We are in for some Bad weather

[jezic]

dealing with wind, btw.

[morostheos]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 7 2005, 03:19 PM']I know a few science professors around here who have said that it's just a natural cycle of the earth, and that we're having very little or no impact on it at all.

the hurricane season was a rough one for many reasons, namely a shift in tectonic plates in a specific part of the ocean that heated up the water and altered it that way.  I'd like to see you explain how we caused that one (unless it was the Japense scientists' revenge for Hiroshima)

it's kind of like the hole in the ozone... we weren't observing the ozone, the first time we observed the ozone there was a whole in it, there's absolutely no way to tell if we caused it.

anyway, I've heard some pretty smart sciency guys talk about how we have little to no impact on this natural cycle of the earth's climate, and I trust them. 
[right][snapback]815612[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't know about the hurricane season (I haven't read any scientific articles about it), but I think it's a stretch to say humans are having very little or no impact at all on the cycles of the Earth. I would say we are clearly having an impact, whether or not that impact will result in negative consquences is more debatable. There is no doubt that the Earth's carbon cycle has been significantly altered by the burning of fossil fuels.

And with the ozone - we haven't just observed the hole and watched it grow bigger, but have figured out how it has grown bigger - and the chemicals that are causing it are synthetic chemicals that did not exist before we made them.

The phenomenon of global climate change is pretty widely accepted among scientists. Of course there are some who don't believe the evidence for it is sufficient, and there's a lot of debate over how the climate is changing, but I would say the ratio of scientists who think it's happening vs. those who don't is probably 100:1 or more. It's a fact that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing a rate greater than has ever been observed before based on analyzing gas trapped in the polar ice caps going back at least 10,000 years.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Church Punk' date='Dec 7 2005, 06:22 AM']Should we be lobbying our politicians for change in policy? i.e.: the Kyoto Accord and reduced emissions, and alternative energy etc. Or should we as Catholics leave this to the "tree-hugger" type people.

I feel we have the great responsibility for this and it is as much as the "tree huggers" a lot of people do not take them seriously, but if the Church were to get involve I think they would be able to make a significant impact.
[right][snapback]814870[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

This post shows a lot of ignorance and misguided thinking regarding global warming and environmental issues.

Despite what the liberal media and the environmentalist lobby would have us believe, global warming and its causes are in fact very little understood.
We do not really know how much the earth will warm in the future, or what is causing it.
How much global warming is caused by human activity and how much is part of a natural trend is not known.

The premise that so-called "greenhouse" gases are primarily responsible for global warming is in fact quite dubious.
According to this theory, the greatest warming would be found in the earth's upper atmosphere. However, the fact is that high-altitude balloon temperature recordings have shown no warming.
Recorded warming has taken place mostly at the surface, and the greatest warming has taken place in places of heavy urbanization.
The facts appear to be that land use - destroying forests, and covering land with concrete and asphalt - are a much greater cause of warming than burning fossil fuels!

As for lobbying for Kyoto-type treaties - emphatically not!

Even scientists convinced that "greenhouse gases" are repsonsible for global warming agree that the reductions in emissions called for by Kyoto would have absolutely no effect on global warming!

Would they would do, however, is cripple the U.S. economy, putting many people out of work, and increasing poverty. And countries such as China (now the world's greatest industrial polluter) would have been uneffected by Kyoto. The science of Kyoto was bogus - it was a devious attempt by foreign beaurocrats to "level the playing field" of the world economy by weakening the U.S.'s economic power.

And "alternative energy sources" beloved of environmentalists require much more land use than does oil drilling, and would yeild little.
(For instance, "organic" grain-based fuels would require using vast expanses of land to grow crops to be harvested for fuel, taking land away from forests or food crops).

Massively expensive and costly "solutions" to little-understood and dubious threats are not the answer. They would costs many billions of dollars and be economically crippling, yet it is quite dubious that they would yeild any positive results at all! Way too much to gamble!

[avemaria40]

that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect the enviornment

[Lil Red]

[quote name='Dreamweaver' date='Dec 7 2005, 09:43 AM']I think exploring alternative sources of power would be awesome. Here in North Dakota, we have huge plains and lots of wind! A neighboring city in Minnesota has experimented with wind power, but there's nothing in ND that I know of that works with wind power on a larger scale.
[right][snapback]815156[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
montana is starting to do this too

[Socrates]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Dec 7 2005, 04:40 PM']that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect the enviornment
[right][snapback]815806[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No one said we shouldn't protect the environment.

