Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by otter, Jun 25, 2006.
Hey only if Lindsay Lohan was Naked ! :rofl: :rofl:
Dude, you hit the nail on the head.
Are we creating exhaust emissions? Yes. Are others (i.e. China and India and others) doint it? Yes. Does that justify exhaust emissions? No. Are exhaust emissions bad? Yes. If we have the power and ability to control and reduce exhaust emissions, should we? Yes.
The globe is warming. Is it part of a natural process? Maybe. Are human activities contributing to the warming? Maybe, and probably. How much? It depends on who you ask, but the consensus is that humans are contributing to environmental issues. Does this have anything to do with whether we or don't like Al Gore, whether we are or aren't liberal or conservative, or whether we are or aren't paid by entities that have interests in energy? Nope.
To me, it's all very elementary. If we are doing something that is making a negative impact, and we reasonably have in our power to effect some change or reduce those impacts, we should make reasonable efforts to do so.
Humans are net consumers of the environment. We use more than we contribute. Simple. However, does that mean we cease to exist or all kill ourselves? Not me. But, what these discussions about global warming has done is make me more aware of the impacts of humans and my impact, as well, and is going to help me try to make a difference.
I can't recall who it was that said "There are lies, damn lies, then statistics." Of course Al is going to use data and information that is supportive to his beliefs and perspectives. Is his information correct? Maybe, maybe not. But, consider that if it is accurate at all, we as humans should try to modify our behavior.
I try to recycle more, and I will be likely buying a more fuel efficient smaller car within the year, etc. Do I need my SUV that I believe I 'need' to have to pull my little boat and take me fishing? Nah, a little car with a Thule box tossed on top whenever I need the extra room makes more sense. Will that make a big difference? Heck, no. But, I can do my wee little part and hope that if we all tried, or even a measurable percentage tried, it could slow things down and could make some difference.
Pollyanna-ish perspective? Maybe. I can live with that. :thumb:
What about the ice age? Were the Eskimos driving their SUV's too much chasing the wooly mamoths' around and thus destroying the land bridge? The earth is a fluid place and it's constantly changing. What did we learn from the dinosaurs? Be good and you'll end up dead anyways. I do think that we are having an impact but who know's what the natural state would have created.
All I have to say is proxy evidence. They can tell the earth has warmed one degree from the study of tree rings yeah f**king right.
If I were a climatologist I would be using scare tactics to keep my job too.
Its not that the climates don't naturally change.... they don't change naturally at the rate they are now. Part of my dissertation work deals with climate change at the end of the last Ice Age, and what happened then isn't half as bad as what's going on now.
Greenland, cycles, and the Global wobble. There is plenty of history to explain these events.
unemployed scientist dependant on government grants (hand outs).
Aren't these the same scientists and their hippie spawn, that were warning us of Global Cooling, back in the late 70's, I remember it well, since it was spoon fed to me, both in school and Holywood, during that period.
Wow, of the many Millions, and Billions of years this planet has been here, we in only the last 30 years, Went from Global Cooling to Global warming (yeah right!) Remember the scientists warning us of the impending ice age? If your under 40 years old, you probably don't, but they did, and they were hysterical about it.
But then again, i think those guys were living off of Government grants too.
Do you really for one minute think you would get a check cut, if your news and research wasn't so drastic and dire. Probably Not!
We have it in our ability to reduce emmissions by leaps and bounds with Nuclear energy. Are not emmissions blamed for Global Warming? But the Hippies don't want that either. Even though not one person has been killed in Europe or America And it's been proven safe. The only emmission produced by this energy source is water for crying outloud. Heck the hippies love the French, but 70% of the electricity in France is supplied with Nuclear energy. The Hippies and their equally ignorant Spawn could go back to horse and buggy and plow I guess, to feel better, but heck, that would involve Work!
Do keep in mind that nuclear power produces waste products that remain lethally dangerous for something in the nature of 10,000 years.
Except for, like, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and stuff.
"Even though not one person has been killed in Europe or America " ............
I remember an event called Chernobyl, basically an uncontrolled meltdown of a Russian nuclear plant. They are still trying to figure out the bodycount of the dead, and probably never will, because overexposure to radiation is a multi-generational "happening", to use the old hippie term. Short and sweet, it f----cks up your genetic code and you pass that on to your kids, if you are still capable of doing so. So if you don't die of thyroid cancer or other evils, you'll pass it on.......
