In the Rush to Help - Global Warming

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by Kellyk

Your post didn't go unnoticed Ginger...I feel the same way.

Hey, I didn't ignore her either....

[Kellyk]

Originally Posted by Jacko

Hey, I didn't ignore her either....

my bad

[Rissask]

Stewart G (to Woodman):

I'm guessing you don't have kids, grandkids, or give a crap about the next 100 years on this planet.

That explains it! Those of us without children aren't required to give a rat's ass about the environment or what the future holds. Whew, that's a load off.
Now I can just depend on all youse with children to look after things...but.... wait a minute....


*sarcasm*

(Just kidding Stewart, I know what you meant.)

Nice Tom:

Jacko-care to share any thoughts as to what your crystal ball sees in 2027, as far as where our energy might come from, what we'll drive, and any appreciable changes in lifestye, as we try to head off climate change? Limits on personal "carbon footprints", curtailed recreational travel, taxes on excess energy consumption, energy rationing (for the purpose of limiting CO² releases), rich vs. poor regarding energy consumption-that kind of thing. For instances, I've heard it said (not from experts) that the migration to the suburbs will reverse, and that people will start moving back into downtown areas as gas prices increase. Not looking for debate fodder-just what you think the future holds. PDS-I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this same question.

I know you didn't mention me but I will answer anyway.
I dunno about that (people moving to inner cities)...cities require an awful lot of energy, fresh water, food, and other resources. Maybe in 2027, things will be like that....but what about when the fossil fuels starting geting even more scarce (and therefore way more $$)?
I would think we would eventually see more people living in rural, self contained, self-sustaining communities. With their own set-ups of wind and solar farms, growing food, etc. No more flying and trucking in of goods except for essentials, etc.
'course, there simply isn't enough land for all 250 million plus to live off it, and that problem will be on an even bigger scale globally.
But Nature will take care of that one way or another, She doesn't have a heart. (oops sorry, more doom and gloom. Pretty hard to see it in any other light though. Unless someone invents cold fusion, and quick.)

[TAPPY]

Originally Posted by jx2

"Ditto". It's just not good enough to be a wiesenhiemer anymore.

Political bickering is one thing, but some of the mean and condescending comments are a little much !!! Even for a old time peep like me.

[Rissask]

Who's being 'mean and condescending'...what'd I miss?

Damn I miss all the fun on the weekends. Is that because everyone is PUI and (therefore) PEO?

[NiceTom]

Originally Posted by Rissask

I know you didn't mention me but I will answer anyway.
I dunno about that (people moving to inner cities)...cities require an awful lot of energy, fresh water, food, and other resources. Maybe in 2027, things will be like that....but what about when the fossil fuels starting geting even more scarce (and therefore way more $$)?
I would think we would eventually see more people living in rural, self contained, self-sustaining communities. With their own set-ups of wind and solar farms, growing food, etc. No more flying and trucking in of goods except for essentials, etc.
'course, there simply isn't enough land for all 250 million plus to live off it, and that problem will be on an even bigger scale globally.
But Nature will take care of that one way or another, She doesn't have a heart. (oops sorry, more doom and gloom. Pretty hard to see it in any other light though. Unless someone invents cold fusion, and quick.)

I don't know if unchecked population growth is a given-look at this biased and unreliable information.
Sub-replacement fertility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[kirbyfan]

Originally Posted by NiceTom

I don't know if unchecked population growth is a given-look at this biased and unreliable information.
Sub-replacement fertility - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That dang Wikipedia again!!!

*slams fist on desk*

I told you its unreliable Ris!!!

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by TAPPY

Political bickering is one thing, but some of the mean and condescending comments are a little much !!! Even for a old time peep like me.

Agreed. Very frustrating.

Letting your emotions get the better of you in the middle of a heated debate is one thing. I've said things I've regretted in these circumstances before (no! really! its true! ), and I have always tried my best to "man up," apologize, and do the right then when its happened.

Like I said, letting your emotions get the better of you in an emotional debate is one thing - no one is perfect. Being a putz just for the sake of being a putz is quite another, IMHO.

