# Are we skiers helping global climate change?



## swampwiz (Dec 13, 2012)

Reading through the comments of an article I referenced previously in another thread, I noticed this one:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/us/climate-change-threatens-ski-industrys-livelihood.html



> Tinah
> idaho
> Downhill  skiing has got to be one of the most unsustainable sports that exists,  and snowmaking to make up for lack of snow is one of its sickest  aspects. How many fossil fuels are burned to make snow for our  entertainment? How much does that add to the C02 problem, which warms  things up just a little more?
> 
> ...



What do you think?  It definitely would seem ironic that skiers would be helping to bring about the climate change that would destroy skiing!

But thinking about it, how much energy is expended in making snow?  A pump and a few fans?  That's not all that much.  Heck, there is probably a lot more energy being expended in running the lifts and the customers' cars.


----------



## Blizzard of Wahhs (Dec 13, 2012)

all the more reason to abandon the detachable quads and sixpacks. Sinners.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Dec 13, 2012)

It's an interesting question: Does the environmental impact of skiing outweigh the environmental awareness it promotes?

Many people use $40-$100 worth of gas just to go skiing.

I think ski resorts, on their own, generally have minimal environmental impact. Ski areas should be building wind turbines, or using alternative forms of energy like Killington is doing as much as possible to reduce this impact.

Overall, skiing is something that gets people out in nature and exposes them first hand to the impact of climate change and other environmental issues.

As long as their are still NASCAR races I'm not going to feel the slightest bit guilty for enjoying my sport and way of life.


----------



## oakapple (Dec 13, 2012)

bdfreetuna said:


> As long as their are still NASCAR races I'm not going to feel the slightest bit guilty for enjoying my sport and way of life.



Exactly: As long as we have NASCAR, I'll have a tough time believing that skiing is "one of the most unsustainable sports that exists."


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 13, 2012)

Again?   Do we really need 1000 global warming threads on a skiing board?  Okay, maybe not 1000, but I believe this is now the 4th in about a week.   

And now one that claims that downhill skiing is bad for the environment and creating Global Warming?


----------



## dmc (Dec 13, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Again?   Do we really need 1000 global warming threads on a skiing board?  Okay, maybe not 1000, but I believe this is now the 4th in about a week.



Why don't you complain to Paris Hilton?

This is an important issue to many of us...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 13, 2012)

dmc said:


> *This is an important issue to many of us.*..




Look, if you believe in man-made global warming, *if you REALLY *understand the science,* and if you REALLY* believe in it, then nearly *EVERYTHING we do is "bad for the environment".  *

Creating a super-resistant virus and killing every man, woman, and child  on the planet is the "best" thing we can do to "save" earth if you  believe in this stuff.  The horse is out of the barn if you believe in  this stuff, and regulating Belgium or Luxembourg or Swaziland is a JOKE,  because the bulk of the "problem" is with the developing world, who  wont do ANYTHING about this.  

So relax, fire up that SUV, pet your dog (who is killing the planet MORE  than your SUV if you REALLY believe this stuff and understand the  science), and enjoy your ski vacation.


----------



## dmc (Dec 13, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Look, if you believe in man-made global warming, *if you REALLY *understand the science,* and if you REALLY* believe in it, then nearly *EVERYTHING we do is "bad for the environment".  *




All i said is it was important to many of us...  

You need to chill out a bit..   When you become a moderator here you can control what happens - until then maybe you should just avoid these threads rather than starting with your comments to belittle us and make assumptions about what kind of car we drive...


----------



## skiNEwhere (Dec 13, 2012)

I find it funny and ironic that it practically takes an act of congress to cut a new tail, let's not even mention build a new ski area, yet thousands of trees are cut down in the amazon every day.

If we don't get our wood from the forest for a few ski trails, we'll just get them somewhere else, so are these environmentalists really winning by blocking a ski resort being built?


----------



## dmc (Dec 13, 2012)

skiNEwhere said:


> I find it funny and ironic that it practically takes an act of congress to cut a new tail, let's not even mention build a new ski area, yet thousands of trees are cut down in the amazon every day.
> 
> If we don't get our wood from the forest for a few ski trails, we'll just get them somewhere else, so are these environmentalists really winning by blocking a ski resort being built?



again... not the same thing...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 13, 2012)

skiNEwhere said:


> *I find it funny and ironic that it practically takes an act of congress to cut a new tail*, let's not even mention build a new ski area, *yet thousands of trees are cut down in the amazon every day.*



I find it funny and ironic that eating chicken or steak is far worse for the environment than the impact of driving a car (if you REALLY believe this stuff), but yet there is no government movement to force people to eat vegetarian, while there are numerous regulations on cars.

Just goes to show ya, you cant make money taxing a herbivorous state of life.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 13, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> I find it funny and ironic that eating chicken or steak is far worse for the environment than the impact of driving a car (if you REALLY believe this stuff), but yet there is no government movement to force people to eat vegetarian, while there are numerous regulations on cars.



This is a good point and it's nice to see you finally taking an environmental stance.  Get that anti factory-farmed chicken and steak movement going and I'll be happy to sign your petition.


----------



## Rambo (Dec 13, 2012)

Cannonball said:


> This is a good point and it's nice to see you finally taking an environmental stance.  Get that anti factory-farmed chicken and steak movement going and I'll be happy to sign your petition.



Best be careful about saying anything about the mega factory farm/food operations. They sue individuals under "Food Libel" - they do not want people to know how our food like chickens is produced...

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...soHoBg&usg=AFQjCNGfIfLK9ddbif5_epx_e2YPOMnPKA

*Food libel laws*, also known as *food disparagement laws* and informally as*veggie libel laws*, are laws passed in 13 U.S. states that make it easier for food producers to sue their critics for libel. These 13 states include Alabama, Arizona,Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, Ohio,Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Texas.[SUP][1][/SUP] Many of the food-disparagement laws establish a lower standard for civil liability and allow for punitive damages and attorney's fees for plaintiffs alone, regardless of the case's outcome.[SUP][2][/SUP]
These laws vary significantly from state to state, but food libel laws typically allow a food manufacturer or processor to sue a person or group who makes disparaging comments about their food products. In some states these laws also establish different standards of proof than are used in traditional American libel lawsuits, including the practice of placing the burden of proof on the party being sued.


----------



## abc (Dec 13, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> regulating Belgium or Luxembourg or Swaziland is a JOKE,  because the bulk of the "problem" is with the developing world, who  wont do ANYTHING about this.


Right, it's always somebody else doing the harm!

Per capital, the US has one of the highest (actually THE highest) energy consumption. On average, each person in the US uses many times more than one Chinese or one Indian! 

Now, there're many more Chinese and Indian than Americans. But guess what, they're copying how Americans are living! So what we use per person, will be multiply by billion times. 

Enjoy your SUV and artificial snow. They're doing the same in Beijing, only many times more of of the same!!!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 13, 2012)

Cannonball said:


> This is a good point and it's nice to see you finally taking an environmental stance. * Get that anti factory-farmed chicken and steak movement going and I'll be happy to sign your petition*.



Wouldn't make any difference in the long-run.  

It would be like trying to change the salinity of the ocean by pissing in it.  The human act of meat consumption itself is the problem, IF, that is, you believe in man-made Global Warming (which I dont).

My point is, it should make people wonder why all the government and political focus is on taxing "big business" and regulating "SUVs" and "car manufacturers", when not eating vegetarian is a FAR bigger problem. 

 Or, alternatively, why owning a pet dog is worse than owning an SUV (which almost nobody knows, because it's not publicized, because that too would harm the "religion").

*The reason they dont go after this more substantial problem is twofold:*

1) You cant get millions of dollars in tax by telling people not to eat meat
2) If politicians told people eating chicken cordon bleu and hamburgers was "evil" they'd lose election

The same two reasons apply to the pet ownership thing too.


----------



## dmc (Dec 13, 2012)

3). Rich people don't want to admit global warming exists or they'll lose billions.  See Koch brothers.


----------



## BeefyBoy50 (Dec 13, 2012)

Compare skiing as a sport to others such as the NFL/ NBA/ MLB. In each of these sports, hundreds of thousands of people drive many miles each week to lots of different games all across the country- many times the amount of people who ski. They sit on the interstate spewing CO2 and other emissions into the atmosphere and consuming fuel at a crazy rate. Sure skiing is certainly not good on climate change or efficient by any means of the word, but we have to keep scale in mind here. Atleast skiing promotes climate awareness- people who ski or snowboard know that the climate affects the sport they love, and therefore they have to protect the environment for their own sport. Normal sports fans probably think nothing of the thousands if not millions of gallons of gas guzzled for every one of their games.


----------



## Blizzard of Wahhs (Dec 13, 2012)

Answer: Yes, skiers are helping global climate change by enhancing CO2 emissions and participating indirectly in deforestation. These inputs increase the rate and/or overall amount of GHGs emitted while reducing the net CO2 eaters on planet earff.

/thread


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Dec 13, 2012)

I recommend options below if skiing and the environmental impact of the industry is causing a moral dilemma for anyone. You will feel better about yourself mentally and physically. Each turn will mean more and you will ultimately become more in tune with the nature you want to protect.

http://www.blackdiamondequipment.com/en-us/shop/ski/skins/

http://www.climbingskinsdirect.com/


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 13, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Wouldn't make any difference in the long-run.
> 
> It would be like trying to change the salinity of the ocean by pissing in it.  The human act of meat consumption itself i
> 
> ...


----------



## riverc0il (Dec 13, 2012)

Enough trolling each other, more intellectual discourse. Please!

I suspect skiers do vastly more harm driving and flying to ski areas than the ski areas themselves do making and grooming snow. And then factor in creating all the gear, shipping that gear, replacing that gear, building and fueling and heating and stocking resort homes and lodging, etc. In the grand scheme of things, energy for snow making is a drop in the bucket compared to even just the jet fuel for destination tripping, let alone driving to the resorts in the local market.

The problem with this argument is the slippery slope. Who is arbitrarily going to decide what is sustainable and what is not? Sitting at home, typing this message on my laptop with a second monitor, two lights going, and a heat source going is using energy. Anything else I do beyond that is using exponentially more. Even for those that walk or bike to work, their work is using energy. Where do we draw the line?

