An Inconvenient Truth

[Cryozombie]

The light bulb shown above costs $1.50. Any premium from a standard incandescent will be recouped in the first several months of usage. And the initial costs is not beyond the ability of any consumer who has need of a new illumination device.

I use these in my place in several light fixtures (not all) but they cost me closer to 5 bucks each.

 

[Don Roley]

This just in . . .

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2006-07-14-2006-warmth_x.htm?csp=34



Co-incidences continue.

And just for those of us living outside the US, the winter this year in Japan was the coldest since WWII.

 

[michaeledward]

I use these in my place in several light fixtures (not all) but they cost me closer to 5 bucks each.

I just checked back at that efi website I posted, and that fixture is showing a $4.25 part price. The $1.50 price I quote is what I recently paid through the NHSaves web site. This is a web site sponsored by Public Service of New Hampshire - the electric company in my state.

A New Hampshire billing account with PSNH is required to receive that $1.50 purchase price. Also, there was a pretty heafty shipping charge involved with my order. Further I order 12 of these bulbs, and two arrived broken ... I could probably get replacements at no cost, but for three bucks, I don't think it is worth it.

I guess, if there is a moral of the story, it is to check for available savings plans in whatever places are available. Check to see if your local electric company offers a similar purchase plan.

 

[Ray]

The Associated Press
The first half of the year was the warmest on record for the USA.
. . .
The government reported Friday that the average temperature for the 48 contiguous United States from January through June was 51.8°F, or 3.4°F above average for the 20th century.
That made it the warmest such period since recordkeeping began in 1895

And just for those of us living outside the US, the winter this year in Japan was the coldest since WWII.

Does that mean that always every day somewhere in the world it is coldest and somewhere it is warmest?

 

[mrhnau]

Does that mean that always every day somewhere in the world it is coldest and somewhere it is warmest?

It would seem to imply that. Shhh! Don't tell Gore!

 

[michaeledward]

Does that mean that always every day somewhere in the world it is coldest and somewhere it is warmest?

I'm not sure about that, Ray, but the movie does show a correlation between areas that suffer excessive rainfall and those that suffer excessive drought.

Currently, the continental United States is suffering in a widespread drought; more areas are reporting 'severe drought conditions' than were last year at this time.

Although, if you check the recent news from New Hampshire, you will see we have had excessive rainfall.

Last fall, we had a 'Storm of the Century' flood event in Western New Hampshire that killed a handful of people and washed quite a few homes down the rivers. And about two months ago, we have another 'Storm of the Century' flood event in Central and Eastern New Hampshire that flooded out hundreds of homes. Fortuneately, there was only a couple of fatalities. But much property was damaged, and many are still digging out from that event.

Thngs that make you go "hmmm"?

See the movie ... I'll buy.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Does that mean that always every day somewhere in the world it is coldest and somewhere it is warmest?

Weather patterns are cyclical, but things they are a changin'

Weather patterns are cyclical, but things they are a changin,

Also for all intensive purposes to answer your question, yes.

Generally the North Pole and/or Antarctica are coldest and the equator is warmest.

And please do not take this the wrong way but Al Gore is not the Guru of global warming. At this point I still consider him a politician, albeit an environmentally conscious politician, that wrote a book to make money based on the findings, theories and work of others. If the book is all factual or partly alarmist drama I do not yet know.I have yet to read his book, and I will read it, once I do I can better comment on it.

And yes global warming is an important topic and we should be aware of it.

 

[Blotan Hunka]

Almost as soon as the Kyoto Protocol on global warming came into effect on February 15, Kashmir suffered the highest snowfall in three decades with over 150 killed, and Mumbai recorded the lowest temperature in 40 years. Had temperatures been the highest for decades, newspapers would have declared this was proof of global warming. But whenever temperatures drop, the press keeps quiet.

Things were different in 1940-70, when there was global cooling. Every cold winter then was hailed as proof of a coming new Ice Age. But the moment cooling was replaced by warming, a new disaster in the opposite direction was proclaimed. In the fields of engineering. medicine and technology science has been a boon. because you can actually make things and SEE if they work or not. This crap is still junk science IMO. I wouldnt throw away my winter boots just yet.