The problem is, what actually is good for "the environment," and what is ineffectual and over-costly?

Just because something is done in the name of the earth or "the environment" doesn't mean it is a good or wise idea.
Kyoto and similar treaties would have very real and definite costs, but very dubious benefits.

Mega-billion dollar decisions should not be made without a solid understanding of a problem and what will fix it.

They should not be made based on rhetoric, hype and . . . hot air.

[Church Punk]

Socrates,

The benefits of modifying our current consumption rates and seeking to use alternative energy sources would prove most beneficial to our society as a whole. I mean why would you want to continue to breathe the disgusting polluted air in our cities when we can do something about it? Or not be able to enjoy a day at the beach because of water pollution.

If we were to modify our vehicles to operate on hydrogen instead of gasoline the economic and environmental benefits would be tremendous! We would be required to build infrastructure to support it, this would incur cost, however would great new opportunity for new markets, that we can control here in North America or Europe, not relaying on the ever so unstable middle east for oil.

Consider these facts about hydrogen.

The amount of energy produced by burning hydrogen is three (3) times greater than that of gasoline. This would transfer to greater horsepower in our vehicles at a more efficient consumption rate.

The only green house gas vapour emitted by burning hydrogen is water vapour, thus only adding a natural element to the atmosphere.
Sure there would still be some oil used in the system however this would be such a small amount compared to our current use.

[Church Punk]

Furthermore,

There is a direct link between heart, stroke, lung disease as well as cancer to exposure from emissions from both vehicle and industrial by-products. The reasons for "cleaning" up our ways would also prove beneficial to our health.

How can you place a price tag on your health?

[Aloysius]

it's also connected to cell phones, computer screens, TV screens, starlight, sunlight, the Simspons say democrats, ummm is there anything that doesn't cause cancer these days?

[morostheos]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Dec 8 2005, 08:25 AM']it's also connected to cell phones, computer screens, TV screens, starlight, sunlight, the Simspons say democrats, ummm is there anything that doesn't cause cancer these days?
[right][snapback]816638[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

yeah yeah yeah :

Air pollution causes a lot more deaths than cancer from these things. Not always through cancer though, increased rates of asthma and other respiratory illnesses occur in areas with a lot of air pollution.

Most of the cancer comes from other nasties that most people don't know the names of - like dioxin.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Church Punk' date='Dec 8 2005, 07:19 AM']Socrates,

The benefits of modifying our current consumption rates and seeking to use alternative energy sources would prove most beneficial to our society as a whole. I mean why would you want to continue to breathe the disgusting polluted air in our cities when we can do something about it? Or not be able to enjoy a day at the beach because of water pollution.

If we were to modify our vehicles to operate on hydrogen instead of gasoline the economic and environmental benefits would be tremendous! We would be required to build infrastructure to support it, this would incur cost, however would great new opportunity for new markets, that we can control here in North America or Europe, not relaying on the ever so unstable middle east for oil.

Consider these facts about hydrogen.

The amount of energy produced by burning hydrogen is three (3) times greater than that of gasoline. This would transfer to greater horsepower in our vehicles at a more efficient consumption rate.

The only green house gas vapour emitted by burning hydrogen is water vapour, thus only adding a natural element to the atmosphere.
Sure there would still be some oil used in the system however this would be such a small amount compared to our current use.
[right][snapback]816632[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
As current technology stands, widespread use of hydrogen fuel is untenable. One of the major problems is the large amount of energy required to extract hydrogen from water. This would require burning some other fuel.
Also, the extreme flamable of hydrogen (more so than gasoline) creates safety issues.
However, this is an area of technology definitely worth researching and pursuing. Perhaps this technology will be more feasible in the future.

I don't think massive government regulations and taxes on oil and other fuels are the answer, though.

I think wilderness conservation and forestry, rather than "fossil fuel"-regulations should be at the center of environmental efforts.

[Dreamweaver]

There are bacteria that produce hydrogen. I'm not sure how feasable it would to grow them in industrial fermentors and extract the hydrogen....but I'd imagine it would be more effective that breaking down water to get hydrogen.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Dreamweaver' date='Dec 8 2005, 07:49 PM']There are bacteria that produce hydrogen. I'm not sure how feasable it would to grow them in industrial fermentors and extract the hydrogen....but I'd imagine it would be more effective that breaking down water to get hydrogen.
[right][snapback]817590[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Sounds quite unsanitary!

[Snarf]

So do you!

I think somebody stole my copy of [i]Breakfast of Champions[/i]. It has a great spiel about environmentalism.