the real stuff, organically grown, for less than $120 per month. Or it could be grown at home for even less money.
Cannabis is also effective in the treatment of depression, ADD and AD/HD, anxiety, insomnia, and IBS. Legalizing it would mean billions of dollars in losses for the pharmaceutical industry (an industry that spends $36 BILLION (!) per year on marketing and advertising.
I posted a big rant on this subject more than a year ago. Perhaps I'll put up again sometime.
-- Modified on 11/19/2007 3:29:05 AM
that if a clever inventor came up with a 8'x 8' solar pannel and ancillary system that could fully heat and electrify a common home for a single investment of $5K he would soon be dead and the plans & patents would be soon sitting in the safe of “Big Oil”while government leaders were telling the public that any reports of such technology were either false, exaggerated, or unsafe if put into common use.
Late 70's early 80's, I worked R&D for Arco Solar. We had just developed a brand new solar panel - 1 foot square, capable of fully powering a motorhomes electrical needs. The Solar panel was connected to a battery which stored the electricity for when needed. Cost to the comsumer? $129 for the 1x1, $199 for a 1x2, and $299 for a double 1x2 panel array. We installed a set of 4 double arrays on a 3 bedroom home in Chatsworth, and in 4 months, the array had not only paid for itself, but was sending excess power TO the local grid, earning some $15 per month from the DWP. Think about that..... a setup that cost barely $1200 was not only able to sustain the electrical needs of a 3 bedroom home (occupied by one of the engineers and his family), but was actually capable of producing revenue for the homeowner. (substantially more in todays dollars, but still.....)
I remember the day in May when government officials arrived with some executives from Arco to tour the facility and witness the demonstration. We were ALL very excited, and expected to get raises, promotions, our names in the paper, etc etc etc.
We were unceremoniously shut down within 6 weeks, production terminated, and the entire facility mothballed within 3 months. As low man on the totem pole, I was terminated almost immediately.
The reason they gave us was that "our process used Selenium, a toxic substance".
Perhaps one of the chemists in this forum (yo, BSD!!) can explain in more detail about Selenium.
But we all knew the truth. Centrically Cynical, you are not being prophetic here, you are reviewing history.
need to come to grips with is that we will have trade offs on almost everything - from energy production to food consumption to the housing we live in to the entertainment we enjoy.... All are concerned with the choice - and the trade off.
Oil or more accurately petroleum. CO2 emissions.... even given that we do not contribute enough CO2 to affect the weather in a major way - it would be good to get away from petroleum - for geopolitical reasons and for renewable energy reasons...
Vaccinations. they offer the species, as a whole, protection - but the trade off is that some within the species will be susceptable to a specific vaccine... and might suffer severe consequences (for the most part, we cannot predict who).
Nuclear energy - the waste product is with us - for a very long time... and is deadly....
Selenium?! a problem? in the west - it caused major problems - but this was because it was not then known as an environmental toxin. Now? it is, and is controlled... to me, we know the problem with selenium... ok? so now we manufacture, and control the environmental release of selenium.... But then again, I do believe that we can evolve technology to reduce issues... rather than avoiding technology to reduce issues.... but hey? that is just me!
I'm disappointed at the conspiricy ideas here. Arco Solar is still in the PV business. It's founder is also still in the business. Neither was "disappeared". If either of them was either paid off or scared off, why would they still be in the business?
Where these PV systems that you worked on? What was your role?
they don't write and select articles for free. Read the original papers... you may get a very different feel.
Will be interesting how long you cling to your original belief when evidence eventually becomes undeniable. May be 10 or 20 years, but keep clinging to that reed in the meantime.
"If there is a hell,
I'll see you there" -
"Heresy", NIN
was it not about 20 years ago we were worried about a new ice age...???
seriously, there are fluctuations in temp. the earth at one point in its history was warmer... or colder - depending on when you look....
doomsday sayers... who analyze highly selected data with emotion really scare me... more so than the supposed ice age - or the impending greenhouse planet.
I thought you'd say something utterly clueless like this. You really feel you could completely ignore what I wrote. I appealed directly to Global Warming skeptics here to name the funding sources and to point the way to the scientific papers. You have the counter-argument, you demonstrate the funding sources. You give the links.
Also, please name a site that offers scientific journal articles from five different fields by the gross for reasonable prices. With these studies coming out a dozen a the month, I will have to buy them by the gross.
And even if fifty percent of this is correct, I still perceive that we are in trouble.
access to papers goes... you can go to your local college or university library and read all ya want.... public access, baby, public access.
If you are in DC? two places to go, NLM and the Library of Congress.
-- Modified on 11/19/2007 10:45:19 AM
If you're secure with it, show me why. I'm not your pupil. I'm not going to take assignments just so I could get your passing grade. You and your side claims to know all the funding sources in five fields, and claims to know all the real studies say something different, well dammit, prove it. I say that to the whole bunch of you.
What I gave you was not the readers digest version. For that, see Pepe's post below.
-- Modified on 11/19/2007 12:37:05 PM
Is 25 miles away.
And my son's dog ate his homework...Bwahahahaha! lol!
Dude... I drive 35 miles each way to work - through brutal traffic... I pray for public transportation... every single day... I work near multiple university libraries... I also work with a wide array of technology... and I work in a political arena....
I am sorry for your problems... but they are not of my creating. So much as you and others chastise me for talking about my life experiences, please don't complain about where YOU CHOSE TO LIVE.
-- Modified on 11/19/2007 8:59:21 PM
. . . or a woman.
Thirty-five miles through brutal traffic! B-dude, move closer to work! I don't complain about my problems. I have a five minute commute. On a good day, I could walk there.
even my 10 year old knows better than to pull that one. to say nothing of our home library.
I just knew nothing about ordering articles from there. The reading I do is from books that I own.
Just don't be surprised that I still don't agree with you. It's up to you to support your argument. You've done it badly up till now, and who do you blame for that? Me.