So to be prepared, I need to get some sun block and guns. Will the end be more like Waterworld or Mad Max? I hope Mad max. Waterworld was a terrible movie.

 

And still is.

 

I agree wholeheartedly.

 

Yeah, I watched it the other night and it was as bad as ever. (So why did I watch? )

 

I agree.

I believe it is only logical to try to be "green" whenever reasonable, but not if the pain outweighs the gain. Some things are easy, like the new light bulbs, recycling aluminum and other items. Somethings are questionable, such as recycling paper. The energy consumed and pollution created may not result in an overall environmental benefit. It keeps the paper out of the landfills (for a while anyway), but in the big scheme, does it make sense? I know our county pays the recycling company to haul away the paper and cardboard and pays for it buy selling them the aluminum. I do not remember what the financial deal is with glass, but at least it can be recycled nearly forever.

 

I do find the save the planet bumper stickers kind of amusing.
there is very little we are going to do to destroy the planet.
basically it's a big rock in space and it's not going anywhere soon.

now if you want to maintain the surface condition as habitable for the specie homo sapein... well now why didn't you say that.

 

Recycling paper is an interesting question in the context of "green" (whatever that really means).

To the extent that paper is made from trees, then cutting them down, turning them into paper, and, somehow, archiving that paper, or recycling it endlessly, constitutes a form of carbon sequestration. This, of course, ignores completely all of the pollution and additional energy (and chemicals) required to turn the trees into paper in the first place and that needed for creating recycled paper. But keeping the paper from oxidizing (and thereby creating more CO2) while at the same time growing more and more trees has to be called "green." (I expect that when you factor the pollution, energy, and chemicals into the equations, though, the result changes.)

All that biofuels will ever be able to do is to create a zero carbon footprint -- what we really need to do is to create negative carbon footprints, in the sense that carbon is being taken out of the system and sequestered somehow. So recycling has this potential, once those other pesky factors are dealt with (if that's possible).

Meanwhile, get ready for summer. HPH

 

This probably belongs in the "Going Green" thread, but I was looking at a poster in Dean's bio lab last night that shows how long it takes for various items to derade in the ocean. I would assume most things would break down faster in salt water than on land, though I could be wrong about that. I wish I had written them all down, but it was amazingly slowly. The ones I remember -- monofilament fishing line was 600 years! aluminum can 200 yrs, tin can 50 yrs! Even newspaper was 6 weeks. When you look at it from that perspective, I don't see how anyone can not recycle in good conscience.

 

As I read, I realize that there are many very intelliegnt people throwing a lot of information around. I believe in recycling whole heartedly and I hate pollution in all of its forms but I really have to question the validity of whether man-made global climate change exists when many of the top scientists in the field are now starting to rebuke the notion. One of the first scientists that first put forth the notion that man could affect climate has pretty much refused to believe this is happening now. Has anyone seen any of the data that is now suggesting that the planet Mars has shown to be warming pretty much the same as Earth over the same given period of time. I also thought I had seen in another report (or it could have been the same one) that there is evidence of warming out in the far reaches of our solar system. The evidence there was attributed to higher energy emissions from the Sun. Can anyone rebuke this as I don't remember whose data it was. I believe that it might of been NASA but I can not state that as fact. Personally, I don't think the arguments I hear that the scientists that refute global warming are in collusion with big oil or the auto industry or whoever else could be conspiring on this issue. In reality, is there any difference in a scientist taking money from a government grant to substantiate a finding any different than one who is paid by a business? I see 2 groups who look to justify their existence and salaries by desimating information that will continue to fund their pockets and existences. Is there any truth to the fact that I shouldn't believe everything I read on the internet? I would love for someone to set me on the path of enlightenment as I don't know who to believe. One fact that we know is that the Earth goes through warming and cooling periods. The question is where do we fit in now? I don't really think there is anyone who can answer that as there is nowhere near enough data that we have that covers in detail the Earth's life and what changes occurred due to what. Any thoughts?

 

There are several of us in this group who are either climate scientists or who work with them. Feel free to look at past discussion topics here and in the "Vintage Politics" subform.