Global Warming Poll
 

Just for interest sake, let's see who thinks we're responsible and who doesn't...once and for all.

I feel sorry for one-post threads, so here I am to keep you company.

I am not completely happy with the options but I picked the one closest to my views.

I would like to vote for:

While climate does normally vary, current human activities (including, but not limited to, release of fossilised carbon) are affecting the system and are pushing it well outside the normal, natural range of variation.

And, this is very likely to be significantly to our detriment.

But, this is only one of several serious ways in which we are shitting in our own nest, and I guess others are going to bite us hard before the climate gets to us. In no particular order: resource depletion such as over fishing, deforestation, soil degradation, overuse of water; pollution of many varieties but mostly of air and water; the greying of our population; the massive debt of most world economies; the increasing brittleness of the web which nurtures us (eg just in time delivery of food and energy supplies, etc).

I try not to think about this shit too much. It can be very depressing. I do what I can, but that isn't much.

Well gee thanks for the post Zen. It was mainly for the poll though, and plenty of people have responded to that. I made the answers visible so that we can all get a clearer idea of people's perspective during political debates. It was mostly because to me, some people seem to get into arguments about the semantics of the issue even though they're really arguing from the same position.

Lately it's like a debating team turning on itself with regard to global warming debates around here. A bit frustrating.

Oh and you're right. It is depressing to think about how much we've buggered up our environment. Virtually every aspect of it.

What do you mean "we". :eyebrow:

Its a polite way of saying YOU, great Satan American! :p

Finally! Some recognition!

And don't you forget it, worm.

I meant mankind. I don't think Satan has anything to do with it...specially since he's fictional. ;)

IMHO we are speeding up a natural cycle. That's all I have to say about that.[/Gump]

I think the following two answers are saying pretty much the same thing...

We're partially responsible, but it's natural anyway AND
We're making it happen quicker

The second one implies it's natural but we're making it happen quicker, the first one implies we're making it happen quicker even though it's natural.

Either way, we need to try and fix it, and for reasons other than the apparent ones, like all the health issues.

You can't really fix it. The Earth has an equilibrium and by changing the carbon cycle we putting the Earth's natural carbon cycle out of equilibrium. We cannot do anything about it besides wait unless we literally take the CO2 from the atmosphere and place it miles underneath the surface. The cycle will go back to normal but it will take possibly hundred of thousands of years.

We can slow it down by choosing technologies that don't exacerbate the problem even more.

Yes, but there is no practical way to undue what has already happened.

Not to dump on Ali, but the poll was poorly worded.

Humans are pumping carbon out of the deep ground and throwing it into the air. This is causing an unbalance in the naturally occurring carbon cycle. There is natural fluctuation in the climate, but our actions are moving the climate past the normal balance. Past the tipping point.

That's my position. And using that position, I voted that "Yes - it's all our fault" but I could have used the same reasoning to vote for "We're partially responsible, but it's natural anyway" or "We're making it happen quicker."

And of course, I would also have voted for "There's not enough evidence" because I would like to see more evidence. The only problem is that to get that evidence, we need to continue down what appears to be a terrible path. Better to change the path now, for a multitude of reasons.

Of course there is. Number one, stop doing what we're doing to cause it... number 2, find ways to clean it up. (there is very good evidence that mushrooms can be used to clean up toxic things in the evironment, for example). number 3, do something different to get better, cleaner results.

Don't you know the definition of insanity?

You are quite articulate glatt - excellent post. You must have done some Vulcan mind meld :borg: I agree. Except I chose the "There's not enough evidence" as my answer in the poll.

Well the poll was poorly worded because really that's the point. No matter what your stance on this issue, there's so much contrary evidence to support other positions as well.

I didn't word it poorly on purpose, but it seems that no matter what questions were asked, we'd have come up with the same answers...just as we do when we debate the issue.