How about watching sports? How much energy goes into a major sporting event? Travel for everyone involved, all the news/media equipment, building stadiums, everyone driving to the stadium. Isn't that a waste?

How many miles do flatlander metro hikers drive every year to hike mountains? You would think that hiking isn't bad for the environment but many people burn 1/2 to a full tank of gas to get from the city to the mountains every weekend for their own personal enjoyment of the outdoors. Should we shame hikers that they are destroying the outdoors they love by driving to them?

No. We need to get past this type of thinking. If individuals personally feel that making sacrifices is important, then cool. Nature will inflict its own penalties and we will adapt. We already are seeing financial penalties: if you don't use fuel efficiently, you pay more. As we burn more fuel, that financial pain will continue to get worse. If a changing climate affects snowfall totals, then we'll have to accept that painful change. The world will keep spinning, those of us that care will do what we think is appropriate. But ultimately environmental changes that cause financial pain will be the only thing that ultimately will and should effect decisions on how we go about our lives, do the things we enjoy, and recreate. Otherwise, it is a slippery slope towards lighting candles to read, not driving, and tanking the economy into ruin.

And all that doesn't mean I don't think humans have made their own bed and should make reasonable decisions about improving things. It is just the way it is. I'm going to keep on skiing, I'm going to keep on contributing to the problem, and I'm not going to feel guilty about that. And I suspect everyone reading this board is in the same boat.


----------



## BeefyBoy50 (Dec 13, 2012)

You make a really great point here. I want to add that even if we did try to be more efficient by doing things like driving hybrids, there are certain factors that aren't taken into account in each of these things that still do hurt the environment. How much does that Prius' batteries hurt the environment? How much petroleum is used to put up that "green" windmill? We will only respond to change when it really hits us hard- I know its hard to say it, but skiing will probably be just one of the casualties of this way of life.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 13, 2012)

BeefyBoy50 said:


> You make a really great point here. I want to add that even if we did try to be more efficient by doing things like driving hybrids, there are certain factors that aren't taken into account in each of these things that still do hurt the environment. How much does that Prius' batteries hurt the environment? How much petroleum is used to put up that "green" windmill? We will only respond to change when it really hits us hard- I know its hard to say it, but skiing will probably be just one of the casualties of this way of life.



It's not only the batteries in hybrids, how much CO2 is emitted during steel and plastic production to produce any vehicle? How much CO2 is put into the atmosphere shipping skis made in China to the US?, or shipping food halfway around the world? This onion is steep and deep. The energy consumed to bring you one can of soda or beer is beyond the pale ( no pun indented ), compared to cost of the item in the can. 

Look, with 7 billion peeps on this planet, and 10 billion in a few years, then 15B, etc..  the problem is outta control. We are riding on a run away train no one is going to stop. There is no going back at this point. We all need to eat, keep warm, and out of the weather. It's a fantasy to think we can all just stop and go live off the land like our forefathers did; 7 Billion people living off the land would put a serous hurt on this little green and blue orb. We are a product of the modern world our grandparents, parents, and ourselves envisioned. We have no choice but to go forward on this path and except that technology will solve some of these problems, if it's not too late. But, unless the entire world comes together and reduces population growth, stops waring, and focus on the global health of the planet, global warming will be the least of our worries.  Until then, I'm skiing.


----------



## witch hobble (Dec 14, 2012)

Yeah.  Schralping while Rome burns!!!


----------



## SIKSKIER (Dec 14, 2012)

What a bunch of crap.You hypocrites  sitting there typing this crap on your very toxin producing computer with your cars sitting in the driveway.Reminds me of Al Gore telling us to shut off our 4 light bulbs in our little houses while he spews out endless energy in his 20,000 sq ft mansion after just getting off his chartered 727 jet.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 14, 2012)

SIKSKIER said:


> What a bunch of crap.You hypocrites  sitting there typing this crap on your very toxin producing computer with your cars sitting in the driveway.Reminds me of Al Gore telling us to shut off our 4 light bulbs in our little houses while he spews out endless energy in his 20,000 sq ft mansion after just getting off his private 727 jet.



One thing being wrong does not automatically make another thing right.  Is Al Gore a hypocrite in that example?  Yes.  Does that mean it's a bad thing to turn off a light bulb you aren't using?  No.  Does NASCAR waste more fuel than skiing? Probably.  Does that mean the impact of skiing doesn't need to be considered?  No.  The top cause of death for men over 40 is heart disease.  Does that mean I shouldn't bother wearing a seat belt?  No.

As Riverc0il said, we are likely to continue doing what we enjoy, feeling some guilt for the impact we have, contributing to solutions when and where we can, and yes being hypocritical at times. Just because we can't personally solve it all doesn't mean we should take no action at all.


----------



## dmc (Dec 14, 2012)

Al Gore does not own a private jet...  He's rented them on occasion..
Yet another manufactured story by the Neocons..


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 14, 2012)

dmc said:


> Al Gore does not own a private jet...  He's rented them on occasion..
> Yet another manufactured story by the Neocons..



How do you make it stop???????


----------



## dmc (Dec 14, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> How do you make it stop???????



Correct all the lies when you can...


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 14, 2012)

dmc said:


> Correct all the lies when you can...



I meant you.


----------



## dmc (Dec 14, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> I meant you.



So I'm just supposed to let people perpetuate lies?


----------



## kartski (Dec 14, 2012)

dmc said:


> So I'm just supposed to let people perpetuate lies?



Can't stop them either. That's why the 3% of Scientist's, who claim to doubt "Climate Change", get 50% of the Air time on TV. Hell, 52% of Republican's think ACORN stole the election, an organization that no longer exists.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 14, 2012)

dmc said:


> So I'm just supposed to let people perpetuate lies?



I could be wrong but I believe the intention of the OP was not throw blame around but to find ways that the ski industry can help improve the impact we make on the environment. I bite my lip on a daily basis when I hear things I don't agree with. It's just part of being an adult. Sometimes you have to pick your battles. What does "winning" an argument on a skiing message board really accomplish?


----------



## dmc (Dec 14, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> I could be wrong but I believe the intention of the OP was not throw blame around but to find ways that the ski industry can help improve the impact we make on the environment. I bite my lip on a daily basis when I hear things I don't agree with. It's just part of being an adult. Sometimes you have to pick your battles. What does "winning" an argument on a skiing message board really accomplish?



I agree and I didn't start in with Al Gore.

But...
Adults can also correct lies as well as picking battles.
I'm not trying to win this debate.   But I can't stand by and see lies go uncorrected..

Sorry...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 14, 2012)

BeefyBoy50 said:


> I want to add that *even if we did try to be more efficient by doing things like driving hybrids, there are certain factors that aren't taken into account in each of these things that still do hurt the environment.* How much does that Prius' batteries hurt the environment?



That research has been done.  There have been credible studies suggesting the Prius and other hybrids, are nearly as bad as regular cars after you factor everything in.  Doesn't matter.   Tons of people drive those things to be SEEN in them. _ Look at me, look at me!!!!   See me?  See me?  Look how responsible and environmentally friendly I am! _ It's insipid.  And the US government was giving massive tax credits that pile onto the national debt to "encourage" everyone to buy one, as ridiculous as it is.  Just another example of religious observance despite the facts.





dmc said:


> Al Gore does not own a private jet...  He's rented them on occasion..
> Yet another manufactured story by the Neocons..



_Where did anyone in this thread say he "owns" a private jet?   _
A) Nobody did

_How would CO2 emissions from trips in a private trip differ if the jet was "owned" or "rented"?_
A) They wouldn't



kartski said:


> Can't stop them either.* That's why the 3% of  Scientist's, who claim to doubt "Climate Change", get 50% of the Air  time on TV.* Hell, 52% of Republican's think ACORN stole the election, an  organization that no longer exists.



This is a perfect example illustrating one of my previous posts in this thread.

92% of people who authoritatively talk about man-made global warming do not have a science background
98% of people who authoritatively talk about man-made global warming have never read a single IPCC report

Both of those statistics are completely made up and manufactured out of thin air with no evidence to back them up, though I'd suspect they're closer to the truth than the two in kartski's post.


----------



## dmc (Dec 14, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> _Where did anyone in this thread say he "owns" a private jet?   _
> A) Nobody did



..


SIKSKIER said:


> after just getting off *his* private 727 jet.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 14, 2012)

dmc said:


> ..



Exactly.  As I said, nobody said Al Gore owned the jet.

I got off *my* plane the other day too, but United Airlines owns the jet.  

That's not an example of SIKSKIER telling a "neo-con lie" as you stated, what it is is an example of you either reading something that you want to believe, or intentionally trying to stir the pot.


----------



## dmc (Dec 14, 2012)

((( yawn )))

You starting to bore me with all this political stuff tossed around on a Ski Board that doesn't even allow political discussions.....


----------



## speden (Dec 14, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> That research has been done.  There have been credible studies suggesting the Prius and other hybrids, are nearly as bad as regular cars after you factor everything in.  Doesn't matter.   Tons of people drive those things to be SEEN in them. _ Look at me, look at me!!!!   See me?  See me?  Look how responsible and environmentally friendly I am! _ It's insipid.  And the US government was giving massive tax credits that pile onto the national debt to "encourage" everyone to buy one, as ridiculous as it is.  Just another example of religious observance despite the facts.



I drive a hybrid, but certainly not as a fashion statement.  Not many people think hybrids are the ultimate solution to excess CO2 in the atmosphere, but you have to start somewhere.  Burning oil pumped out of the ground is a dead end approach to transportation.  There's a huge amount of research going on in battery technology now because of the move towards hybrids and full electric cars.  In ten or twenty years the batteries are going to be much better, and renewable sources of electricity to charge them will be more available.  Meanwhile gasoline will be harder to get and more expensive.  Maybe I'm misreading you Gomez, but you always seem to be arguing that we should all do nothing and ignore the problem instead of working towards solutions.


----------



## abc (Dec 14, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> That research has been done.  There have been credible studies suggesting the Prius and other hybrids, are nearly as bad as regular cars after you factor everything in.