[Daddy B]

Originally Posted by TAPPY

Political bickering is one thing, but some of the mean and condescending comments are a little much !!! Even for a old time peep like me.

I agree with you. For instance, I care not an iota about football but I wouldn't step in after 1,000+ threads (and after not contributing) to tell everyone they should stop talking about it just because I thought football is completely unimportant and ridiculous in the greater scheme of things (which I don't: I may think it is ultimately inconsequential but Man doesn't live off bread alone).

The moderators here do an excellent job and when they agree a thread isn't worth continuing they act accordingly; I think that task should remain within their remit and posters should either contribute or stay out without feeling the need to tell others off for engaging in debate - however futile the debating may personally seem to them.

[Rissask]

Bottom line, yes, the global population is growing, supposed to be ten million by 2050 and maybe leveling off somewhat after that. So what though, it's too high to sustain long term NOW.

I still cannot believe that people refuse to see that earth's current human population, based on our rates of consumption of resources, is simply way out of scale (thanks to food growing technologies in the past century, and fossil fuels, nothing more- and that's not going to last) and it's simply unsustainable for the long term. It's so clear to me.
But, not politically correct to talk about. So whatever.


I looked back for meanness (maybe I never went back far enough?? )
Naw, didn't see anything I'd call 'mean' really... everything seemed to perking along, business as usual...then what I saw was Woody come in with a comment out of the blue ("ho hum") that was very wide open to interpretation and no accompanying explanation what he meant, and Stew got bent outta shape about it, completely out of scale...looked like something spilling over from another thread again perhaps ...and then Woodman got all martyrish in his responses to Stew, when really- he didn't think someone was going to react that way? please!!

Then redheadgirl admitted that Woody was just being a spooner and then proceeded to insult everyone who posts on this and other political thread by saying a variation of 'nyah nyah boo boo, people who post on here are losers, I got better things to do with MY hours of computer time (I guess she is working on cold fusion?? You go girl!! )!'

But I dunno if it was really mean...or just....silly.

[woodman]

Originally Posted by Rissask

Bottom line, yes, the global population is growing, supposed to be ten million by 2050 and maybe leveling off somewhat after that. So what though, it's too high to sustain long term NOW.

I still cannot believe that people refuse to see that earth's current human population, based on our rates of consumption of resources, is simply way out of scale (thanks to food growing technologies in the past century, and fossil fuels, nothing more- and that's not going to last) and it's simply unsustainable for the long term. It's so clear to me.
But, not politically correct to talk about. So whatever.


I looked back for meanness (maybe I never went back far enough?? )
Naw, didn't see anything I'd call 'mean' really... everything seemed to perking along, business as usual...then what I saw was Woody come in with a comment out of the blue ("ho hum") that was very wide open to interpretation and no accompanying explanation what he meant, and Stew got bent outta shape about it, completely out of scale...looked like something spilling over from another thread again perhaps ...and then Woodman got all martyrish in his responses to Stew, when really- he didn't think someone was going to react that way? please!!

Then redheadgirl admitted that Woody was just being a spooner and then proceeded to insult everyone who posts on this and other political thread by saying a variation of 'nyah nyah boo boo, people who post on here are losers, I got better things to do with MY hours of computer time (I guess she is working on cold fusion?? You go girl!! )!'

But I dunno if it was really mean...or just....silly.

HMMMBut i did make a statement about global warmimg

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

I think that task should remain within their remit and posters should either contribute or stay out without feeling the need to tell others off for engaging in debate - however futile the debating may personally seem to them.

So says the master debater!

[Jacko]

Originally Posted by NiceTom

Jacko-care to share any thoughts as to what your crystal ball sees in 2027, as far as where our energy might come from, what we'll drive, and any appreciable changes in lifestye, as we try to head off climate change? Limits on personal "carbon footprints", curtailed recreational travel, taxes on excess energy consumption, energy rationing (for the purpose of limiting CO² releases), rich vs. poor regarding energy consumption-that kind of thing. For instances, I've heard it said (not from experts) that the migration to the suburbs will reverse, and that people will start moving back into downtown areas as gas prices increase. Not looking for debate fodder-just what you think the future holds. PDS-I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on this same question.

