Global Warming and Katrina...

[Tgace]

Of course all of this isnt to say that we should be burning up all the fuel we want, cut down all the rain forests, pour chemicals into our waterways etc. However to spread the fear and create the policies that will effect millions of people that this unproven stuff has is ****'ed up.

 

[Sapper6]

kennedy the environmentalist....? not quite so...the same environmentalist that OPPOSED the building of windmill farms of the coast of cape cod. to quote him...

"I definitely support alternative energy,
but the wind farm plan makes no sense for the public
because the costs it's going to impose on the people of these regions are so huge."

another case of "not in my backyard"... friggin hypocrite.

ROBERT F. Kennedy Jr., a noted environmental attorney, has a new cause: defending Cape Cod property values and yachting from a wind farm project in the waters of Nantucket Sound. His uncle, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., may also weigh in against the project, which threatens to spoil the view from the Kennedy Compound at Hyannis Port just six miles away, as well as the vistas of many expensive homes on Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket and tony Cape Cod retreats.

The fight is over a proposal to build the first-ever U.S. offshore wind farm, much like the turbines already lining Denmark and Sweden and planned for the British and Irish coasts. Europe has strongly embraced wind to replace fossil fuels and combat global warming. The plan by Cape Wind Associates envisions 130 wind turbines 40 stories tall, spreading over 24 square miles and clearly visible from the shore. Photo simulations show the towers speckling the horizon. They could also make Cape Cod nearly energy self-sufficient.

More about the Kennedy environmental hypocisy...

 

[Sapper6]

and yet more hypocrisy....

If it is successful, the Cape Cod wind project would be the nation's first-ever offshore wind farm and its largest renewable energy installation. At maximum production, the farm would be capable of generating a whopping 420 megawatts of electricity, enough to supply three-quarters of the average total power demand of Cape Cod and two islands off its shores, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Although power generated by the so-called wind park would be funneled into the New England electricity grid (and wouldn't technically supply Cape Cod alone), the project would still prove to the rest of the nation that a community like the one in question, which has 250,000 residents, can theoretically be nearly energy-independent -- no small feat at a time when global oil supplies are seriously threatened. "This project addresses the biggest problems of our time: global warming and America's crippling dependence on foreign oil," says Jim Gordon, head of Cape Wind Associates.

But here's the snag: The wind farm would be located within 13 miles of the shores of two of the most coveted and environmentally protected resort islands in the nation. These shores happen to be the summer playgrounds of the rich and famous, many of whom are wealthy Democrats who donate large sums to environmental organizations. A number of areas within Cape Cod and the islands have some of the most rigorous local development codes and habitat protections in the nation, and the people there -- locals and summer visitors alike -- share a deeply rooted environmental ethos.

http://www.grist.org/news/powers/2002/12/19/griscom-windmill/

Environmental lawyer Robert Kennedy, Jr., a key figure among those opposed to the project, also argues that the company has failed to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis from the standpoint of the locals. "The economic burden this project imposes on the Cape Cod community is enormous -- the injury to marinas, the injury to beaches, the injury to property values." Take, for example, the boating community, says Kennedy: "Why would they want to spend the three weeks of their vacation paddling around in the middle of an industrial zone when they could go someplace pristine?"

"let's save the environment....just, let's not do it near my home, god forbid my $40 million estate lose it's resale value."

 

[Makalakumu]

More about the Kennedy environmental hypocisy...

I hope everyone clicks on this link. The site is called "Orwell Today" and it is indicative of the kind of things that have been posted in counter point thus far. Even a cursory fact check turns up outright lies...

 

[Tgace]

So Kennedy DOES want the wind farms???

 

[Sapper6]

I hope everyone clicks on this link. The site is called "Orwell Today" and it is indicative of the kind of things that have been posted in counter point thus far. Even a cursory fact check turns up outright lies...

the link contains a factual story related to RFK Jr.'s environmental "concerns"...as does the other link posted above. it makes an appropriate counter point seeing that you started this thread based upon the ramblings of such person being critical of a presidency's stance on related environmental woes.

at least, if you're going to bring the "save the environment" parade, best to choose someone other than RFK Jr. to lead it.

 

[Sapper6]

So Kennedy DOES want the wind farms???

oh, he's all for alternative forms of energy, just not near his home. it would spoil the view.

 

[Tgace]

Hell Im all for alternative energy sources. As long as environmental concerns are balanced with economic concerns.

