H20cooled Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 I thought beach naturally evaporated and didn't cause any problems. Maybe I'm wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly guy Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 This entire argument is silly. Everybody knows the earth is really only 6000 years old and dinosaurs never existed. (rock2) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H20cooled Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Done, I edited the post Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldbrownies Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 I would like to know more about how chlorine is bound up naturally. I was under the impression that chlorine was difficult clean up. Arent salts kind of bad too? Salinization doesnt seem like a good thing. Chlorine gas is hard to clean up, because highly reactive just like ozone and when it come in contact with organic materials it disolves them by bonding to them and makes other molecules, thats why it is bad for a fishes gills, and thats why it doesn't harm anything after sewage treatment, because in the sewer its surrounded by plenty of organic materials. Dechlorinators we might have used in tanks before RO did the same thing too, they just bind the chlorine into other molecules, often NaCl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronjunior Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 Hey CCR, now go edit your post because your quote has the f word too. (enforcer) What is all that hundreds of thousands of gallons of road deicer that's being used these days made of? Much of that will end up in our creeks, streams, rivers and eventually the ocean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piero Posted January 27, 2007 Author Share Posted January 27, 2007 whoops, thanks H2, i really completely missed that one, I thought was referring to the other one, that's why i was confused. %#$@!#%! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H20cooled Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 I never noticed it either. But its all good now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DChemist Posted January 27, 2007 Share Posted January 27, 2007 What is all that hundreds of thousands of gallons of road deicer that's being used these days made of? Much of that will end up in our creeks' date=' streams, rivers and eventually the ocean.[/quote'] Road deicers are generally made of chloride salts; mostly calcium chloride but also sodium, magnesium and potassium chloride (also all found in your aquarium (scary) )... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 My thoughts on global warming have changed since reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear". I know the book is a work of fiction, but he did 3 years of research on global warming before writing the book and has a 20 page bibliography on the texts that he used to write it. He has some interesting comments at the end. He wrote: "We desperately need a nonpartisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware of whom they are working for. Those who fund research - whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization - always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering the results that the funders desire. As a result, environmental organization "studies" are every bit as biased and suspect as industry "studies." Government "studies" are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. No faction should be given a free pass." Until there is a double blind study on global warming that is completely nonpartisan, I would question the results. Someone always has an agenda. I'm not saying that there isn't a problem, and I am not saying that we are not the cause of said problem, but I am saying that we need better proof. Jay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H20cooled Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Yep, thats what I've been trying to say all along (but you did a LOT better job then I have). The problem is we will probably never see anyone do the study, just to many people, agencies, and etc. that have agenda's to allow that to happen, the no global warming folks only want that out and the pro global warm folks only want that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drock59 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 "We desperately need a nonpartisan, blinded funding mechanism to conduct research to determine appropriate policy. Scientists are only too aware of whom they are working for. Those who fund research - whether a drug company, a government agency, or an environmental organization - always have a particular outcome in mind. Research funding is almost never open-ended or open-minded. Scientists know that continued funding depends on delivering the results that the funders desire. As a result, environmental organization "studies" are every bit as biased and suspect as industry "studies." Government "studies" are similarly biased according to who is running the department or administration at the time. No faction should be given a free pass." um duh, right? Whoever gives the money for the study expects the correct results. Until there is a double blind study on global warming that is completely nonpartisan, I would question the results. Its going to get a little warming before this happens. An old saying..... snowballs chance in hades comes to mind. I am saying that we need better proof. What more proof do you need than more consensus from the scientific community than on any other topic in history. Even if all scientist had an agenda, it certainly cant be the same one. They all cannot get their funding from Greenpeace or Al Gore. They all cant be tree-hugging hippies. They all cant be Captain Conservative. This is the part I cant understand...How much more consensus does one need? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H20cooled Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 This is the part I cant understand...How much more consensus does one need? But this is the point that I've been trying to get out all along, you assume that all of the studies you have read are completely unbiased and that all of the scientists were honest. Do you know that for sure? I know there are a lot of studies that say, we are causing this, its fossil fuel, factories etc... But there have also been studies done that so the opposite of that (I posted a link in our last discussion on this), that person was a very well respected and qualified individual. I found some links for you to read: http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/moregw.htm This is all kind of a pointless argument until someone actually takes the time to an unbiased and honest study and until that point I will remain a skeptic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drock59 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 This is all kind of a pointless argument until someone actually takes the time to an unbiased and honest study and until that point I will remain a skeptic. Its great to be a skeptic, but there comes a point when you have to accept some truths. Also, i dont assume that ANY study is unbiased, nor that our understanding of Global Warming will absolutely change over time. Given the overwhelming scientific study on the subject at present, it is quite clear what is happening. I assume that all studies are biased. Thanks for the light reading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H20cooled Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 By your reasoning though I should just accept that something is truth even if the studies and/or research is biased. I don't care how many scientific study are done if all of it is biased or flawed, just cause there are a millions studies pointing to one conclusion if they are all biased does not make them true. And really that is the problem with the whole Global Warming theory and until there is a real un-biased study done we will never not he truth. Now you can go around believing what your want just like I can but it doesn't make either of us