Enlighten us with what "everything" that hasn't been "factored in"?


----------



## SIKSKIER (Dec 14, 2012)

SIKSKIER said:


> What a bunch of crap.You hypocrites  sitting there typing this crap on your very toxin producing computer with your cars sitting in the driveway.Reminds me of Al Gore telling us to shut off our 4 light bulbs in our little houses while he spews out endless energy in his 20,000 sq ft mansion after just getting off his chartered 727 jet.


Ok now nitpickers,I fixed it for you.The point was that people wag their finger at you to be environmentally responsible all the while doing exactly the opposite.If Gore wants me to have a little respect for him then at least find a less harmfull way to travel if you are supposed to be the great watchdog of carbon emmisions.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 14, 2012)

SIKSKIER said:


> What a bunch of crap.You hypocrites  sitting there typing this crap on  your very toxin producing computer with your cars sitting in the  driveway.Reminds me of Al Gore telling us to shut off our 4 light bulbs  in our little houses while he spews out endless energy in his 20,000 sq  ft mansion after just getting off his chartered 727 jet.
> 
> Ok now nitpickers,I fixed it for you.The point was that people wag their finger at you to be environmentally responsible all the while doing exactly the opposite.If Gore wants me to have a little respect for him then at least find a less harmfull way to travel if you are supposed to be the great watchdog of carbon emmisions.



Al Gore didn't start this thread or write the article referenced by the OP. What hypocrisy ( amongst the posters here ) are you referring to? I don't see anyone suggesting we don't ski, or we should not drive to the mountains.  I see discussion on whether our actions are indeed contributing to climate change, if so, how much, and are we shooting ourselves in the foot with respect to the future of skiing.


----------



## Riverskier (Dec 14, 2012)

I would rather not get into this conversation myself, but I just wanted to thank you for being the voice of reason in these threads.



BenedictGomez said:


> That research has been done. There have been credible studies suggesting the Prius and other hybrids, are nearly as bad as regular cars after you factor everything in. Doesn't matter. Tons of people drive those things to be SEEN in them. _Look at me, look at me!!!! See me? See me? Look how responsible and environmentally friendly I am! _It's insipid. And the US government was giving massive tax credits that pile onto the national debt to "encourage" everyone to buy one, as ridiculous as it is. Just another example of religious observance despite the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 14, 2012)

speden said:


> *Maybe I'm misreading you* Gomez, but you always seem to be arguing that we should all do nothing and ignore the problem instead of working towards solutions.



Yes, you're misreading me.  My argument is multi-faceted.

First, I'm arguing that there's an increasingly good chance that there isn't a "problem" at all in the first place, and that increasingly as more data rolls in, the man-made global warming hypothesis is looking worse and worse. 

Secondly, _*IF*_ you do believe in man-made global warming, which is fine, you cant "pick and choose" which bits you want to believe in.  Math and Science do not work in that fashion.  You either believe it en toto, or you dont believe it at all.  Thus if you're a believer you should intellectually examine why it is that the Government rabidly goes after certain entities and industries and focuses on their greenhouse gas production, but gives a 100% pass to other entities, industries, and activities which are clearly  FAR WORSE in terms of greenhouse gas production than the ones it goes after.

Thirdly, I have serious concerns for how the leaders, including some of the most highly-regarded "Climate Change Scientists" whose work gets incorporated into the extremely influential UN studies, have practiced mafioso tactics in blackballing and attempting to silence anyone who offers up a competing scientific hypothesis to man-made global warming. (i.e. The creepy Religious Cult factor) 

Lastly, IF you believe in this, the "solutions" are almost patently ridiculous to talk about in light of the developing world.  Just China and India alone will produce more emissions..... those two nations alone.... than could possibly be "offset" by the rest of the entire world unilaterilly acting "responsibly".  It's a joke.  Oh, but Belgium and Iceland are acting _soooo _responsibly? = LULZ



abc said:


> Enlighten us with what "everything" that hasn't been "factored in"?



I think you mean "has" been factored in?  You can do a quick GOOG search for yourself, but net/net, hybrid cars dont do much good.  This has been largely a marketing scam.  Yes, a Prius will save gas and produce lower emissions than a standard car, but its' production and disposal has significantly worst environmental cost, partially offsetting its' environmental value.

If you ask someone how much better a hybrid is than a standard car for the environment, they'll probably say something like, "oh, it's like 10X better" or maybe "100x better".  The truth is, it's negligible, something like a mere 5% or 10% less emissions depending on whose study you want to believe.   Even with those electric cars it's only like 20%, most people dont realize how much CO2 production goes along with electricity.  But then again, as the South Park episode on hybrid cars noted, you cant put a price-tag on Smug satisfaction.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 14, 2012)

SIKSKIER said:


> *people wag their finger at you to be environmentally responsible all the while doing exactly the opposite*.If  Gore wants me to have a little respect for him then at least find a  less harmfull way to travel if you are supposed to be the great watchdog  of carbon emmisions.



Exactly.  

SEE: my pet ownership comments  
SEE: my vegetarian comments
SEE: yelling at my "irresponsible" SUV, then going fishing or water-skiing on your power boat
SEE: 1000 other perfect examples

The worst part is how people like Gore live their lives while trying to make everyone else (aka us pee-ons) change theirs.  

Ohhh, but I'm forgetting that it's okay because of his "Carbon Offsets".   ROTFLMAO at "Carbon Offsets".   I'm surprised nobody has mentioned this  yet, it's by far the most "douchey" subtopic of the man-made Global Warming  debate.


----------



## dmc (Dec 14, 2012)

Man is accelerating global warming..   No doubt in my mind..  And many others..

When history looks back on this era - the people that don't believe will be shown as being on the wrong side of this..


----------



## abc (Dec 14, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yes, a Prius will save gas and produce lower emissions than a standard car, but its' production and disposal has significantly worst environmental cost, partially offsetting its' environmental value.


The "production and disposal cost" of hybrid are mostly in their batteries. This being the early phase of electric cars (which includes hybrid with batteries), the production/disposal of battery has yet to be tackled. That will, as with most technology, improve as the technology matures. We don't know what the ultimate environmental cost will be down the road. On the other hand, if we don't get started with hybrid & electric cars, the technology will never got developed. (not saying I'm buying in to help the technology but some one has to!)

Saving gas isn't half as important as lower emissions.



> The truth is, it's negligible, something like a mere 5% or 10% less  emissions depending on whose study you want to believe.   Even with  those electric cars it's only like 20%, most people dont realize how  much CO2 production goes along with electricity.


CO2 emission from power plants ("electricity production") depends on the fuel used. On one end of the spectrum, coal firing plants, especially those build decades ago before we understood carbon emission, had pretty bad emission. On the opposite end of the spectrum, hydro plant, wind farms and solar farms has zero, YES *ZERO*, CO2 emission! 

So your 20% figure, I would hazard a guess is based on AVERAGE CO2 emission over all types of power plants. As older coal firing plants got phased out and replaced by cleaner plants, the differential of emission will grow to be much more significantly in favor of electricity!

Your assertion of "developing country" being the biggest polluter were totally false. Even though there're some rather "dirty" polluters in China and India, per capita, Chinese are about a quarter of US and Indian is less than 10%!!! 

Much of your arguments center on how imperfect the current solutions are. So you think we should do absolutely nothing until we find that perfect solution? And ONLY AFTER the Chinese and Indian adopted those "perfect" solutions? 

If I'm taking a 2 hr ski lesson, should I expect to come out to be the next Bode Miller and asked for my money back if I'm not?


----------



## Abubob (Dec 14, 2012)

I have often thought that human over consumption is destroying the earth in myriad ways. The ski industry is only one example.

The real question is (since we all agree that we all do things that harm the environment) what are YOU doing to reduce your carbon footprint or your own over consumption?

Personally my contribution which I'm sure is minimal since I still drive a car to work and heat my home with oil. I live a half hour from work and less than 20 minutes to the nearest ski area. I originally move to NH merely to cut my drive time and reduce the weight of worry on my non-skiing wife but since then it has served to reduce my carbon foot print. My house is less than 1000 sq ft. And to top it off I bought a used alpine touring set so when it finally does snow enough in my backyard I can use them. Being fat and fifty I won't be kicking my lift assisted skiing addiction anytime soon but I hope to reduce my dependency.

Finally I try to help people to realize even though this world/system of things is crashing down around us the earth will continue to exist with people on it happily enjoying winter - as my signature shows.



riverc0il said:


> The problem with this argument is the slippery slope.


 Sorry riv I couldn't resist. Slippery slopes are, after all, what we live for. 8)


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 14, 2012)

abc said:


> *Your assertion of "developing country" being the biggest polluter were totally false. *Even though there're some rather "dirty" polluters in China and India, per capita, *Chinese are about a quarter of US* *and Indian is less than 10%!!!*



Wrong.  China is the #1 CO2 producer on the planet, this is common knowledge.  Second place isn't even in the rear-view mirror because China is so FAR ahead in terms of leading the planet in greenhouse gas production.  Per capita data is (as it usually is) far less valuable information than actual figures.  If you believe this theory, then you have to know that the planet doesnt care what nation CO2 emanates from, it is only of importance to quantify that emanation.  And more of it comes from China than anywhere else in the world, and it will continue to do so.  

But I was talking about the FUTURE (which is exactly why I said "will produce").

So I also included India, which is massively growing in both human population and CO2 production.  

Yes, you're right that _currently_ the USA produces more CO2 than India, but going forward (i.e. future) China and India are massively expanding.   Also, the USA has been decreasing CO2 production while developing nations and India and China are increasing CO2 production, so that spread is only going to get worse.




abc said:


> * So you think we should do absolutely nothing until we find that perfect solution? *And ONLY AFTER the Chinese and Indian adopted those "perfect" solutions?



I'm guessing you haven't read through the entire thread, because if you had you would know that I dont believe in man-made Global Warming.