Point number two: if you really read about global climactic change - not GLOBAL WARMING as it is presented in the panic press - you will find it includes both the freezer and the frying pan. Mostly its the frying pan, but because of the dislocation of ocean currents (what is it i remember, oceans are like 75% of the global surface?) other places are going to get froze. In either condition, we're going to end up in the hurt locker. Your choice, freeze to death or die of thirst, or, because of the complete disruption of the food chain, die of hunger. Its already happening to millions of people around the world, as well as many thousands of species of other life.
Point number three: This is not an unemployed scientist or hippie spawn plot. Nor is it the democrats or the republicans or the russians or the chinese plot. There are six billion of us. Our need for everything from water to firewood to food - let alone oil minerals metals chemicals - is overwhelming the world we live in. And it shows: like Chernobyl, the global climactic balance is going into meltdown. All i ask you to do is prove to me that consuming MORE - energy, resources, etc. - is the ultimate good. Good for you, good for me, good for the planet.
How 'bout it?
Three Mile Island, Hmmmmmmmm, i don't remember a reported death, Chyrnobal, i don't think that is Europe. Fact is most of modern Europe is using vast amounts of Nuclear energy. They have been doing it for some time now. Why is that? I'ts also being used around the rent of the Globe.
Fact of the matter is that no solution, to better our energy consumption will satisfy the Left. Just Talk, Talk, Talk, no do, just doodoo. Don't eat the tuna, take a bath and stay away from the koolaid. bawling:
Damn. From earlier reports, i thought that we were SUPPOSED to drink the koolaid.
Technically, historically, you're right. Chernobyl is in Russia and Russia, according to the historians, is not really part of Europe. However, when you have a nuclear cloud that goes over Russia, Europe and as far as Africa and the USA, I'd say we have a problem here.
Doesn't hide the fact that Chernobyl killed a bunch of people, and that there is a really huge "dead zone" that the Russians are still trying to deal with.
Talk, talk, talk....... nuclear energy is a little bit like methheads - doesn't matter what evil brew you cook as long as you get your money and your high. So, my question to you is would you not have a problem living next to a meth house? If you're OK with that, then nukes are no prob.
Gearhead, earning your name counting Ukraine out of Europe.
USA is using vast amounts on nuke as well. Right in there after coal and oil. Despite Hanford.
Many, many European nations use nukes as their primary source of energy; even everyone’s favorite... France.
the technology used in both nuclear incidents which were mentioned above, HAVE NOT BEEN USED IN DECADES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
the nuclear industry has gone way beyond what 'was' into plants which must pass some pretty stringent safety inspections on an on going basis. yucca mtn represents a site where all of this waste can be safely stowed but has been stopped in its tracks, multiple times.
time to suck it up, promote nuclear, wind and perhaps tidal power generation. europe is definetly on the leading edge here and is obviously interested in reducing it's dependence on fossil fuels. they also promote these positions by pricing fuel in a range that makes our current pricing pale in comparison.
get over it, TMI and Chernobyl cannot happen again simply because those plant designs have not been repeated. don't like the big wind farms? get over it. it's clean, non invasive and ever lasting. plus the property owner gets a very nice income from the land lease. why do you suppose all of those folks in holland get small business loans, erect wind towers and sell the juice??
chicken little has no place in this discussion.
Although the geographical argument is pointless, the most common demarcation between Europe and Asia is the Ural mountains in the north to the Caspian Sea, west along the Caucasus to the Black Sea to Istanbul. Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkey are transcontinental, but Ukraine is within the European continent. Also, Chernobyl is not in Russia, it is in Ukraine. The Ukraine was a republic within the former USSR, as was Russia, but they are not the same.
THAT is exactly the most compelling argument against embracing nuclear power in any current form. The waste is super-toxic for a looong time.
:hmmm: And if you really believe that, I've got a bridge to sell you.
well, i am most interested to hear just how the design of chernobyl is being repeated today. i would be most interested to hear just how you think todays nuclear power plants operate. let me give you a BIG hint. they are closed systems.
so if you can answer those questions, tell me where to send the check for your bridge!
Wow. So they do not generate any waste stream of unbelievably toxic sh-t, which, beyond 10,000 years can actually go for 100k years? And the last time I looked, both physics and nature could not tolerate a closed system. I would like to know, specifically, how they have figured out how to take nuclear waste and recycle it into the ongoing production of more power. Sounds like they have perpetual motion all figured out................ just cant figure how i missed it in the headlines.
i don't intend to give away the answer to the questions until the challenger has a go.
do you understand half life???????????????????