 

[Sapper6]

oh i agree completely, but i doubt the economic concerns would have impacted this area as much as they would lead others to believe. it's one of the wealthiest regions in the country, it would have to be a pretty damn large impact. who knows...

my point behind posting the whole "mindmill" thing was to advise against using RFK Jr. as a poster child of environmental "liberation".

taken from my last posted link:

Given the prevailing energy policies of the Bush administration, it doesn't seem reasonable to put the project on hold while lobbying for more subsidies. For those who consider global warming an urgent concern, the tradeoffs for this project seem relatively benign. In the end, like Quixote, the opposition might have to come to terms with the fact that windmills, albeit nettlesome, are not in fact destructive beasts. On the contrary: Right now, they may be the best solution we've got.

:asian:

 

[Makalakumu]

oh, he's all for alternative forms of energy, just not near his home. it would spoil the view.

Could there be other reasons to oppose wind farms in that region???

 

[Tgace]

They would rather put them on a Texas ranch???

 

[Tgace]

There is a small windmill farm here in WNY. In the middle of farm country, very small "footprint" environmentally. What would be the problem? Which is a bigger concern to the environmentalists...getting away from fossil fuels or the impact of windmill farms? You are going to have to make a decision sooner or later.

 

[Sapper6]

Could there be other reasons to oppose wind farms in that region???

not any intelligent ones.

 

[Makalakumu]

Me, I've already made my decision. Windfarms. Solar farms. Hydropower...to an extent. Geothermal. We need to be energy farmers, not hunter/gatherers. Heck, nuclear is even a good option...with new technology that is.

Back on topic...

I wanted to repost this link and discuss it. For some reason, NOAA's predictions are being ignored...

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html

Ask yourselves the following questions...

1. Does CO^2 in the atmosphere help to trap heat?
2. Are humans adding CO^2 to the atmosphere?
3. Are global temperatures changing?
4. Are there more hurricanes?

Funny how all of those answers are the same...again, see the link above.

upnorthkyosa

PS - While we were arguing, the 15th named storm of the season popped up. Ophelia. Only six more until we start back over with the A's...
"Do not look at the man behind the curtain. DO NOT LOOK AT THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!!!"

 

[Tgace]

It hasnt been proven that any of those factors are causal. Or that the human contribution means much as all the stuff previously posted points out.

 

[CanuckMA]

OTOH, I've recently heard animal rights wing-nuts oppose wind-farms because the rotating propellers can kill birds :idunno:

 

[Rich Parsons]

Me, I've already made my decision. Windfarms. Solar farms. Hydropower...to an extent. Geothermal. We need to be energy farmers, not hunter/gatherers. Heck, nuclear is even a good option...with new technology that is.

Windfarms are good, and need room, so as we get better with the bio-engineered corn we can use mroe room for the windmills. Seriously, they can be put into fields and "Farmed" as you mentioned.

Solar is good as well, and can be used, but the extent of the everyday house hold still needs a little more. Yet a good addition.

Hydropower is good and should be used, yet if some cannot live near the rivers or large bodies of water they have to depend upon it being delivered to them.

As to Geothermal, I have a friend who has an "Earth Home" and it is nice, but uses lots of water, so you need to spend more moeny to get the recycle kits, and this requires even more maintainence. His main heat pump went out and it cost him $10k for a complete new one, and adjusting the system to the new connections.

No new Nuclear power plants have gone on line since 1979 in the USA (* with the exception of Naval ships *). The issue is the waste, and how to treat it, and process it, to minimuize the "hot damage".

It is good to think about these new sources, but understand that each has its' own issues as well.

Nothing will be done about the issues until there is more usage and also more demand.

 

[Makalakumu]

It hasnt been proven that any of those factors are causal. Or that the human contribution means much as all the stuff previously posted points out.

This chain of reasoning is pretty sound...Carbon Dioxide traps heat in he atmosphere. Humans release trapped carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels. More heat is trapped. Oceans get "warmer" because more heat is trapped. Warmer oceans cause more hurricances.

The disagreement is over "how warm?" NOAA says that a one degree temperature rise is more then enough.

 

[Tgace]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.

Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.

The sun provides all the energy that drives our climate, but it is not the constant star it might seem.

Careful studies over the last 20 years show that its overall brightness and energy output increases slightly as sunspot activity rises to the peak of its 11-year cycle.

They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells should be feared more than global warming.

The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned. But they do feel that understanding of our nearest star must be increased if the climate is to be understood.

Sorry....not buying your theory as fact.

 

[Makalakumu]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm Sorry....not buying your theory as fact.

Everything in that chain of reasoning was a fact. In fact, it is DIRECTLY measurable.

Also, this thing is not an all or nothing proposition. The sun cycle has a contribution that can be measured. On a graph, if it was regular, it would look like a sine wave. Global warming takes that sine wave and elevates it.