----------



## dmc (Dec 14, 2012)

China is the exception and you are correct they are way in the lead on total emissions..  
India, Russia and Japan are in OUR rear view mirror...
2011 data

CountryCO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions[SUP][11][/SUP]Emission per capita[SUP][12][/SUP] _World_33,376,3274.9




China9,700,0007.2



United States5,420,00017.3



India1,970,0001.6



Russia1,830,00012.8



Japan1,240,0009.8International transport1,040,000-



Germany810,0009.9



South Korea610,00012.6



Canada560,00016.2
 ..  
We are in the lead per capita..
2011 data

CountryCO[SUB]2[/SUB] emissions[SUP][11][/SUP]Emission per capita[SUP][12][/SUP]



United States5,420,00017.3



Canada560,00016.2



Russia1,830,00012.8



South Korea610,00012.6



Germany810,0009.9



Japan1,240,0009.8



China9,700,0007.2 _World_33,376,3274.9



India1,970,0001.6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...List_of_countries_by_2011_emissions_estimates


----------



## abc (Dec 14, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Wrong. China is the #1 CO2 producer on the planet, this is common knowledge. Second place isn't even in the rear-view mirror because China is so FAR ahead in terms of leading the planet in greenhouse gas production.* Per capita data is (as it usually is) far less valuable information than actual figures*.


Wrong!

When YOU, an average American, produces more CO2 than 3 Chinese, how can you argue it's less??? 

So it's ok that Americans use up more of the resources and pollutes more per person because there're fewer of us? Using that logic, if there're 10 times as many Chinese, each of them should only allow to eat 1/10 of what we eat? If that's not selfish, I don't know what is!



> If you believe this theory, then you have to know that the planet doesnt care what nation CO2 emanates from, it is only of importance to quantify that emanation.


That's right, the planet doesn't care which country, nor which family it's coming from. All it knows is there're 10 billion people on the planet. And each person produces x amount of CO2. Right now, an average American is producing 3 times as many CO2 than an average Chinese! 



> But I was talking about the FUTURE (which is exactly why I said "will produce").
> 
> So I also included India, which is massively growing in both human population and CO2 production.
> 
> Yes, you're right that _currently_ the USA produces more CO2 than India, but going forward (i.e. future) China and India are massively expanding. Also, the USA has been decreasing CO2 production while developing nations and India and China are increasing CO2 production, so that spread is only going to get worse.


Actually, the "spread" is going to narrow as China and India closes the pollution gap per capita compare to the developed countries! Right now, they're behind, but they're catching up fast. 



> I'm guessing you haven't read through the entire thread, because if you had you would know that I dont believe in man-made Global Warming


If you don't believe in man-made Global Warming, surely you couldn't care less how much CO2 China and India produce in the future?


----------



## steamboat1 (Dec 15, 2012)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umm3jIlSPg8


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 15, 2012)

Interesting site:

The good news:
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1

The bad news: ( snow pack is not staying deep into spring )
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=2


----------



## Nick (Dec 16, 2012)

Sorry guys i haven't been in these threads. If you guys see duplicate GW threads as they relate to skiing let me know and I can merge them together. We shouldn't have more than one thread on the topic. unless there is really some crazy disparate reason why.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 16, 2012)

abc said:


> Wrong!
> 
> When YOU, an average American, produces more CO2 than 3 Chinese, how can you argue it's less???



Because I'm approaching the subject from the scientific standpoint of the net effect of emissions calculated by global CO2 production.  And the Chinese product a crap-ton more CO2 than America does.

Whereas you are approaching the subject from the kum-ba-yah standpoint of what can I do to be a better human being and reduce my carbon footprint to help Mother Earth. 




abc said:


> Actually,* the "spread" is going to narrow as China and India closes the pollution gap per capita compare to the developed countries!* Right now, they're behind, but they're catching up fast.



The spread cannot narrow due a statistical forecast of population dynamics.  This is not debatable.   

The second big reason it wont narrow has to do with percentages of the sources of energy creation in these nations, but that's another subject.



Nick said:


> Sorry guys i haven't been in these threads.* If you  guys see duplicate GW threads* as they relate to skiing let me know and* I  can merge them together*. *We shouldn't have more than one thread on the  topic*. unless there is really some crazy disparate reason why.



Excellent idea.


----------



## goldsbar (Dec 16, 2012)

Of course it has gotten warmer.  But, it's been over hundreds of years.  From Wiki:

On December 28 it snowed, but the weather cleared that night and it became bitter cold. As this effort involved most of the army, eight crossing points were used. At some of them the ice had frozen two to three inches (4 to 7 cm) thick, and was capable of supporting soldiers, who crossed the ice on foot.

That's a re-crossing of the Delaware a couple of days after the original attack on Trenton in 1776.  Does that ever happen anymore?  Doubt it.

Has this been at least partially man-made?  Probably.  Is anyone willing to seriously do anything about it?  Nope.  Most "evironmentalists" are complete hippocrits, often driving a Prius but living in a 5,000 sq ft house, etc.  The die has been cast for our lifetimes.  Some good winters, some bad - as usual.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 17, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Because I'm approaching the subject from the scientific standpoint of the net effect of emissions calculated by global CO2 production.  And the Chinese product a crap-ton more CO2 than America does.



If you were looking at it from net effect of emissions you wouldn't break it out by country boundaries, you'd look at _global_ production.  

But the reality is you're not trying to look at it scientifically at all.  You are trying to twist an agenda and pre-conceived ideas into the data.  There is no debate left about this in the scientific community.  We aren't even debating it any more.  We are just looking at forecasts for the degree of change, the potential impacts, and the mitigation measures.  The only 'debate' remains in the political realms and internet message boards.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Dec 17, 2012)

Here we go again with the "there is no debate" line.The typical response when opposing views are expessed pertaining to GW.You get shut right off because your viewpoint is different.
Its too bad humans were not here before the last ice age.We could have melted that 1 mile of ice on top Manhattan much faster.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 17, 2012)

Cannonball said:


> If you were looking at it from net effect of emissions you wouldn't break it out by country boundaries, you'd look at _global_ production.



That's exactly what I did.  And "_global_ production" is the sum of all the countries production added together.   It has nothing to do with per capita rate.



Cannonball said:


> *  There is no debate left about this in the scientific community.* * We aren't even debating it any more.*  We are just looking at forecasts for the degree of change, the potential impacts, and the mitigation measures.  The only 'debate' remains in the political realms and internet message boards.



And the cultist religious ideology rears it head.  

No matter now many times you hear XYZ media personality or Al Gore state the above, it wont make it true.  

Science doesn't work like this.

The only thing that is "not debatable" is that there are scientists all over the globe currently working on other hypotheses for the earth's warming and cooling, either because they're not convinced in AGM or because they believe the AGM hypothesis is wrong.

To not recognize or admit this is simply astounding to me.

At any rate, throughout the course of human history, and regardless of the topic, when one side seeks to prevent any debate from taking place on an issue, there's usually a very good reason for it, and the ultimate conclusion is an unhappy one for that side.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 17, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> That's exactly what I did.  And "_global_ production" is the sum of all the countries production added together.   It has nothing to do with per capita rate.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is tiresome.  Those of us working in this field are way beyond the "debate" stage and have moved on to working on solutions and mitigations.  Despite your constant statements to the contrary, there is no secret agenda where we are all getting rich by perpetuating some conspiracy.  We are just plugging away. Most of us at low-paying, non-profit and/or research jobs.  How often do you see scientists driving Bently's and living large?  It ain't glamorous, it ain't profitable, and it usually ain't popular.

I'm not sure why I've allowed myself to get sucked into this here yet again.  You are free to believe whatever you want.  It won't make any difference globally, scientifically, or historically.  Enjoy.  And ski on.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 17, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> The *only thing that is "not debatable"* is that there are scientists all over the globe currently working on other hypotheses for the earth's warming and cooling, either because they're not convinced in AGM or because they believe the AGM hypothesis is wrong.



Oh wait, I though you said population dynamics wasn't debatable?    "The spread cannot narrow due a statistical forecast of population dynamics.  This is not debatable."   Keep up Bene, you're slipping.



BenedictGomez said:


> there are scientists all over the globe currently working on other  hypotheses for the earth's warming and cooling, either because they're  not convinced in AGM or because they believe the AGM hypothesis is  wrong.



Or, there are non-biased scientists ( suppose to be the norm ), working on other  hypotheses for the earth's warming to either disprove the AGW CO2 theory, or add evidence in support of the theory; or they are working on a multiple competing theories to explain why the earth has warmed so quickly in the last 100 years. 
That's what good science is about. Science is all about testing hypotheses and recording the evidence.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 17, 2012)

Scruffy said:


> *Oh wait, I though you said population dynamics wasn't debatable? *   "The spread cannot narrow due a statistical forecast of population dynamics.  This is not debatable."   Keep up Bene, you're slipping.



Oh, hey look, the guy who only posts in political threads on a snow skiing board is back.  Hi.

Population dynamic trends are mathematically predicable and not based on hypotheses.

A hypothesis, by it's very definition, is not mathematically predictable.

So unless you are somehow 100% certain a localized virus will kill off 1/2 of China's population in the very near future, then yes, the fact that China's population will continue to increase is not a debatable point.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 17, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Oh, hey look, the guy who only posts in political threads on a snow skiing board is back.  Hi.
> 
> Population dynamic trends are mathematically predicable and not based on hypotheses.
> 
> ...



Hi Bene,

I am familiar with China's population issues, I've worked there and still work with many there remotely, you missed my point of poking fun at your "only thing not debateable". But thanks for posting  :lol:  Oh BTW China's pop is expected to start tailing off 2030.


----------



## abc (Dec 17, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> That's exactly what I did.  And "_global_ production" is the sum of all the countries production added together.   It has nothing to do with per capita rate.


No, "_global_ production" is the sum of all the PEOPLE production added together. That's right, the sum of per capita rate!

And the US is producing more PER PERSON on average than any other country! The more relevant question is, are YOU producing more YOURSELF? And is skiing a significant portion of that disproportional contribution of yours?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 17, 2012)

I am just curious....what are all of your professions (if you care to share)? There is a lot of data being thrown around from both sides and I am just wondering...


----------



## Edd (Dec 17, 2012)

I'm starting to enjoy this thread.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 17, 2012)

abc said:


> The more relevant question is, *are YOU producing more YOURSELF? *



In relation to whom or what?

  Either way I frankly dont care, because I dont believe in AGM.  To me, CO2 is merely plant food.  An indispensable naturally-occurring gas for without which we'd all die.

And there are a lot of people like me who don't care.  
And there are plenty of COUNTRIES that don't care.  
And there are a lot of people who *claim* they care, but are total hypocrites with huge carbon footprints (frankly, that group probably encompasses most people who claim to "care" if we're really being honest about this subject) which demonstrates they don't care, but they want to be perceived as someone who does care.



abc said:


> And *is skiing a significant portion of that disproportional contribution of yours?*



Absolutely not.

I eat meat, and that is the biggest contributor to my carbon footprint.

I've owned pets and that is the 2nd biggest contributor to my carbon footprint.

I drive an SUV, and that is the 3rd biggest contributor to my carbon footprint.

Since we're apparently asking personal questions about our carbon footprints now:
Do you eat meat?
Do you own a dog(s), cat(s), chicken(s), horse(s) or other mammalian or avian critters?
Do you drive a car or walk to work?


----------



## abc (Dec 17, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Since we're apparently asking personal questions about our carbon footprints now:
> Do you eat meat? YES, about once a week. I prefer fish and vege instead.
> Do you own a dog(s), cat(s), chicken(s), horse(s) or other mammalian or avian critters? *NO! Zilch! *
> Do you drive a car or walk to work? Drive to work *no more than twice a week* (and that's mostly because I need to do errands)! The rest of the week, I WALK TO WORK at least once a week, take public transport once or twice a week, or work from home


Hahaha! 

Yes, I can afford to "care", even though I don't care all that much. The environment, that is. My life style is so for my own health. It happens to be relatively "green" is mostly coincidental. 

What I care a lot more, is people throwing around a lot of pseudo-science, to justify their behavior, or who said he doesn't care but still blame others for contributing to what he doesn't care!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 17, 2012)

abc said:


> '
> What I care a lot more, is people throwing around a lot of pseudo-science, to justify their behavior, or *who said he doesn't care but still blame others for contributing to what he doesn't care!*



No, you misunderstood; I honestly couldn't care less if you create a larger carbon footprint than 473 Chinese, or 126 Americans.  Have at it I say!  Drive to the slopes in a GMC Yukon with a new pair of boots and skis each season and enjoy yourself.

What I was pointing out is that many who claim to deeply care, and/or who get an enormous feeling of smug self-satisfaction by pointing a finger at others, often have huge carbon footprints (there's a great South Park episode about this)  

For instance, all things being equal, someone who is not a vegetarian likely has a larger carbon footprint than a vegetarian driving an SUV.  Yet many of these proud "Green" folk delight at pointing their finger at the "demonic" SUV owner.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 17, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> No, you misunderstood; I honestly couldn't care less if you create a larger carbon footprint than 473 Chinese, or 126 Americans.  Have at it I say!  Drive to the slopes in a GMC Yukon with a new pair of boots and skis each season and enjoy yourself.
> 
> What I was pointing out is that many who claim to deeply care, and/or who get an enormous feeling of smug self-satisfaction by pointing a finger at others, often have huge carbon footprints (there's a great South Park episode about this)
> 
> For instance, all things being equal, someone who is not a vegetarian likely has a larger carbon footprint than a vegetarian driving an SUV.  Yet many of these proud "Green" folk delight at pointing their finger at the "demonic" SUV owner.



OMG, "smug self-satisfaction", "demonic" SUV owner. :lol:  The guilt just drips off your words, like blood from a sword after a disembowelment. It must be hell living with yourself Gome, seek help my friend, the "greenies" won't take your SUV from you.


----------



## abc (Dec 17, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> What I was pointing out is that many who claim to deeply care, and/or who get an enormous feeling of smug self-satisfaction by pointing a finger at others, often have huge carbon footprints (there's a great South Park episode about this)
> 
> For instance, all things being equal, someone who is not a vegetarian likely has a larger carbon footprint than a vegetarian driving an SUV.  Yet many of these proud "Green" folk delight at pointing their finger at the "demonic" SUV owner.


Just because some "green folks" are smug doesn't negate the science, which is pointing to human as a whole ADDING to the global warming trend that's occurring naturally. The skiing industry in particular, with snow making and all the skiers with their SUV (driving over much longer distance than average commute), is adding ON TOP of whatever else (meat eating and dogs/horses/cats) they're already doing!

People tend to forget, it's not the earth that will suffer from global warming. The earth will be there and be fine. It's human habitability that will suffer from global warming! The lack of natural snow to ski on is indeed the tip of that global iceberg, and we get to see it sooner before the rest of humanity hit the bulk of the berg. Even some "greenies" thought they're saving the earth. No, we're just saving ourselves (or not)!


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 18, 2012)

Edd said:


> I'm starting to enjoy this thread.



yes, these circular debates can be quite entertaining.

In one corner we've got a SUV driving mad man who heats his Manhattan apartment with oil from freshly clubbed baby seals

and in the other corner a group of earth savers who jar their farts to offset their carbon foot print.

It will be a fight to no finish!!!


all joking aside (except for the baby seal oil, which I have credible evidence on), I really don't see anyone persuading others to cross over to their side. It seems to me that everyone is an expert on GW or the lack of GW.  By the way, you pros need to get with the times.  It's no longer called Global Warming in popular vernacular.  The current term would be Climate Change, so please replace your GWs with CCs moving forward. 

But, by all means keep firing away as long as you all remain civil and respectful. 

FTR, I drive one of the most fuel efficient vehicles on the market and it's freezing rain outside instead of dumping blower pow.  Sucks.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 18, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> yes, these circular debates can be quite entertaining.
> 
> In one corner we've got a SUV driving mad man who heats his Manhattan apartment with oil from freshly clubbed baby seals
> 
> ...



:lol::lol::lol:  I'm just here to keep old seal oil gomer from drowning in own self adulation. We need him to keep eating meat and driving his SUV to generate more green house gases, since more GHG seems to be cooling the earth :-o.   Hey, it's not snowing, it's f@#&ing raining, the skiing sucks, what else is there to do on a ski forum except dredge up old news and bat it back and forth.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Dec 18, 2012)

If one really wants to understand how I find the "debate being over" arguement ludicrous,then open your closed minds and read,I mean really read all of this simple Wiki ice age page.How one can possibly believe we are the force that shapes climate changes in the least is beyond me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age


----------



## speden (Dec 18, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> In one corner we've got a SUV driving mad man who heats his Manhattan apartment with oil from freshly clubbed baby seals



Oil from baby seals would be renewable energy with a neutral carbon footprint, so I doubt he'd want to use that.

Ironic that someone from Manhattan wouldn't believe in climate change, seeing that rising ocean levels have started to periodically flood Manhattan.  I would have thought the sight of water gushing into the subway tunnels would suggest something new was up.

Man, lots of rain the last few days.  I keep thinking this should have all been snow.  Oh well, I might get out for some slush turns tomorrow anyway.


----------



## ctenidae (Dec 18, 2012)

There are a few immutable facts that can't be argued with:

1) We spew more crap into the environment than we used to. Partially because there are more of us, partially because we keep finding new and creative things to spew into the environment.

2) Spewing crap into the environment is generally a bad thing. Too many fish in a fish tank equals a stinky fish tank. Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere can't be better than, say, not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.

3) Eventually, all that crap we spew will have an impact of some sort.

Item three is where the argument tends to take off in random directions as people try to convince everyone else that their version of what the impact will be is the right one.

I don't think it matters. Instead, we should assume that bad shit can happen, and so we should do 2 things- try to be prepared (not in some doomsday prepper way) and try to avoid it. The social movement towards eating local is a great thing- reducing the environmental impacts of factory farming and shipping, while bringing farming closer to the users in smaller quantities, which are more adaptable if the shit hits the fan. Fuel efficient cars are kind of pointless, but alternative fueled cars are great- reducing the overall impact and diversifying the energy sources. High efficiency HVAC is pretty good, but better insulation and more efficient living spaces are much better- helps to reduce the impact of severe weather. 

I'm not going to stop skiing (well, not for environmental reasons, anyway), I'm not going to stop driving my car, I'm not going to stop using a computer. Those things have little impact. What we can all stop doing, and it will have an impact, is stop complaining when the government spends money on basic research, or provides tax incentives or grants that support the development of new technologies. Stop complaining when bus fare goes up to pay for switching the fleet to gas. Don't bitch and moan when the city wants to install light rail serving more neighborhoods. These things can save our bacon in the long run.

In the end, forget about trying to save the earth. The earth will get by just fine no matter what. Forget the whales- if they can't adapt, well, that sucks for them. 

Save the humans. That's what we need to do. (dirty little secret- biodiversity is helpful in that cause, as well).


----------



## speden (Dec 18, 2012)

I was in Home Depot the other day and overheard some lady complaining about not being able to find her usual incandescent light bulbs.  As a smug environmentalist, it gives me great pleasure that our corrupt socialist government (with the secret agenda of lining their pockets with money from sham climate science) is slowly banning incandescent light bulbs.  I can see people finding fault with hybrid cars since the efficiency gains aren't _that_ huge, but the power consumption difference between incandescent and LED bulbs is massive.  Cities that switch their streetlights over to LED's save millions in electricity costs per year, and prevent tons of CO2 (a.k.a. plant food) from being dispersed in the air.  Some of the new LED bulbs coming out now are getting to be pretty nice.  I think people will complain about them for a few years until the price comes down, but prices are already dropping fast.



Spock: "Admiral, if we were to assume these whales were ours to do with as we pleased, we would be as guilty as those who caused their extinction."


----------



## witch hobble (Dec 18, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> all joking aside (except for the baby seal oil, which I have credible evidence on),


I believe Benny was a member of Dick Cheney's secret energy task force back in '01.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Dec 18, 2012)

speden said:


> I was in Home Depot the other day and overheard some lady complaining about not being able to find her usual incandescent light bulbs.  As a smug environmentalist, it gives me great pleasure that our corrupt socialist government (with the secret agenda of lining their pockets with money from sham climate science) is slowly banning incandescent light bulbs.  I can see people finding fault with hybrid cars since the efficiency gains aren't _that_ huge, but the power consumption difference between incandescent and LED bulbs is massive.."



You did refer to LED and I think those are a good thing.However,you help make my point about showing how decisions are made for politico feel good reasons before sound and final DEBATE and SCUTINY is in.All the rage was to stop incandecent bulbs in favor of CF bulbs which are now looked at as bad guys because of the increase of mercury to the environment.Slow the heck down and read and understand without politcal bias and people might surprize themselves.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 18, 2012)

SIKSKIER said:


> If one really wants to understand how I find the "debate being over" arguement ludicrous,then open your closed minds and read,I mean really read all of this simple Wiki ice age page.How one can possibly believe we are the force that shapes climate changes in the least is beyond me.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age



Thanks for that .  Some good key points taken from that article:

"According to research published in _Nature Geoscience, human emissions of carbon dioxide will defer the next ice age. Researchers used data on the Earth's orbit to find the historical warm interglacial period that looks most like the current one and from this have predicted that the next ice age would usually begin within 1,500 years. They go on to say that emissions have been so high that it will not.[SUP][38]"
[/SUP]_
"There is considerable evidence that over the very recent period of the last 100–1000 years, the sharp increases in human activity, especially the burning of fossil fuels, has caused the parallel sharp and accelerating increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases which trap the sun's heat. *The consensus theory of the scientific community* is that the resultinggreenhouse effect is a principal cause of the increase in global warming which has occurred over the same period, and a chief contributor to the accelerated melting of the remainingglaciers and polar ice. A 2012 investigation finds that dinosaurs released methane through digestion in a similar amount to humanity's current methane release, which "could have been a key factor" to the very warm climate 150 million years ago.[SUP][42]"
[/SUP]


----------



## ctenidae (Dec 18, 2012)

SIKSKIER said:


> If one really wants to understand how I find the "debate being over" arguement ludicrous,then open your closed minds and read,I mean really read all of this simple Wiki ice age page.How one can possibly believe we are the force that shapes climate changes in the least is beyond me.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age



I'm not sure how you read that page and _don't_ think that we have at least some influence on the climate. Granted, we can't control or influence the Earth's orbit, or the Sun's position in the galaxy, or meteorites, or supervolcanoes. But the other major factor that article spends some considerable time on is atmospheric composition. In particular, CO2. Which we produce a lot of. If the dinosaurs could fart themselves into extinction, I bet we can make things uncomfortable for ourselves, too.


----------



## mediamogul (Dec 18, 2012)

The real problem is that the entire modern/ industrialized energy system is built on fossil fuels which inevitably contribute to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. Most of the science is pointing towards the fact that the problem is much worse than than was previously thought. The global average temperature could increase by as much as six degrees in the next hundred years. Our energy production system needs a radical overhaul. Ski areas are unfortunately powered by the same fossil fuel reliant system as are our cars to get there, our planes, our heat, etc... I know Berkshire East has been able to get upwards of 100% of it's power from wind and they recently added a solar farm on the mountain too. Ideally the model of sustainability would be 100% percent power with 0% carbon footprint but I don't know if that is even scientifically possible.


----------



## poconovfr (Dec 18, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Look, if you believe in man-made global warming, *if you REALLY *understand the science,* and if you REALLY* believe in it, then nearly *EVERYTHING we do is "bad for the environment".  *
> 
> Creating a super-resistant virus and killing every man, woman, and child  on the planet is the "best" thing we can do to "save" earth if you  believe in this stuff.  The horse is out of the barn if you believe in  this stuff, and regulating Belgium or Luxembourg or Swaziland is a JOKE,  because the bulk of the "problem" is with the developing world, who  wont do ANYTHING about this.
> 
> So relax, fire up that SUV, pet your dog (who is killing the planet MORE  than your SUV if you REALLY believe this stuff and understand the  science), and enjoy your ski vacation.



+10

yeah so we....man....have been keeping weather records for what say 170 years give or take. Mother Earth has been around for what let's even be kind and say a million years. So here's the kick in the ass right.....if the mountains we ski on were actually erupting volcanoes from a couple years back wouldn't that make Earth herself the biggest producer of a giant carbon footprint. Maybe some of you remember a little eruption over northern Europe and the UK a couple years ago. Earth will do what Earth will do. To think we could actually correct it's path is just silly. We're another experiment and when she's done with us she will shake us off like my dog shakes off snow.


----------



## dmc (Dec 18, 2012)

Too bad there's no way to see what the weather was before 170 years ago...  

I guess all the ice core samples, coral reef and tree rings studies around the world should be tossed out...  I mean... It's only scientific fact. How can it be correct?

I'm also glad that Noah didn't take the dinosaurs on the ark..  Cause that would've sucked right there...


----------



## poconovfr (Dec 18, 2012)

There is still no way to tell exactly the temp change over a 100 year period 10,000 years ago. You can guess Dr. but that's it. Lower Manhattan was flooding long before the Indians called it home. Point is we are along for the ride. Enjoy some pow.


----------



## Scruffy (Dec 18, 2012)

poconovfr said:


> View attachment 7056
> 
> +10
> 
> yeah so we....man....have been keeping weather records for what say 170 years give or take. Mother Earth has been around for what let's even be kind and say a million years. So here's the kick in the ass right.....if the mountains we ski on were actually erupting volcanoes from a couple years back wouldn't that make Earth herself the biggest producer of a giant carbon footprint. Maybe some of you remember a little eruption over northern Europe and the UK a couple years ago. Earth will do what Earth will do. To think we could actually correct it's path is just silly. We're another experiment and when she's done with us she will shake us off like my dog shakes off snow.



Yeah so? .. once there was Pangaea, and climate change well before Anthropithecus stood up, and all life forms are made of carbon ( the most abundant element )..  that's not the point.


----------



## abc (Dec 18, 2012)

> Creating a super-resistant virus and killing every man, woman, and child on the planet is the "best" thing we can do to "save" earth if you believe in this stuff.


That shows how totally ignorant the "SUV driving" crowd is!

If we screw up the environment, then every man, woman, and child will be erased from the face of the planet! Who needs super virus? 

Protecting the environment is to save US! But I guess like alcoholics and drug addicts, many are so far gone they'll drink or shoot themselves into extinction! 

The earth doesn't need "saving". The earth will be still be there, after we're all wiped clean off the face of this planet by non-stop flood and hurricane.


----------



## poconovfr (Dec 18, 2012)

hey did protecting the environment save those kids in Conn? We have much larger and immediate problems in this country in order to save it. Environment is a back burner issue.


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 19, 2012)

poconovfr said:


> hey did protecting the environment save those kids in Conn? We have much larger and immediate problems in this country in order to save it. Environment is a back burner issue.



Probably not good form to use the deaths of 20 children to back up an opinion and try and prove a point.  Is there really any reason to go there?


----------



## dmc (Dec 19, 2012)

poconovfr said:


> hey did protecting the environment save those kids in Conn? We have much larger and immediate problems in this country in order to save it. Environment is a back burner issue.



That's F'd up right there...


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 19, 2012)

poconovfr said:


> Earth will do what Earth will do. To think we could actually correct it's path is just silly. We're another experiment and when she's done with us she will shake us off like my dog shakes off snow.



I think you just hit the nail on the head in terms of misunderstanding the issue and why there is "debate" going on.  YES, there are natural processes going on.  Yes.  That is extremely well known and nobody is claiming that there aren't.  SIKSKIER just posted a wikipedia link that does a good job of describing many of those natural processes.  Nobody is claiming that those natural processes aren't a factor.  And nobody is claiming that we can or should be doing anything to "correct" those natural processes.  The point is that we are also having an impact of our own.  Again, SIKSKIER's link does a good job describing how human impacts are also contributing to climate change, on top of (not instead of) natural processes.  These are the issues that we can and should work on correcting.

Here's a non-politically charged analogy: the cause of fires.  Lightning can cause fire.  Nobody is working on a "cure for lightning".  Discarded cigarettes can cause fires.  There are significant efforts to prevent people from discarding lit cigarettes and causing a fire.  Just because a processes exists in nature doesn't mean that we can't or shouldn't control human impacts that duplicate or exacerbate the problem.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 19, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> *all joking aside (except for the baby seal oil, which I have credible evidence on)*



Your source is wrong.  I kill whales for their oil, the seals are just for sport.



speden said:


> *Ironic that someone from Manhattan wouldn't believe in climate change,* seeing that rising ocean levels have started to periodically flood Manhattan.*  I would have thought the sight of water gushing into the subway tunnels would suggest something new was up.*



Blaming Hurricane Sandy on Global Warming is the sort of ridiculousness the media puts in people's heads.  Any large weather event is now "Global Warming".  

Too hot?  Global warming
Too cold? Global warming
No snow?  Global warming
Too MUCH snow?  Global warming
Drought?  Global Warming
No rain?  Global Warming
Hurricane?  Global warming

The "increase in hurricanes" nonsense is especially alarming (though illustrative) given it's so easily refuted. 

Yet many people now believe it (like this poster). But that's the thing.  Anything that helps further the "religion" is let slide in the media, whether true or false.  Anything that doubts the religion is attacked in the media, whether true or false.









ctenidae said:


> There are a few immutable facts that can't be argued with:
> 
> 1) *We spew more crap into the environment than we used to.* Partially because there are more of us, partially because we keep finding new and creative things to spew into the environment.



True


ctenidae said:


> 2) Spewing crap into the environment is generally a bad thing. Too many fish in a fish tank equals a stinky fish tank.* Pumping CO2 into the atmosphere can't be better than, say, not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere.*



We'd all be dead were there no CO2 in the atmosphere, but the above is a complete unknown.  The world is covered >70% by the oceans, and the oceans are an efficient absorber of CO2.  

In fact, one of the new dogmas to help explain-away why the "religion" has been wrong about CO2 so far, is that the oceans (that thing covering almost the entire planet) might be able to absorb much more CO2 than they thought.  But FEAR NOT!  There's a scare tactic for that too!   They think as the "climate changes" the ocean will be able to absorb less and less, which will make Global Warming worse and worse! 

My favorite chemistry professor used to have a saying, _"All roads lead to moles".  _
With Global Warming scientists it's,_ "All roads lead to fear mongering"._




ctenidae said:


> I'm not going to stop skiing (well, not for environmental reasons, anyway), I'm not going to stop driving my car, I'm not going to stop using a computer. *Those things have little impact.*



Yet some of "those things" with little impact you listed (and others you didn't) are where the government focuses its' attention.  Because that's where it can extract money from people.  Again, it has nothing to do with fixing the "problem" if you do believe a problem exists, and everything with increasing government power over citizens.  Were the government really focused on the problem, they'd go after the things that are most responsible for causing it, like meat-consumption, etc..... rather than taxing car companies and oil companies (aka the dreaded "fossil fuels").  I'd have more respect for Al Gore if he got on TV and told everyone in America they shouldn't own pets or eat meat.  I'd also laugh my ass off, but at least he'd be intellectually consistent.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Dec 19, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Your source is wrong. I kill whales for their oil, the seals are just for sport.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree with you for the most part but you lost me at not owning pets and eating meat. I am curious to hear the explaination for this theory.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 19, 2012)

MadMadWorld said:


> I agree with you for the most part but you  lost me at not owning pets and eating meat. I am curious to hear the  explaination for this theory.



Already covered in the thread.   

Short Version:   The UN IPCC (they are the "Rabbis, Clerics, and "High Priests" of the Global Warming religion) body who run the man-made Global Warming show calculated that people are doing more greenhouse gas producing "harm" to the earth by eating meat* than they are by driving cars.  The pets bit is from studies showing that owning a single dog is an _"extravagance"_ (that was the actual word used) that is almost as bad or worse than driving an SUV depending on your yearly mileage. 


*Yet almost nobody knows this 



abc said:


> *That shows how totally ignorant the "SUV driving" crowd is!*



Well, the "SUV driving" crowd is mathematically less ignorant than the "meat eating" crowd and the "pets owning" crowd!  

Empirical proof that the "Blind Faith" crowd is the most "totally ignorant" of them all.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Dec 19, 2012)

dmc said:


> Too bad there's no way to see what the weather was before 170 years ago...
> 
> I guess all the ice core samples, coral reef and tree rings studies around the world should be tossed out...  I mean... It's only scientific fact. How can it be correct?


Your really making my point.Your looking at such a small sample size and period of earths existance.Tree ring studies?Sure those go back what,a few hundred years or in a few cases a few thousand years.Ice cores will only go back to the begining of the last ice age.The earth is about 5 BILLION years old.Looking back 10's of thousands of years  amounts to a few grains of sand in the Sahara Desert.Obviously you did not read the link I provided which is exactly what I would expect from the "the debate is over" team.


----------



## ctenidae (Dec 19, 2012)

poconovfr said:


> hey did protecting the environment save those kids in Conn? We have much larger and immediate problems in this country in order to save it. Environment is a back burner issue.



I'd say both are long term issues with steps that need to be taken sooner rather than later.

The volcanoe analogy is kind of stupid, too. Sure, teh earth will do what it will do, adn we can't stop that. We _can _make it worse, though. And being technologically prepared for man-made climate change makes us, ipso facto, prepared for natural climate change.


And to use the deth of 20 kids like that is pretty low, really. Extending your volcanoe analogy, though, a psychotic mad man in Germany killed several million people in the 40's. I guess that kind of thing just happens, and there's nothing we can do about it, so let's go skiing! 

/yeah, I Godwined the thread, but for a good cause, I think.


----------



## ctenidae (Dec 19, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> We'd all be dead were there no CO2 in the atmosphere, but the above is a complete unknown.  The world is covered >70% by the oceans, and the oceans are an efficient absorber of CO2.
> 
> Yet some of "those things" with little impact you listed (and others you didn't) are where the government focuses its' attention.  Because that's where it can extract money from people.  Again, it has nothing to do with fixing the "problem" if you do believe a problem exists, and everything with increasing government power over citizens.



On the CO2 question, I thinkt he path is pretty straightforawrd: CO2 is a greenhouse gas; increased greenhouse cgas concentrations increase average temperatures; increased average temperatures have sometimes dramatic impacts on the climate. Therefore, producing more CO2 can have a dramatic impact on climate. 

Now, we're pretty well settled in the world with the climate as it is. Any changes to that status quo will require changes in how we're set up. And while there's opportunity in change, there can also be hardship, especially in areas without access to the resources needed to adapt to the change. So, net net, it's better for us to not pump more CO2 into the system.  

And yes, I know CO2 is necessary. I'm pretty sure all of the animal life on the planet and other natural sources provide an adequate supply. My car's exhaust is not necessary for the continued operation of the carbon cycle. 

The oceans are a pretty good carbon sink, but that has its limits, too- CO2 dissolved in water makes carbonic acid. A more acidic ocean has effects on sea life- again, changing things from how we know them to something different.

Your last bit on the improper focus of government I tend to agree with. Your tin foil hat may be a bit tight, but I agree with the gist. I think the problem isn't so much with government as the peopl who elect that government, but that's a discussion for another place entirely.


----------



## ctenidae (Dec 19, 2012)

SIKSKIER said:


> Your really making my point.Your looking at such a small sample size and period of earths existance.Tree ring studies?Sure those go back what,a few hundred years or in a few cases a few thousand years.Ice cores will only go back to the begining of the last ice age.The earth is about 5 BILLION years old.Looking back 10's of thousands of years  amounts to a few grains of sand in the Sahara Desert.Obviously you did not read the link I provided which is exactly what I would expect from the "the debate is over" team.



Ice core studies run back about 700,000 years. Id' call that a sufficient sample size to correlate atmosperic conditions with temperatures.


----------



## dmc (Dec 19, 2012)

ctenidae said:


> Ice core studies run back about 700,000 years. Id' call that a sufficient sample size to correlate atmosperic conditions with temperatures.



Isn't that older than the earth?


----------



## ctenidae (Dec 19, 2012)

dmc said:


> Isn't that older than the earth?



Jesus' dinosaurs were just wee young'uns then.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 19, 2012)

SIKSKIER said:


> Your really making my point.Your looking at such a small sample size and period of earths existance.Tree ring studies?Sure those go back what,a few hundred years or in a few cases a few thousand years.Ice cores will only go back to the begining of the last ice age.The earth is about 5 BILLION years old.Looking back 10's of thousands of years  amounts to a few grains of sand in the Sahara Desert.Obviously you did not read the link I provided which is exactly what I would expect from the "the debate is over" team.



Are you sure you read it?  Because it does mention "analysis of ice core and ocean sediment cores has shown periods of glacials and interglacials over the past few million years."


----------



## dmc (Dec 19, 2012)

ctenidae said:


> Jesus' dinosaurs were just wee young'uns then.
> 
> View attachment 7058




Buddha's cool with it..


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 19, 2012)

SIKSKIER said:


> looking at such a small sample size and period of earths existance.*Tree ring studies?* Sure those go back what,a few hundred years or in a few cases a few thousand years.



The  more curious question I have about "tree ring studies" is, why do  people like him not know that there are tree ring studies that are also  really, really bad for the man-made Global Warming theory?

I suspect the answer to that  question is that if a tree-ring study comes out showing a recent  warming trend, it gets promoted on CNN, Jon Stewart, ABC, MSNBC  etc....., but when a tree-ring study comes out showing there were  numerous periods in recent history that are warmer than today, it  receives absolutely ZERO media attention, like the below Canadian tree-ring  study released a few months ago.

Of course, now I'm left to  ponder what model of SUV did William Shakespeare drive?  

And did Global  Warming cause the Bubonic plague?


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 19, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> The  more curious question I have about "tree ring studies" is, why do  people like him not know that there are tree ring studies that are also  really, really bad for the man-made Global Warming theory?
> 
> I suspect the answer to that  question is that if a tree-ring study comes out showing a recent  warming trend, it gets promoted on CNN, Jon Stewart, ABC, MSNBC  etc....., but when a tree-ring study comes out showing there were  numerous periods in recent history that are warmer than today, it  receives absolutely ZERO media attention, like the below Canadian tree-ring  study released a few months ago.
> 
> ...



It's usually handy to cite sources when you are going to present data.  Otherwise there is no context.  I'll do it for you.  That study was "_Tree-ring derived Little Ice Age temperature trends from the central British Columbia Coast Mountains, Canada.  Quaternary Research, Volume 78, Issue 3, November 2012, Pages 417-426. Kara J. Pitman, Dan J. Smith_".  This was largely a methods study that was evaluating the technique of using submerged woody debris to mountain lakes to get a little further back in time for making climate change estimates.  They found that it's a good method.  It gets them about twice as far back as existing records for this region (high elevation climates in BC coast mountains).  The figure you posted is consistent with virtually any localized temperature measurements.  Lots of variability over time.  This is not a measure of global temperature.  So I'm not sure what your point in relation to this discussion is.  As for media attention, this is a pretty small-scale localized study.  Maybe it got some press in BC?  I don't know.  I wouldn't expect any major news sources to pick up a small science study like this...despite the fact that it's pretty cool.  But it got enough press that YOU found it.  I wonder if that's because it shows up another "some guy's blog" about uncovering the big conspiracies of climate change science.  You do have a habit of sourcing your info from these blogs....


----------



## ctenidae (Dec 19, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> The  more curious question I have about "tree ring studies" is, why do  people like him not know that there are tree ring studies that are also  really, really bad for the man-made Global Warming theory?
> 
> but when a tree-ring study comes out showing there were  numerous periods in recent history that are warmer than today, it  receives absolutely ZERO media attention, like the below Canadian tree-ring  study released a few months ago.
> 
> ...



Do you read any of the scientific research you cite? That chart is, as near as I can tell, from "Tree-ring derived Little Ice Age temperature trends from the central British Columbia Coast Mountains, Canada" by Pitman and Smith. They weren't studying the actual temperatures. They took samples from glacial moraines and tried to match temperatures they found there to other temperature work, to see if woody debris in the moraines could be useful for constructing a longer dendroclamtic record.

