Michael Crichton picks a fight with environmentalists

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
You have an odd definition of 'cut', sir.

Yeah, cut, and I've already proved it, just like I've "cut" you up.

[notyoueither]

Someone said something at sometime about each making his own reality.

Enjoy yours.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MrFun
Careful Ted -- NYE will come back with even more name calling!!!

I want my f**king hockey! I'm in withdrawal here. I am reduced to prowling message boards in search of virtual fisticuffs.

Ted is always good for a go. Just have to prod him correctly.

Sorry, Ted. Sort of.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I see an increase in energy consumption per person in China. Do you? Sure they can reduce some co2 per unit for a short term by switching from coal to oil, but the trend is not promising. Canada and the US did the same in the 60s and 70s.eventually reality bites, and reality is increased stress on fuel sources and pollution.

The only thing you have shown on that graph is a possible "slight" increase in 2001, and that's it. A blip against a very long trend that was established almost to the point of flatlining.

And, by the way, compare that with the big ass red line the US has waaaaaaaaaayyyy on top and look at the South Korean line that is going waaaaaaaay up, even though they have comparable economic growth rates.

You are completely looking at coal as one aspect, and overlooked modern, efficient machinery, better power plants that produce hardly any pollution, and also increased use of hydro electric power.

You know, that whole three gorges thing, the largest dam ever created in the history of mankind. Surley that would be a nice clean source of power, you know with that small 18.2 million kilowatts which just happens to equal the output of 18 nuclear plants or 40 million tons of coal.

http://www.chinaonline.com/refer/ministry_profiles/threegorgesdam.asp

Did you know there are ways of generating energy which actually don't have pollution?


Sorry.

HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE

China is growing faster than anybody else in the world and yet they are doing a good job of cutting, flatlining, and containing pollution, from any way you want to look at it.

With 1.2 billion people, they are in a position to pollute more than any other nation in this world, yet have managed to reduce their pollution load on the planet.

Meanwhile in the US we are afraid to do anything about pollution because we are whores to the almighty god of big business.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I want my f**king hockey! I'm in withdrawal here. I am reduced to prowling message boards in search of virtual fisticuffs.

Ted is always good for a go. Just have to prod him correctly.

Sorry, Ted. Sort of.

Masochist

[notyoueither]

Sadist would be more like it, but whatever.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE

China is growing faster than anybody else in the world and yet they are doing a good job of cutting, flatlining, and containing pollution, from any way you want to look at it.

With 1.2 billion people, they are in a position to pollute more than any other nation in this world, yet have managed to reduce their pollution load on the planet.

Meanwhile in the US we are afraid to do anything about pollution because we are whores to the almighty god of big business.

They haven't reduced their load, Ted. That's the point. They have done to coal what the rest of the industrialised world did in the 60s, 70s and 80s, and yet their coal use increases.

Your continued claims that they are polluting less are simply ridiculous on their face. There is no way in any shade of Hades that you increase industrial output, put more cars and other vehicles on the road, AND decrease fossil fuel use.

You can have all the dams that you damn well wish to exist. The end result is going to be more fuel used and more co2 in the atmosphere in the long run.

That is why a Kyoto without China, India, Brazil, and some others, is simply retarded. It will encourage those countries not covered to pollute at rates in excess of what would be allowed in any G7 nation per unit produced.

[notyoueither]

Incidently, scuttlebut is that Russia and Germany have no problem making Kyoto due to the red line of the date for emissions to be compared to (old, inefficient industiries that have since shut down). Britain similarly due to the timing of switching from coal.

Add to that the problem of lack of coverage of industrialising nations and you think there might be a reason that your administration has said it's a bad deal?

[The Mad Viking]

NYE

You seem to be implying that China should not be allowed the economic growth necessary to move from subsistence agriculture to a developed society.

If this is not the case, then you must take into account the fact that growth is a given, when assessing emissions.

If you take this into account, China is doing a remarkable job of reducing emissions per unit of production.

[The Mad Viking]

Many people think Global Warming is the biggest threat the world faces.

Yet it may not exist. It may be part of a normal cycle. Temperatures and CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, when homo sapiens did not exist. Human activity may be irrelevant as a cause or prevention to any climate change that is occuring. happening. And what is happening may not be harmful.

There are real problems out there that need resources. That are not getting adequate attention.

So, the myth of Global Warming may be the biggest threat the world faces.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Yet it may not exist.

Not very comforting words.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
So what's to say our artificially raised CO2 levels aren't the only thing keeping us from plunging those five tiny degrees?

The trend is going in the opposite direction.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia
so why does Albany, a few hours north of NYC experience a drop in temps, while NYC has an increase, and WEst point, somewhere in between, has a drop in temp?

The question is, what is this data? How is it derived? Without knowing more, these numbers don't mean anything.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
It may be part of a normal cycle. Temperatures and CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, when homo sapiens did not exist. Human activity may be irrelevant as a cause or prevention to any climate change that is occuring. happening. And what is happening may not be harmful.

Given that the surface temperature of the earth goes up and down, one might ask, "What is the problem?"

The problem is the rate of change. In the past, temperatures had been higher, but rate of increase or decrease we are seeing is unprecedented, except during a catastrophe.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Ted Striker Sorry.

HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE

China is growing faster than anybody else in the world and yet they are doing a good job of cutting, flatlining, and containing pollution, from any way you want to look at it.

With 1.2 billion people, they are in a position to pollute more than any other nation in this world, yet have managed to reduce their pollution load on the planet.

Meanwhile in the US we are afraid to do anything about pollution because we are whores to the almighty god of big business.

Sorry wrong interpretation. China is doing wonderfully as a consequence of new investment and new production techniques hithertofor unknown to them. Given the poor investment, regulatory, and labor (both costs and relations) climate in the US to do likewise the modernization is not done here but moreso in favor of grass roots facilities in China,, India, etc..

Not a big business issue as much as a societal one.