Run To State Posted June 21, 2006 Author Share Posted June 21, 2006 I say we continue to not care what new and potentially dangerous toxins we've entered into the equation over the last 100 years, and just go with the flow. It might only be our great grandkids that end up paying the price...Ah yes, the old "kids or grandkids" guilt trip that often comes up during such debates. The question I have to ask here is, what are we protecting them from if there's no such thing as man made global warming? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I believe that we should do what is necessary to protect our environment, but there is no need to go overboard. I agree with you that we need to stay calm and not go overboard. However smog filled cities like Los Angeles tell me that the smog we emit must be more damaging than the smog emitted by valcanos being that LA is so smog filled but not areas surrounding volcanos. On a more local basis, over my 30 years in Louisville, it does seem that Louisville has far more "Ozone Action Days" than it did in my childhood. Ozone Action Days are days during the summer that the pollution is so bad that we are recommended to stay inside from 10am till 4pm. I feel safe in saying this pollution did not come from volcanos since there are none near Louisville. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Run To State Posted June 21, 2006 Author Share Posted June 21, 2006 I feel safe in saying this pollution did not come from volcanos since there are none near Louisville.I get where you're coming from but, you are aware that you don't have to live near a volcano for it cause problems. Just thought I'd point that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bert Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 I get where you're coming from but, you are aware that you don't have to live near a volcano for it cause problems. Just thought I'd point that out. I was trying to make the somewhat sarcastic point that Louisville's pollution issues are obviously not related to natural calamities such as volcanos being that 25 miles outside of Jefferson Co., the air quality improves vastly. Emphasis on the mild sarcasm. I guess I should have followed up with a . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Run To State Posted June 21, 2006 Author Share Posted June 21, 2006 I was trying to make the somewhat sarcastic point that Louisville's pollution issues are obviously not related to natural calamities such as volcanos being that 25 miles outside of Jefferson Co., the air quality improves vastly. Emphasis on the mild sarcasm. I guess I should have followed up with a .Gotcha, and I agree. However, my points aren't so much about pollution, we all know there's pollution. I'm just talking about said pollution causing or not causing global warming, which I do not believe it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatz Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Gotcha, and I agree. However, my points aren't so much about pollution, we all know there's pollution. I'm just talking about said pollution causing or not causing global warming, which I do not believe it is. I have a question. Could it be that we are in a usual climate shift that this earth has seen before but it is magnified by the presence of extra factors such as pollution, green house gases, rain forest, et al - that have never existed before? In other words the shifts that have been pointed out as natural processes of this planet are taking place but they may shift farther because there has never been this many people, this much pollution, this many extra factors brought into the equation? If that were the case then it would be a combo of people, pollution and nature wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Run To State Posted June 21, 2006 Author Share Posted June 21, 2006 I have a question. Could it be that we are in a usual climate shift that this earth has seen before but it is magnified by the presence of extra factors such as pollution, green house gases, rain forest, et al - that have never existed before? In other words the shifts that have been pointed out as natural processes of this planet are taking place but they may shift farther because there has never been this many people, this much pollution, this many extra factors brought into the equation? If that were the case then it would be a combo of people, pollution and nature wouldn't it? You'd have to ask the experts that one, but from what I gather from the links I provided it doesn't soud like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastbreak Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 :thumb: The eruptions of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and 1992 dumped more gas and toxins in the atmosphere than Man has in his entire time on the planet. The guts of the Earth were spewed into the upper atmosphere. Not just ash, greenhouse gases galore from burning coal, oil, iron, copper, and every element contained in and below the crust. (Why can't people see this? You don't need to be a scientist to use common sense.) Global weather WAS affected. The temperature DROPPED and average of 1.5 C in 1992 and 1993 around the earth. At the time, scientists where afraid the shock just might completely destroy the ozone layer. Guess what. In 1999 reports indicated that the ozone had actually repaired itself. Mother Nature adjusted and recovered. The 1815 explosion of Tambora was so bad it caused 1816 to have no summer. It was snowing in July and August as far south as Virginia. Mother Nature adjusted and recovered. I believe that we should do what is necessary to protect our environment, but there is no need to go overboard. Excellent post Swampy... :thumb: You just saved me 15 minutes of thought and typing, and said it better to boot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frances Bavier Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 ... You just saved me 15 minutes of thought ... Three months' worth of gray matter saved ... Frances Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCrules Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 :thumb: The eruptions of Mount Pinatubo in 1991 and 1992 dumped more gas and toxins in the atmosphere than Man has in his entire time on the planet. The guts of the Earth were spewed into the upper atmosphere. Not just ash, greenhouse gases galore from burning coal, oil, iron, copper, and every element contained in and below the crust. (Why can't people see this? You don't need to be a scientist to use common sense.) Global weather WAS affected. The temperature DROPPED and average of 1.5 C in 1992 and 1993 around the earth. At the time, scientists where afraid the shock just might completely destroy the ozone layer. Guess what. In 1999 reports indicated that the ozone had actually repaired itself. Mother Nature adjusted and recovered. The 1815 explosion of Tambora was so bad it caused 1816 to have no summer. It was snowing in July and August as far south as Virginia. Mother Nature adjusted and recovered. I believe that we should do what is necessary to protect our environment, but there is no need to go overboard. Mountain Top removal, increase in highways and the number of cars on them along with everything else isn't mother nature. Of course she's used to volcano eruptions and healing herself from those. A single event isn't the same as day in day out neglect of the environment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastbreak Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 Three months' worth of gray matter saved ... At least... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Schue Posted June 21, 2006 Share Posted June 21, 2006 You'd have to ask the experts that one, but from what I gather from the links I provided it doesn't soud like it. Did you listen to the link I posted? Given the way our government likes to censor reports and hide anything that might cast the administration in an unfavorable light, it seems two scientists employed by the government would have a lot of credibility, especially with conservative-types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Run To State Posted June 22, 2006 Author Share Posted June 22, 2006 Did you listen to the link I posted? Given the way our government likes to censor reports and hide anything that might cast the administration in an unfavorable light, it seems two scientists employed by the government would have a lot of credibility, especially with conservative-types.I did indeed, and I do not agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Schue Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 I did indeed, and I do not agree. Then, I guess the question I would have would be why is the stuff in the articles you posted more believable than the two guys in the NPR story? Is NPR not a conservative-approved news source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fastbreak Posted June 22, 2006 Share Posted June 22, 2006 C'mon Jimmy, you know as well as anyone that NPR has its own unique slant on the news it disseminates... NPR may be "right" of Air America… but "right next to" them… :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts