Jeremiah65 Posted August 14, 2012 #51 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Fracking concerns me for a lot of reasons. I wanted to share this. The imagery isn't necessarily about fracking, but it should choke you up nonetheless. [media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QRrRMp9FUx4&feature=player_embedded[/media] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted August 14, 2012 #52 Share Posted August 14, 2012 If you say it louder and with more indignity - it doesn't make it more true Br Cornelius Thank you, Dr. I said it plainly. Not indignantly. That's your quaint way of not answering my post, or the issues it raises. It's a bunch of crap science, politically motivated government control nonsense. It's as plain as day, to those of us who understand. Your not one of those folks. You demean a scientist who does understand, and accept the cow-poof ideas of a person who has no knowledge about it. If he was knowledgeable about science, he'd have never been published in "Scientific American". He fit the paradigm of the time. It's all pretty plain. No need to be indignant about it, or shoot your ad homs out. You simply can't stand when your high-and-mighty environmentalist left wing position, is challeneged. It's especially difficult when no matter how well you follow the line, I can't be swayed. By the way, one day, when you get the chance, how about quantifying some of that nonsense in the article? You know, that stuff you ignore, like: How much greenhouise gas does a 3000 pound car create when driving 10 miles? Oh yea, and how much greenhouse gas does it release producing a 1/4# hamburger? You'l need to prtove this nonsense...so, Forget it. :td: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 15, 2012 #53 Share Posted August 15, 2012 I showed you two studies showing the same result - the fact that you choose to ignore peer reviewed science shows you aren't interested in science. You have given me plenty of rhetoric but have done nothing to disprove the studies -i expected nothing less from yourself. The absolute emissions figures from beef production are sound. Show us how they are falwed. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted August 15, 2012 #54 Share Posted August 15, 2012 where some economics major in some Ivy League school claimed that Cow Farts contributed to global warming. ( It's the methane, stupid!) Bovine flatulence contributes to global warming, therefore: we had to stop raising cattle for meat, and McDonalds and burger joints were bad! I wondered, just prior to cancelling my subscription to this magazine, what the impact would be on those fantastic BBQ places in Texas I've eaten many a joyous meal of brisket and beans at. That silly issue traces back to an offhand comment in an EPA publication. The author thought he was being funny. BUT: I think it was the Sierra Club, in an effort at disrupting the process, filed suit against EPA because it wasn't addressing the issue. The judge stayed execution of the penalty if EPA would run some tests to determine whether cow flatulence was a problem. The tests were contracted out and the results showed that, no, it wasn't a significant problem. But, the issue wouldn't die. Somebody else repeated the tests and this one showed that there was a small effect. That led to another round of tests which again showed there wasn't anything to worry about. That, as far as I know, was the end of the story, except in the popular press and the minds of people like MID. As Br. Cornelius points out: the problem with raising beef is that cattle fattened in feed lots consume 22 pounds of grain for every pound of beef. That's a lot of grain that could be feeding people and reducing the impact on lands, soils and ecosystems. There is a catch, of course: many ranges are too rocky or steep to grow grain. Beef or goats is about all they can grow. So, even, if you outlaw feed lots, there will still be meat in the optimum solution to the food supply equation. Also, most feed lots are in countries like the USA and use locally-grown grain. To use that grain to feed people in far-away places requires a lot of expense and fuel to get it there. And that raises the environmental cost. There's no free lunch. Most people in the world have almost-enough to eat. It would take only small improvements in production technology and/or small changes in diets to make the difference. That would be a whole lot more ecofriendly than shipping large amounts of grain around the globe. And countries like the US would then have a surplus of grain to deal with and feed lots would be a potential solution. Besides: in the US, grain can only be sold if you have an allotment, basically, a card from the government that says you can sell so many bushels of a grain. You can grow any amount you want, but you can only sell so many bushels. So many farmers grow extra to make sure they meet their allotment, then feed the extra to animals which are not subject to an allotment system. Much of beef production is just a way around the allotment system. Another problem is the USDA's grading system which grades beef higher for good marbling (fat) in the muscle. Supposedly, this makes the meet taste better. But, I'll put a properly-fed grass steak up against any feedlot-fed steak and I'll bet you can't taste the difference. So meat grading rules are part of the problem, too. Doug 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted August 15, 2012 #55 Share Posted August 15, 2012 (edited) That silly issue traces back to an offhand comment in an EPA publication. The author thought he was being funny. BUT: I think it was the Sierra Club, in an effort at disrupting the process, filed suit against EPA because it wasn't addressing the issue. The judge stayed execution of the penalty if EPA would run some tests to determine whether cow flatulence was a problem. The tests were contracted out and the results showed that, no, it wasn't a significant problem.But, the issue wouldn't die. Somebody else repeated the tests and this one showed that there was a small effect. That led to another round of tests which again showed there wasn't anything to worry about. That, as far as I know, was the end of the story, except in the popular press and the minds of people like MID. You're right in that it was an insignificant issue, and it wasn't significant at all (how could it have been??). It was the end of the story. The only reason MID brings the idiocy up is because certain folks here insist it isn't insignificant. Quite the contrary, of course. It's nopnense now, just as it was at the inception of it. Edited August 15, 2012 by MID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MysticStrummer Posted August 16, 2012 #56 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Beef is an incredibly inefficient food source, but americans love their inefficiency with an epic passion. By the way, I thought this thread was about fracking. It seems obvious why we shouldn't be doing it, but what I said above about americans applies to a lot of obviously bad ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted August 16, 2012 #57 Share Posted August 16, 2012 If you say it louder and with more indignity - it doesn't make it more true Br Cornelius You haven't told him... ...have you? That would be a big help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted August 16, 2012 #58 Share Posted August 16, 2012 (edited) You haven't told him... ...have you? That would be a big help. Regardless of one's personal opinion of Al Gore, he does have a fairly good grounding in the sceince, even if he's a little out-of-date. Wish I could get a Nobel Prize for a PowerPoint. Doug Edited August 16, 2012 by Doug1029 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRIPTIC CHAMELEON Posted August 16, 2012 #59 Share Posted August 16, 2012 You got to be fracking kidding me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt Amerika Posted August 16, 2012 #60 Share Posted August 16, 2012 Chevy Volt $40,000 LED Lightbulb $50 each No Solar Power companies thriving ( except the Executives bank accounts at Solyndra - Thanks Barack!) Wind Power is important as long as you dont put the windmill in the water where it is seen by the people on the coasts - right Kennedy's? And dont let it affect the desert toads habitat, so no solar panels or windmills there..... right Pelosi? It would appear the governments of the world arent looking at this stuff as a big deal, so I'll give a rats **** when they do. Until then, its all a bunch of scare tactics to get sheep to buy overpriced junk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted August 17, 2012 #61 Share Posted August 17, 2012 When someone can prove to me that the water poisoned from fracking will NEVER mix other ground water... I still won't believe it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted August 17, 2012 #62 Share Posted August 17, 2012 (edited) Regardless of one's personal opinion of Al Gore, he does have a fairly good grounding in the sceince, even if he's a little out-of-date. Wish I could get a Nobel Prize for a PowerPoint. Doug Hey, the nobel committee may have reduced itself to a complete joke in recent years, but to say Al has a grounding in the science is false. What he has is an opportunistic grasp of the potential of the presentation of the position taken by IPCC. That doesn't exactly include science. Al also has a seasoned politician's grasp of the dramatic. He's used it often, but not all too recently, especially since for a while there everywhere he went to rant about what we're doing to the Polar Bears resulted in snow, or a heavy frost! Edited August 17, 2012 by MID Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 18, 2012 #63 Share Posted August 18, 2012 Chevy Volt $40,000 LED Lightbulb $50 each No Solar Power companies thriving ( except the Executives bank accounts at Solyndra - Thanks Barack!) Wind Power is important as long as you dont put the windmill in the water where it is seen by the people on the coasts - right Kennedy's? And dont let it affect the desert toads habitat, so no solar panels or windmills there..... right Pelosi? It would appear the governments of the world arent looking at this stuff as a big deal, so I'll give a rats **** when they do. Until then, its all a bunch of scare tactics to get sheep to buy overpriced junk. The Chevy volt is a first generation electric car. There are already cheaper options available. My last LED light bulb cost €10.00 or about €12.00 Wind is currently cost competitive with gas (one of the cheapest fuels) in many places. Solar prices are dropping year on year and it is currently the most cost effective means of rural electrification in both Africa and India. The future without oil/gas is a lot brighter than the right wing oil industry would have us believe. I wonder why they would choose to paint the competition in such a bad light ?? Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted August 22, 2012 #64 Share Posted August 22, 2012 The Chevy volt is a first generation electric car. There are already cheaper options available. My last LED light bulb cost €10.00 or about €12.00 Hmmm. Not bad. They average $13.00+ around my area for 75W. I wouldn't be inclined to spend rthat, when I have incandescent one that cost me $1.25 each. Let's just restate that: LED bulbs are 10 times as expensive as Incandescents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2012 #65 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Hmmm. Not bad. They average $13.00+ around my area for 75W. I wouldn't be inclined to spend rthat, when I have incandescent one that cost me $1.25 each. Let's just restate that: LED bulbs are 10 times as expensive as Incandescents. Over their lifetime an LED bulb will save you many times its initial purchase price in electricity - guaranteed. I think your incandedscent represents very poor value for money. Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug1029 Posted August 23, 2012 #66 Share Posted August 23, 2012 (edited) Hey, the nobel committee may have reduced itself to a complete joke in recent years, but to say Al has a grounding in the science is false. Well, I haven't caught him in many mistakes. For a layman, he's pretty good. What he has is an opportunistic grasp of the potential of the presentation of the position taken by IPCC. That doesn't exactly include science. My big objection to IPCC is that they let politicians run their boards. Some of those politicians are also scientists, but some aren't. And the ones who aren't often have an inordinate say. Mostly, the politicians try to water down what the scientists are saying - don't want to inconvenience anybody's profit margin. But there is also some activity in the other direction, too. Best to read the research yourself and make up your own mind. You might try that - the reading part, that is. Al also has a seasoned politician's grasp of the dramatic. That he does. He's used it often, but not all too recently, especially since for a while there everywhere he went to rant about what we're doing to the Polar Bears resulted in snow, or a heavy frost! I don't think warming will exterminate Polar Bears. They survived the Altithermal with an open Arctic Ocean; odds are, they'll survive this, too. But the population will contract and extinction is a real risk. And that snow and/or frost: warmer seas = melting Arctic ice = more evaporation from the sea surface = more precip (including snow) over land. The idea that the world will warm evenly all over is a naive one, at best. Some places have warmed a lot, some have warmed a little and some have even gotten colder. The really interesting stuff is in building models that account for the differences with region. Doug Edited August 23, 2012 by Doug1029 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle Posted August 23, 2012 #67 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I'm enjoying the coolest summer I can remember. We had two weeks of 100 degree weather, which is about normal, and the rest has been high in the 80's and lows into the 60's and low 70's. Our windows have been open the majority of the summer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted August 23, 2012 #68 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I'm enjoying the coolest summer I can remember. We had two weeks of 100 degree weather, which is about normal, and the rest has been high in the 80's and lows into the 60's and low 70's. Our windows have been open the majority of the summer. It's just Summer, Michelle, and as has always happened, the climatic cycles make it different, nearly every year! Some are hot as hell, others have hot spells. It's been temperate for a while along the eastern seaboard. We had some hot weeks, sure, but absolutely nothing unusual at all. Winter often experiences cycles like that too...such as the non-winter of 2011-2012. But remember, an October snow storm, that somehow saw hundreds of thousands of people out of power for a day or two? It's all just normal cyclical weather variances. They make up the weather, the general climate. None of the supposedly aberrant weather (October Snow...100 degree week, lack of rain for weeks, then tornadoes forming) is at all indicative of global warming, or cooling! You know what? The amazing importance ofGlobal Warming, and Global Cooling are as always, and have always been--- media-driven, and thus, man-made. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 23, 2012 #69 Share Posted August 23, 2012 It's just Summer, Michelle, and as has always happened, the climatic cycles make it different, nearly every year! Some are hot as hell, others have hot spells. It's been temperate for a while along the eastern seaboard. We had some hot weeks, sure, but absolutely nothing unusual at all. Winter often experiences cycles like that too...such as the non-winter of 2011-2012. But remember, an October snow storm, that somehow saw hundreds of thousands of people out of power for a day or two? It's all just normal cyclical weather variances. They make up the weather, the general climate. None of the supposedly aberrant weather (October Snow...100 degree week, lack of rain for weeks, then tornadoes forming) is at all indicative of global warming, or cooling! You know what? The amazing importance ofGlobal Warming, and Global Cooling are as always, and have always been--- media-driven, and thus, man-made. Keep on repeating that magick mantra and one day it might come true Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted August 23, 2012 #70 Share Posted August 23, 2012 Keep on repeating that magick mantra and one day it might come true Br Cornelius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lightly Posted August 26, 2012 #71 Share Posted August 26, 2012 Fracking was talked about at the local township meeting recently. One elderly couple had to leave their land, in Texas, because their water was ruined by fracking. Another problem discussed was that fracking takes such huge quantities of water it can sometimes lower the local ground water level. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashotep Posted August 26, 2012 Author #72 Share Posted August 26, 2012 We don't need fracking using, or poisoning, any more precious water that is needed for human consumption and irrigation. Irrigation and human consumption is lowering the aquifers fast enough but we need to do that in order to eat. Just think what the food supply would look like this year without irrigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoIverine Posted August 26, 2012 #73 Share Posted August 26, 2012 *barely resists urge to make "fracking" jokes* must...not...give...in... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MID Posted August 29, 2012 #74 Share Posted August 29, 2012 Keep on repeating that magick mantra and one day it might come true Br Cornelius And, of course, driven here by Br. Cornelius! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dangit12 Posted August 30, 2012 #75 Share Posted August 30, 2012 well i think the main point here is frakings bad case closed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now