right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piero Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 ..that's why peer review and intense scrutiny by peers(even those who disagree) is a very crucial part of science. It minimizes that 'subjectivity' phenomenon, which is inherent in anything humans do... We could take the next couple 100 years to examine the climate more closely with better technology to gather more evidence, but then the actual scenarios we are trying to predict will have already played out. "The really chilling thing about the IPCC report is that it is the work of several thousand climate experts who have widely differing views about how greenhouse gases will have their effect. Some think they will have a major impact, others a lesser role. Each paragraph of this report was therefore argued over and scrutinised intensely. Only points that were considered indisputable survived this process. This is a very conservative document - that's what makes it so scary,' said one senior UK climate expert." and... frankly there are plenty of more obvious reasons to stop using fossil fuels beyond the debate about the details of climate change. The smart and safe thing for humanity to do is clean its act up regardless, imo. Also, look at the dates and consider the sources when reading articles on any subject. Does the source have qualifications? Is the source scrutinized by the worldwide scientific community? Is there a consensus by others in the science presented? Has it been approved by a body of science or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drock59 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Well said Piero...precisely the point i am trying to reach. If we wait long enough for an actual unbiased study(unattainable in my view) it will be too late. We will already have seen, or not, the ramifications. something is truth even if the studies and/or research is biased Precisely my point. Almost all research has biased. Bias is the enemy of any legitimate scientist but on the same token, incredibly hard to eliminate. Your view on looking for an unbiased study seems flawed when it is so challenging to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H20cooled Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I give up, as I said before this argument is a waste of time. Because you believe your side is right you feel things like "If we wait long enough for an actual unbiased study(unattainable in my view) it will be too late." the problem with that is without an real proof you could be completely FALSE. I'm not arguing whether or not we should develop an alternative for fossil fuel. What I really hate is the scare tactics that are being used to make people believe something that has not been proven to be true or false; its just a theory at this point. But when you present it as absolute truths and make crazy movies trying to scare everyone to believe the way you do it does NO one any good and in the end you have done more harm then good. Thats it, I have nothing else to say on this subject.... Thank you everyone for the fun discussion... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drock59 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Ok ok, you are right this is a waste of time. But one last comment. the problem with that is without an real proof you could be completely FALSE. True...very true but isnt it worth the price to try and do something about it now and take action, rather than wait and see? Seems like a logical maneuver to me? I could be completely false or completely and utterly correct. If I am correct and we wait 50 years to solve the issue then what? If we have pretty solid evidence that someone is going to blow up a building, but we are not positive, do we wait or do we do something about it? Im with you on the fact that Global Warming may not be caused by us, but on the same token, I do not feel like we can afford to wait to take action any longer....just in case. That is my bottom line. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piero Posted January 28, 2007 Author Share Posted January 28, 2007 I guess I'm just comfortable leaving the heavy research and data analysis up to the worldwide body of climate scientists who are actually interested enough in the subject to make it their life's work. I'm more concerned with trying to figure out if my auto mechanic is pullin' my leg, so I can spare a bit of faith in the scientific community since they have a better track record than the mechanic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H20cooled Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 I have one question for you. Do you think it's ok to lie or deceive people if it gets something accomplished that you believe needs changed? Cause until there it definitive proof that Global Warming is real and that we are causing it, that is basically whats being done with the scare tactics and movies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drock59 Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 Says you! Ill go with Piero and the rest of the scientific community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H20cooled Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 What do you mean says me. I asked a simple question, what you can't answer it? You can only give a smart a$$ response. Never mind then I think people get the point that I'm making, but you can go on trying to deceive everyone into believe a bunch of hype and biased studies and maybe you will get them to freak out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Piero Posted January 29, 2007 Author Share Posted January 29, 2007 nope, i don't think it's ok to lie or deceive people in order to get them to save energy or use less fossile fuels, or dress up their pets, or wear balloon hats. If I were to put my money on which side of the debate had a larger vested interest in deception though, I'd be betting on the oil industry's vested interest in survival and profit. Historically, I'd also assume the oil industry(and corporate america in general) has more experience with deception than the scientific community does. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H20cooled Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 If I were to put my money on which side of the debate had a larger vested interest in deception though' date=' I'd be betting on the oil industry's vested interest in survival and profit. Historically, I'd also assume the oil industry(and corporate america in general) has more experience with deception than the scientific community does.[/quote'] I completely agree with you on that, and I think that the oil companies are most likely the reason that we do not have a car that uses something else beside fossil fuels. They have HUGE pocket books and can afford to pay off politicians. I also don't think that its the scientific community that is trying to deceive people, I would but my money on the Environmental groups that also have huge pocket books. So, I guess we are all stuck between to groups with opposing agendas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drock59 Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Cause until there it definitive proof that Global Warming is real and that we are causing it, that is basically whats being done with the scare tactics and movies. Says you. Meaning, that is how you feel not how I feel. Im not trying to freak people out at all. Im looking at the fact provided by people who do this for a living. Its seems a bit naive to disregard the information provided by people who study this day in and day out. Seems....silly and childish not to take action. Do you think it's ok to lie or deceive people if it gets something accomplished that you believe needs changed? No. You can stand up and opine all you like but that is what it is...an opinion. Again, Ill stick with the facts as we know them now rather than wait it out and see what happens. FYI you didnt answer my question either. If we have pretty solid evidence that someone is going to blow up a building, but we are not positive, do we wait or do we do something about it? Last point, agreed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.