2027? Hell..I'll be 74 years old by then...what would I care? Just kidding...I have been telling folks what I would do for a while here...many are already bored of listening...

I think many of your suggestions may be right though...the overriding opportunity though is that the quicker we get started on dealing with the problems(and there is LOTs we can do, right now!) , the sooner we will see the benefits of our action mitigating the effects of the global warming and the burning of carbon...it really is that simple....

First, we will NOT likely STOP global warming...the best we will do is to slow down any impact man has on its progression while cleaning up the air and transitioning to renewable and cleaner energy..our efforts will hopefully buy us time and minimize the worst of any catastrophic consequences....

I think a few posts ago a few gentleman much wiser than me from the Royal Society commented on this in a link from diogeron..I highly recommend you read this. Al Gore has written a few things about this as well Lots of good writings out there from all the environmental groups as well including the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense- Finding the Ways that Work, Natural Resources Defense Council etc. etc........We don't have all the answers of course...that is what the IPCC, Kyoto and Bali are all about.....ultimately, it is much more of a political challenge than a technological challenge...but, for me, I wish......and work hard for....

Continual use of fossil fuels that are "cleaner" as we more aggressively deploy technologies to accomplish this.

Rapid introduction of renewable energy sources..nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, efficient, sustainable biofuels (e.g. switchgrass or cellulosic ethanol), hyrdrogen fuel cell technologies, etc.

Huge savings from conservation efforts and the rapid deployment of effective technologies....hybrid and plug-hybrid, LED etc...

Huge focus on recycling, reusing and reducing technologies

Rapid move to more efficient mass transit systems.

Green building and sustainable living engineering implementation....

Cap and trade

Carbon sequestration?

Many new things we have not yet even thought about......

Gosh...I could just go on and on....

We could get started doing these things with much greater focus and enthusiasm...or we could continue to ignore the problem...or wait until we find the perfect solution before we start taking aggressive action...or just figure that we will never be able to do enough and just live our individual lives to the max, "giving up" on the future of our children...I can't do this....

The future is not certain...it will have huge challenges...still...I choose to move forward with positive, informed enthusiasm and dedication....my parents did that for me in the face of huge challenges...we can do this for our children too.

[StewartG]

Originally Posted by Rissask

then what I saw was Woody come in with a comment out of the blue ("ho hum") that was very wide open to interpretation and no accompanying explanation what he meant, and Stew got bent outta shape about it, completely out of scale...

Nothing spilling over from another thread.

I just thought "ho hum" was a very condescending, dismissive and rude response to a very thoughtful and informative post about a very important subject - I reacted accordingly (or so I thought!)

Originally Posted by Rissask

Then redheadgirl admitted that Woody was just being a spooner and then proceeded to insult everyone who posts on this and other political thread by saying a variation of 'nyah nyah boo boo, people who post on here are losers, I got better things to do with MY hours of computer time (I guess she is working on cold fusion?? You go girl!! )!'

While I love RGH to death, the irony of her commenting on the wasting of time by posting wasn't lost on me either...



By the way - is your sarcastic comment about her working on cold fusion any more "bent out of shape," "completely out of scale," or "spilling over from another thread" than anything I said?

[TAPPY]

Originally Posted by Daddy B

I agree with you. For instance, I care not an iota about football but I wouldn't step in after 1,000+ threads (and after not contributing) to tell everyone they should stop talking about it just because I thought football is completely unimportant and ridiculous in the greater scheme of things (which I don't: I may think it is ultimately inconsequential but Man doesn't live off bread alone).

The moderators here do an excellent job and when they agree a thread isn't worth continuing they act accordingly; I think that task should remain within their remit and posters should either contribute or stay out without feeling the need to tell others off for engaging in debate - however futile the debating may personally seem to them.

Good natured political debates are one thing - but I think everyone has a right to post an opinion or participate in any thread, be it a simple Ho Hum or a 10 page term paper - it is just sad to see some of the personal zings !

I agree the Mods do a great job.