 

[Rich Parsons]

Quite often, unfortunately, State of the Art, translates into status symbol purchases, because of the additional premium for the 'new' stuff .... an common example is the Prius, isn't it?

I am fortunate enough to have replaced a refridgerator two or three years back with an Energy Star rated device, however, it carried more than a 10% premium over a similar non-ES rated appliance. My Natural Gas Furnace (a Lennox Conservator 90) has a very high efficiency rating was purchased three or four years back, but it carried a considerable premium over other, less efficient models.

The light bulb shown above costs $1.50. Any premium from a standard incandescent will be recouped in the first several months of usage. And the initial costs is not beyond the ability of any consumer who has need of a new illumination device.

Michael,

I never said there was not a cost. As a matter of fact that is the point I have been trying to make to lots fo people until we as a collective decide the cost is right some will proceed for they think it is best for themselves or the evironment, while others will wait until it is cheap or required by law.

:asian:

 

[fireman00]

my own .02 - yes, the human race are little piggies taking as much more then we need , using less then we took and throw out whatever is left over. We need to become more self-reliant, find alternate energy sources for cars/ heating/ electircity.

BUT! There appears to be another side to this issue; the scientific community is not closing ranks on the out-of-control global warming disaster. It would seem that the ice packs in Antartica are getting thicker and its possible that undersea volcanoes are causing the oceans to warm.... interesting reading at http://www.iceagenow.com/


Here's another good article:


EARTH IN THE BALANCE

[FONT=Garamond, Times]Don't Believe the Hype[/FONT]
[FONT=Garamond, Times]Al Gore is wrong. There's no "consensus" on global warming.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Times]
BY RICHARD S. LINDZEN
Sunday, July 2, 2006 12:01 a.m. EDT
According to Al Gore's new film "An Inconvenient Truth," we're in for "a planetary emergency": melting ice sheets, huge increases in sea levels, more and stronger hurricanes, and invasions of tropical disease, among other cataclysms--unless we change the way we live now.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
[/FONT]

 

[FearlessFreep]

When athletes say "it's not about the money"...it's about the money
When politicians say "it's not political"..it's political

 

[arnisador]

The movie was well-done and certainly nudged my opinion more toward his side of the debate...but, I still believe that the earth, and the humans living on it, are quire resilient.

 

[mrhnau]

The movie was well-done and certainly nudged my opinion more toward his side of the debate...but, I still believe that the earth, and the humans living on it, are quire resilient.

Always nice to see you posting :asian:

Thats the objective. You have a one sided debate, with view points strictly scripted out and well planned. Not only that, its a one sided debate that you pay to go see. You gang up a bunch of specialist with a bunch of degrees that see things as you do and you can compile a fairly impressive presentation.

Same things happens in many debates. You get your group of people on one side, and the other group gangs up too. End effect hopefully is a search for the truth. In this particular instance though, politics and the desire for distaster in the news pushes one side of the arguement (at least IMHO). I'm not willing to drink that cool-aid yet.

I do agree with on though, we are quite resilient. The Earth has its own unique ways of dealing with problems. We are not a one variable system, where an increase in CO2 emissions insures certain doom. Simply put, it ain't that simple.

I do think we have the power to destroy much of what is here. Lets deal with the issues that could cause the immediate and disasterous trauma such as nuclear war and nuclear weapons/bioweapons in the hands of those crazy enough to use them on a global scale (terrorist and rogue nations). Sure, we can get more environmentally friendly, but that does not insure an infinite existence. Lets look at the whole picture.

 

[michaeledward]

Lets deal with the issues that could cause the immediate and disasterous trauma such as nuclear war and nuclear weapons/bioweapons in the hands of those crazy enough to use them on a global scale (terrorist and rogue nations). Sure, we can get more environmentally friendly, but that does not insure an infinite existence. Lets look at the whole picture.

Is your argument that we need to spend all our energy on the things that will kill us fast, and we can ignore the things that kill us slowly?

Do you smoke?

Why, or Why not?

 

[mrhnau]

Is your argument that we need to spend all our energy on the things that will kill us fast, and we can ignore the things that kill us slowly?

Do you smoke?

Why, or Why not?