What kills me is even people who think we are contributing to the problem don't think we need to take any kind of action to help slow it down or stop it. No, let's just keep digging for oil, and building dirty coal plants, and throwing toxic chemical into the air we breathe *cough*cough* or the water we drink. Don't worry that chronic and autoimmune illnesses are on the rise, or that certain species are dying off (indicator species), or that insect proliferation is on the rise because of the rise in temperature (and that is definitely NOT a good sign), or that some of the forests are dying off because they don't get to burn, like they should, or the ice and glaciers are drastically melting.... I could go on and on.

On another note, and pretty scary, Rachel Maddow reported this last week about several of our nuclear power plants. Scary stuff.
Next up: This here is the Indian Point nuclear plant. It‘s located 45 miles north of New York City. And Indian Point is a little bit accident-prone. Back in 2000, an old steam generator ruptured, releasing a small amount of radioactive steam into the air. In year 2005, water laced with the radioactive element called tritium leaked from a spent fuel pool.

And today, we learned a burst pipe has spurted out 100,000 gallons of water at the nuclear facility. We still do not know when the leak began, only that the pipe in question is buried deep underground. Not a single visual inspection of the underground pipes has taken place since operations began in 1973.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission doesn‘t require inspections like that. Similar problems with aging underground pipes have occurred at the Byron, Braidwood and Dresden twin-reactor plants in Illinois and at the Palo Verde plant in Arizona. All this to say, if you were looking for something legal and non-habit-forming to keep you up all night this weekend, you‘re welcome.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30561015/

See, that is why I am against nuclear power plants in this country. The people who build things for the public good, like the power grid and running water, the infrastructure is crumbling. The people who own them make billions of dollars, but they don't upgrade them or keep them in very working order. IF they actually DO take the time and spend the money, then they jack up our rates, so we are the ones who end up paying for it, either in rate hikes or in subsidized taxpayer money. Why is that? Why should the people have to pay for a company upgrading the things they need to in order to provide a service? But they don't. They NEVER upgrade until they are forced to. So, until the corporations take responsibilty for their technology and their hardware, I do not trust anyone to build and maintain nuclear power plants. Maybe if we brought over some French companies, then I might be OK with it. But trust American businessmen to do? Nope. I surely do NOT.

The reason they don't get upgraded is because no company is stupid enough to actually do it because of the liability. If nuclear energy started to become more widespread, that would *hopefully* change.

But the reasoning is legit...it would be like trusting businessmen with the waste water treatment process!:eek:

Maybe we should all just use candles and ride horses or camels.

Maybe you should move to France.

Huh?

Why can't we just train and educate people about ETHICS in this country so they will do the right thing? THEN I wouldn't have a problem with it. And you know, we CAN go completely green with technology that is safe. It IS possible. Go to T Boone Pickens website and the RePower America website and take a look around.

I would probably really like France, except that everyone over there smokes, and I detest cigarettes.

And I have a real problem with people who own/run corporations that they don't keep up to date with the infrastructure, because then it causes all kinds of problems, and guess who gets stuck with the bill to clean it up? that's right, WE do. So how is that in any way capitalism? Hmmmm? They keep the profits, we pay to clean up the mess, and after that they hike up their prices so they make even MORE money, and it's for something they didn't even pay for or have to do themselves. It makes me sick. (doesn't make any sense? I'm kinda out of it this morning.)

You're afraid of water?
Indian point is a Westinghouse Pressurized Water Reactor. Unlike the General Electric Boiling Water reactors, the PWR has two water loops. One loop goes through the reactor (and becomes contaminated) then passes the heat to the second loop in a heat exchanger. The second loop (uncontaminated) runs the steam turbines that turn the generators.

I personally guarantee no part of the contaminated loop is buried. I doubt it was part of the second loop either because a leak would be noticed immediately when the water (condensate) coming back to the boiler (heat exchanger) did not equal the steam sent out. They would have to make up the difference with heavily treated (expensive) water.

I'd bet the buried pipe was carrying cooling water for the condenser (actually a third loop if you will) that turns the spent steam back into condensate quickly. Cooling water is returned to it's source, usually a river or lake, as clean as it came out, and after passing through the cooling tower, just a little warmer.