Is your argument that we should ignore the things that kill us quickly and focus on things that kill us slowly? You concern yourself with both. However, if a burglar breaks into my house with a knife in hand, I'm not planning on worrying about my cholesterol. I first deal with the situation, then I'll worry about cholesterol. On a global sense, its not as cut and dry, and while its logical to make constant steps to prepare for the future, I also think we should be more concerned about the immediate threat (burglar w/ the knife, or in this case the WMD's). While it is possible (and I stress possible) that CO2 and all that other nasty bad stuff could kill humanity, I also believe we could have it happen much faster via nuclear war, bioligcal weaponry, asteroid, shoot... that sounds just like the list of shows on the discover channel

Do I smoke? Do you eat things that are bad for you? Do you drive a car? Do you realize you can get in a wreck and die every time? I'm not interested in living in fear the rest of my life. Take steps to eliminate the threats on a global scale, starting with the most immediate and dangerous.

Smoking is not relevant. Personal decision that affects you personally (well, for the most part). The destruction of the world seems to affect everyone. To answer your question though, I do not smoke. I find the smell revolting and need the lung capacity I have.

 

[Xue Sheng]

There have been a lot of things said here and I would like to address a few. Don’t get me wrong, I am not saying Al is right (I'm also not saying he is wrong) nor am I saying Global warming is a agreed upon fact, but if the temperature of the planet is going up, then that is global warming. As to the cause, good and important question.

1) Greenland's Ice Sheet is thickening at the interior at an altitude above 1500 meters. However it is decreasing in thickness at altitudes below 1500 meters

2) Actually there are other tropical or warm climate diseases that will move in if the temperature goes up enough, but there is a lot more to global climate warming than absorption of infrared by the atmosphere. The ocean itself has a lot to do with it as well.

3) And if you introduce enough fresh water from Glacial melt into a sal****er system it can affect this is a very negative was. Not to mention the sea life extinctions it will cause. There are multiple oceanic systems that will be impacted by introduction of fresh water in a very bad way. Also the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can have and is having a negative effect as well. Ocean's acidity does rise with increased CO2, but at a slow rate. But this is not a good thing particularly for oxygen production

4) Antarctic Ice Sheet thickening: The big question does this change marks the end of the retreat, or is it just a short-lived reversal.

5) Under sea Volcanoes causing the oceans to warm... sorry that's just wrong. The oceanic system is way to complex for that to be the reason, particularly on a global scale.

6) Planet and peoples resilience: There is a theory that the planet is self-correcting. However you really do not want it to do that, it would definitely prove that the planet is WAY more resilient than the people on it. But the next species to master the planet would probably greatly appreciate it.

7) Terrorism, Nuclear threat: Yes they are extremely important issues and are more than likely more of an immanent threat. But why can’t we work on both issues, I did not know working on one excluded working on the other.

But if one of the (I believe 7) volcanoes under Antarctica goes off, then you may have water front property in Southern Georgia… possibly cold possibly hot… I’m not sure; that much fresh water introduced into the Ocean will cause major climate changes.

Note: there are currently no signs of a Volcano in Antarctic becoming active. However if you remove enough of the ice it could be a possibility. Ice is very heavy and Glaciers put a lot of pressure on the ground they sit on.

My previous posts on this are here if any are interested.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33965&page=7

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33965&page=8

 

[michaeledward]

nor am I saying Global warming is a agreed upon fact,

This is the basic problem.

Among people who study the planetary system, or weather, or the effects of weather on biology, the amount of dissent about human caused global warming is so small as to be insignificant. The discussion is over.

You will always be able to find someone to believe that exception, but the science is an agreed upon fact.

That we, who do not study this data consistantly and regularly, may be sceptical of a source reporting the data, for whatever our own prejudices are, does not, in any way negate or effect, the data.

The argument that 'Al Gore is a Politician' in no way effects the data of the information he presents. It does, however, speak volumes about the arguer's inability to separate facts from non-facts

 

[Xue Sheng]

This is the basic problem.

Among people who study the planetary system, or weather, or the effects of weather on biology, the amount of dissent about human caused global warming is so small as to be insignificant. The discussion is over.

You will always be able to find someone to believe that exception, but the science is an agreed upon fact.

That we, who do not study this data consistantly and regularly, may be sceptical of a source reporting the data, for whatever our own prejudices are, does not, in any way negate or effect, the data.