Don't get excited about headlines until you know the details... or tw will bitchslap you. :lol2:

That is not possible in the human race. It will not happen here and it does not happen in the rest of the world. Power and money trumps ethics in everyday life.

I agree with you but in this situation, most of the corporations that produced parts for nuclear energy have gone out of business and no company want to take over because then they would be responsible for any problems.

That is why strict regulations are needed. If it is more profitable for companies to be as clean as possible, they will be extremely efficient at doing that.

That leaking pipe was extremely clean water. No radiation. No contaminants. Cleaner than anything found in the Hudson.

Always take 'fears' about Indian Point with caution. Unlike other nuclear plants, even the slightest problem in Indian Point gets hyped and heavily reported. BTW, Indian Point is owned by a state corporation - not power companies.

Keep it in perspective. Reports of a hole in containment dome in the First Energy's Davis Besse reactor outside Toledo that also had a potential Three Mile Island problem. It gets about as much press as a broken (clean) water pipe in Indian Point. But First Energy had a history of lying repeatedly and often - even about the NE blackout that they created. A broken water pipe in a First Energy plant should attract your attention. Because if it did get reported, then it is probably serious.

Other nuclear plants have events. But leaking water that would only make the Hudson River cleaner gets too much press only because it is Indian Point.

Of far greater worry is all that spent uranium sitting in cooling ponds at every nuclear plant with no place to put it. So much fuel that many reactor sites must build more pools. But that far more serious problem gets no press.

From the NY Times of 10 May 2009: Technology and research that was stifled by ... well who had science papers rewritten by White House lawyers?

How many hundreds of mistakes are being corrected? Obama has restored research in a long stifled list including coal to gas research.

Those who do today will become wealthy selling those same products to the world five and twenty years from now. Profits earned only when the product is most important. Wealth achieved when science trumps religion, political agendas, and wacko extremism.

OK, so we have lost eight years in many industries. Time to blame enemies of America so that they can no longer stifle desperately needed innovation. Change that is essential in any productive economy.

We have one fundamental problem. No viable alternative to fossil fuels exists. But then we know where the fundamental problem is. In ten gallons of gasoline, not even two gallons do productive work. China demonstrates another example of who will be wealthier ten and more years from now.

Obama destroyed another ‘stifle innovation’ agenda. Time for this nation to start acting like a leader again.

:zzz:

Aren't you assuming that China, India, et al, would pay for that technology and not just use it? Or worse yet, take it, make it, and sell it cheaper to the rest of the world.

Stifling technology is why Honda and Toyota now eat GM's lunch. Stifled technologies resulted in superior Hondas and Toyotas ten and twenty years later. The innovator who does not stifle the innovation always has the inside trace on the next innovation. The market leaders have so much advantage that only the market leader can cause loss of markets.

Making and selling a technology cheaper is why Intel is fighting for it life in microprocessors and memories? Cheaper China means Intel cannot survive? Also explains why platinum coated devices from Johnson Matthey cannot compete against low cost Chinese manufacturers? Michelin can no longer compete against low cost producers? Nonsense. Only if that company stops innovating. Innovators always have the inside track as long as they keep marketing and advancing on their innovations.

US steel companies used a classic business school theory that steel is a smoke stack industry. US steel companies are no longer world class - do not appear in the top ten. They stopped innovating. Instead used business school cost controls.

Companies do not lose business to low cost producers. They intentionally surrender their business by cost controlling - by discontinuing innovation. Innovation is why so many tried to steal Cisco's market - while Cisco's previous innovations made future innovations both possible and faster.

Once a company becomes the world class innovator, low cost producers gain market share only when the company decides to surrender its market - decides to stop innovating.

A principle that applies routinely to free markets. Only way a low cost producer can steal the market? The innovator must decide to stop innovating. What undermined or destroyed DEC, Xerox, Ashton Tate, AT&T, Shugart, etc? Each decided at the highest levels of management to stop innovating. They surrendered their markets.

Of course the greatest myth is a miracle technology bought up and hidden to restrict competition. The 100 MPG carburetor whose patents would have expired decades ago and still cannot be found? Was a myth then. Is still a myth today.

A company who innovates (ie coal to gas) easily dominates that industry due to an inside track.

But were not taking about some little electronic gizmo or disposable product for the fickle, gotta have the latest, consumer. Coal fired plants are a huge investment, slow pay back, long lead time, project. Not something they are going to upgrade every six months.

I understand your reasoning in theory, and see it working in say the chemicals mixed into some sort of plastic or new material in an electronic gizmo, that can be changed with out a ripple in production. But large industrial installations are another animal.

Even refineries are rebuilt (if I remember) every 18 months. No plant is fixed. For example a nearby coal and gas electric plant from the 60s is constantly being upgraded. Accidentally met the plant manager. A latest innovation now means they can startup in something like less than 20 hours.

These big plants are constantly innovating - upgrading and changing hardware and procedures. Many innovations are constant small improvements. Ever work in a semiconductor plant? It never stops. Then periodically, they do a major strip out and retooling. Any company that is not constantly doing that deserves to be out of business ASAP.

Exactly why American steel companies only survived with government welfare. They were smoke stack industries. Constantly upgrading was no longer possible.

How does Gillette keep ahead of the competition now that everyone has triple blade razors? The same Gillette razor is now produced by massively upgraded production method. Its still a razor to you. But their costs due to constant upgrading and innovation means either their profits are much higher or their razor sells for an even lower price.

Your reasoning reflects a classic bean-counter theory of a smoke stack industry. So similar to communism. Explains why business school graduates destroy jobs and companies.

No, my reasoning reflects working in power plants, all over the country, coal and nuke, for twenty years.

And....

Your communist business school graduate bean-counter job eradicating theory of a smoke stack industry? :biggrin:

I'm afraid of water if it's radioactive. And the whole point I was making is, it might be OK this time, but the fact that there are ANY KIND of leaks or accidents at a nuclear facility is just unacceptable. AND the fact that they have done NO inspections. Come on. You can't really be OK with that, can you?

I don't believe that. Of course we can teach ethics, and should. If people didn't get away with unethical practices in this country then people would be more responsible. But we actually create a culture where unethical practices are encouraged. Why is that?

Didn't they teach you about ethics in medical school? And don't they encourage it in the medical field? At least in the end you're in?

yea, and if we PUNISH them for NOT doing the right thing. And if a company is fined for something, they should NOT be allowed to farm off that expense to their customers, which is what most companies do.

Who defines what is ethical?

How would you regulate that and who are you proposing should be in charge of that oversite?

It's the same thing with increasing business taxes. They are a cost of producing a product or service and that gets added into the cost the end user pays.

In my environmental engineering class, we debated ethics on the basis of how much money is a human life worth. For example, if we find we have a heavy metal in our water but the chances of someone dying is only 1 in 100,000 and would take $30 million to clean up, is it worth it to clean up that water.

So in reality, it is the politicians that define ethics. You scared yet?

By the time most people have graduated, most (hopefully) have a general idea of what is good is bad to our society's standards. But, most people will put other priorities ahead of perceived ethics.

Depends on how many people that $30 million is spread across. If it's a community of 50 people, nope. If it's a community of 5 million people, yep.

Why did you misquote me sugarpop? I didn't write what is contained in your last post #44.

I NEVER change other people's words in a post classic. I hit the "quote" link, and then add my words in, either in another color, like I did in that post, or I do the unquote, quote, unquote thing. I didn't misquote you. The words in purple are all mine.

Oh I see - then please do not insert your own comments within the quote box. It appears as though you highlighted text of mine to comment on instead of you adding your own after my quote.

My point was and still is "Who defines what is ethical? " Ethical to you may be different than ethical to another person. You seem to think that there is some grand definition of "ethical" Its not that simplistic.

It is all due to global worming.