The argument that 'Al Gore is a Politician' in no way effects the data of the information he presents. It does, however, speak volumes about the arguer's inability to separate facts from non-facts

You avoid the entire post I made and pull out one statement and go after it. To attempt to discredit me and strengthen your position... typical.

Yes humans have had an effect on the planet, no doubt. Yes global warming is a fact and it is happening as we speak. No I do not study the data on this now because it is not my job. Yes I use to study data on this; much of this sort of thing was my minor in college.

But this begs the questions, and please do not avoid them, do you study this data consistently and regularly? Have you done research or study on this subject beyond Al's book and movie? Has that research been in depth from trusted scientific sources?

Do I believe that humans and pollution as CONTRIBUTING to global warming? Yes. Is this the only factors involved? Doubtful.

Is it a serious situation we should be concerned about? Yes.

Is Al Gore the Guru of Global warming and or the environment? No.

Is his book completely factual, partially factual and partly dramatized to make money? I do not know yet, but I will. I am going to read this book and if it is factual I will say so if it is otherwise I will say so. But regardless of what it is Al did not do the research, someone else did. And Al is a politician that is out of work looking for a way to make money and this apparently worked for him, great.

And please if you are going to comment don't just comment on the convenient in order to make your point stronger.

And if you actually read anything I posted you would of course already known all I just said.

 

[mrhnau]

This is the basic problem.

Among people who study the planetary system, or weather, or the effects of weather on biology, the amount of dissent about human caused global warming is so small as to be insignificant. The discussion is over.

You will always be able to find someone to believe that exception, but the science is an agreed upon fact.

This sounds alot like...
[sarcasm]
I'm right dang it. My friends are right. Everyone knows it, so just shut up and agree with me, you ignorant fool. Drink that cool-aid!
[/sarcasm]

Hardly. What IS being argued among some scientist is that global warming is being caused primarily by humans. The earth goes through cycles, and alot of previous posts have mentioned the possible non-human effects on global warming. Please feel free to go back and peruse and comment on some of the specifics. Xue Sheng made a good point, you ignore alot of specifics in the conversation here.

Repeating, writing in bold, or underlining won't make me believe you any more than if you did not.

 

[michaeledward]

You avoid the entire post I made and pull out one statement and go after it. To attempt to discredit me and strengthen your position... typical.

Yes humans have had an effect on the planet, no doubt. Yes global warming is a fact and it is happening as we speak. No I do not study the data on this now because it is not my job. Yes I use to study data on this; much of this sort of thing was my minor in college.

But this begs the questions, and please do not avoid them, do you study this data consistently and regularly? Have you done research or study on this subject beyond Al's book and movie? Has that research been in depth from trusted scientific sources?

Do I believe that humans and pollution as CONTRIBUTING to global warming? Yes. Is this the only factors involved? Doubtful.

Is it a serious situation we should be concerned about? Yes.

Is Al Gore the Guru of Global warming and or the environment? No.

Is his book completely factual, partially factual and partly dramatized to make money? I do not know yet, but I will. I am going to read this book and if it is factual I will say so if it is otherwise I will say so. But regardless of what it is Al did not do the research, someone else did. And Al is a politician that is out of work looking for a way to make money and this apparently worked for him, great.

And please if you are going to comment don't just comment on the convenient in order to make your point stronger.

And if you actually read anything I posted you would of course already known all I just said.

I am not attempting to discredit you, or strengthen my position. Actually, in that post, I was attempting to have a dialog.

You seem to want it both ways .. you seem to want to rely on evidence, but you don't want to accept the evidence that is out there. While that can be seen as 'Gee this is a complex issue, and I am not certain what to make of it all' ... it can also be seen as mucking up the water.

If you read my posts, you will see that I do not report Mr. Gore as an expert ... but mearly a messenger. Yet, some keep bringing him up, as you did, and claim that because he is a politician (or was), you aren't going to believe anything he says.

Is his message accurate? I think there is an inability to recognize the accuracy of the message, and there is an unwillingness to recognize the accuracy of the message.

You know, I will say this about Mr. Gore. He is exhibiting the definition of leadership. Leadership does not require an individual to perform each and every study. But, it does require when sufficient evidence is available, you craft a message of change, and execute on that message.

Go see the movie ... I'll buy.