Their finding: "We conclude that coarse woody debris submerged in high-elevation lakes has considerable potential for developing lengthy proxy climate records, and we recommend that researchers focus attention on this largely ignored paleoclimatic archive." To the extent they studied temperature, they comment that it seems like periods of extended below-normal temperature are follwed by periods of above normal temperatures, and that during periods of above normal temperatures glacial moraines fill up with more woody debris.

Or maybe you were really thinking of "Orbital forcing of tree-ring data" published in Nature in July 2012. Cited as a paper that hurts the global warming theory, it was largely misread by the popular press (shocking, I know). Rather than providing evidence that it was warmer during the Medieval and Roman periods than it is now, they were actually trying out a new way of analyzing tree rings, and think that the temperatures then may have been warmer than was originally thought. 

The medieval warm spell, which has been pretty well studied, is attributed to a decrease in volcanic activity (volcanic dust reflect heat back into space, so it never makes it to the surface). The idea is that we've been in a several thousand year cooling trend that we may have prematurely interrupted through antropogenic sources.

Bubonic plague is spread by fleas, which travel on rats. So, you could argue that it's caused by globalization, which is another much-decried, if misunderstood, phenomenon.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 19, 2012)

Cannonball said:


> It gets them about twice as far back as existing records for this region (high elevation climates in BC coast mountains).*  The figure you posted is consistent with virtually any localized temperature measurements.  Lots of variability over time.  This is not a measure of global temperature.*  So I'm not sure what your point in relation to this discussion is.  As for media attention, this is a pretty small-scale localized study.



    The better truth is none of the long-term ways they measure historical temperatures are perfect (or even nearly perfect enough, and that's being kind).  But do you not see what you did in the above?  You're criticizing the finding of an area(s) of the planet as being much cooler in the past as not being representative of the _entire _planet.  Great; except that's exactly what some of these pseudo-scientists are doing right now.  Look no farther than last year as an example.  Over and over again we were told that temperatures in North America last winter were very warm (which was 100% true), and this was neatly-tied to global warming, but they simultaneously failed to mention that overall virtually everywhere else on the planet the global temperatures last season were rather cool.   Regardless, the fact that there were warmer overall global instances in the past doesn't well jive with today's science if you wish to prove direct correlation.  
        It also doesn't bode well that the planet has been cooling for about 15 or 16 years now.  "Well", they say, "yes, but these are still really warm years on a historical basis".  This is a disingenuous, red herring defense of a failed hypothesis.  Nobody is denying that it's not warm.  But the earth should not be cooling with skyrocketing CO2, and CO2 that is rising much higher and much quicker than the climate scientists predicted to boot.  Given how poorly their computer models and predictions have fared thus far, why should anyone reasonably believe them going forward?  Even if you somehow were mentally capable of dismissing their caught-red-handed outright fraudulent data submissions, multiple coverups of data that seemed to contradict man-made global warming, and the blackballing of scientists working on any (literally) hypothesis not blaming the human race for the globe's warming.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 19, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> ....virtually everywhere else on the planet the global temperatures last season were rather cool.



I think you're still missing how global temperature works.  It's the whole globe as a composite that makes up the concept of "global temperature".  There is no such thing as "everywhere else on the planet global temperatures".


----------



## ctenidae (Dec 19, 2012)

It's also not "global warming" (an unfortunately sticky buzzword). It's "global climate change." Widescale and rapid changes to the global climate is the problem- melting ice caps and glaciers, deforestation, acidification of the oceans, increasing atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, ongoing and deepening droughts, severe weather patterns, etc etc. these are allproblems that we have to be able to handle, and that we can have some type of influence on by reducing our overall contribution to some parts.

Europe being colder than normal and the tropics being hotter than normal canhave profound effects on overall climate.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Dec 19, 2012)

Cannonball said:


> Are you sure you read it?  Because it does mention "analysis of ice core and ocean sediment coreshas shown periods of glacials and interglacials over the past few million years."



Absolutetly read it.My point is not to weigh in one way or the other.It supports theories on both sides.There is no "the debate is over" conclusion from what I see from all different data,studies,and theories that I have read.But then,I have an open mind.


----------



## ctenidae (Dec 19, 2012)

SIKSKIER said:


> Absolutetly read it.My point is not to weigh in one way or the other.It supports theories on both sides.There is no "the debate is over" conclusion from what I see from all different data,studies,and theories that I have read.But then,I have an open mind.



I don't think the "debate is over," necessarily. But, I'm quite positive the near-certain consequences of doing nothing and being wrong far far outweigh any potential downsides of doing something and being wrong.


----------



## Cannonball (Dec 19, 2012)

SIKSKIER said:


> Absolutetly read it.My point is not to weigh in one way or the other.It supports theories on both sides.There is no "the debate is over" conclusion from what I see from all different data,studies,and theories that I have read.But then,I have an open mind.



That article describes a number or processes, both natural and man-made, that have been shown to impact global climate.  They are not portrayed as from "both sides", they are portrayed (correctly) as all part of the same side.  I.e. part of the overall picture.  

Let me be clear what I meant when I said "there is no debate"....There is no longer any debate, among credible scientists, that humans can and do have an impact on global climate.  The article you linked to says exactly that.  On the other hand there is absolutely ongoing investigation, discussion, and even debate on the degree of those impacts, the long-term consequences, the secondary impacts, solutions, etc.


----------



## abc (Dec 19, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> It also doesn't bode well that the planet has been cooling for about 15 or 16 years now.  "Well", they say, "yes, but these are still really warm years on a historical basis".  This is a disingenuous, red herring defense of a failed hypothesis.  Nobody is denying that it's not warm.  But the earth should not be cooling with skyrocketing CO2, and CO2 that is rising much higher and much quicker than the climate scientists predicted to boot.  Given how poorly their computer models and predictions have fared thus far, why should anyone reasonably believe them going forward?  Even if you somehow were mentally capable of dismissing their caught-red-handed outright fraudulent data submissions, multiple coverups of data that seemed to contradict man-made global warming, and the blackballing of scientists working on any (literally) hypothesis not blaming the human race for the globe's warming.


You haven't a clue of what science is about! 

Science base on evidence. Yes, data can be mis-interpreted. Data can even be mis-collected. But it can be proven if it's wrong. And the right one is reproducible. If you're only reading the science from the media, you're getting bits and piece of the scientific process and you may then conclude ALL science are unreliable because they sometimes get refuted which happens to be the best part of science. 

So, all you rant of redherring and coverup are part of the scientific process. Politicians (and media) may mis-report or mis-use scientific findings for their own purpose. But if you're actually following the serious science, you'll find the debate is indeed "over". We human are accelerating the change in the earth's climate and making it more difficult for our children. 

These days, the average American are unable to see beyond next weekend. Those who attributes the lack of snow last year to global warming are  just as shortsighted as those who demand more snow making in 30 degree  temperature! So climate change, which will affect our children and grandchildren most significantly, will simply be ignored by most as "unreliable" the moment the first snow flake flies. Let's hope our offsprings are smarter than dinosaurs so they can survive the mess we leave them in!


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 19, 2012)

I know some geniuses who believe all the crap from Fox lies they just believe what they want, how funny would this thread be in a safety break 420 conversation.:beer:


----------



## dmc (Dec 20, 2012)

She blinded me with science!


----------



## ctenidae (Dec 20, 2012)

dmc said:


> She blinded me with science!



That's always the trouble isn't it? Critical analysis can be difficult, so most people default to one of three things- believe who ever is yelling the loudest, believe whatever serves your purposes now the best, or believe whatever is simplest and most expedient.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 20, 2012)

abc said:


> *You haven't a clue of what science is about!*


  It's truly distressing to learn on an internet forum that my science degree was meaningless.



abc said:


> *if you're actually following the serious science, you'll find the debate is indeed "over".*



And then he follows it up with this!   Gold Jerry, GOLD!



Scotty said:


> I know some geniuses who believe all the crap from  Fox lies they just believe what they want, how funny would this thread  be in a safety break 420 conversation.:smile::smile::beer:



That's ironic, when I read the English in your posts it helps me in cognition to assume you're high on a 24/7 basis.




Cannonball said:


> I think you're still missing how global  temperature works.  It's the whole globe as a composite that makes up  the concept of "global temperature".  There is no such thing as  "everywhere else on the planet global temperatures".



Oh, I'm quite aware.  Which is why the last 15 or 16 years should trouble the Global Warming alarmists, and explains why some of the more disingenuous among them (being kind) have tried to mask that data.


----------



## ctenidae (Dec 20, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> Oh, I'm quite aware.  Which is why the last 15 or 16 years should trouble the Global Warming alarmists, and explains why some of the more disingenuous among them (being kind) have tried to mask that data.



So, what do you suggest we, as a species, should do about the future? Continue with business as usual, cut down trees, over fish the oceans, increase factory farming, pump more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, and hope an asterooid hits us before we push things too far?

I get it that you think the government is always out to take every penny they can from you. I get it that you think folks who are concerned about anthropogenic impacts on the climate are alarmist nutjobs.

What I don't know is whether you think diversifying our energy sources makes sense. I don't know if you think that protecting wild spaces is important. I don't know if you think that saving species from extinction by human actions is worthwhile. I don't know if you're concerned that the polar ice caps are, undeniably, shrinking, and that we don't know what effect this may have on things, or if you think it might make sense to look into ways to adjust if it does change the climate around.

The global climate changes over time- I know you believe that, as you keep pointing to natural causes as a way to discount anthropogenic ones. I submit that we, as a culture, have gotten fairly well locked into our current ways of life, and have lost some of our natural adaptability. This concerns me because as the climates change, no matter the cause, we will need to adapt, and, at least in the developed world, we may have forgotten how to, or, worse still, we may be willfully ignorant, and refuse to remember how to adapt and stubornly continue down the path we're on.

This is why I get into these kinds of conversations. people like y ou are so wrapped up in the "global warming is all lies" claptrap that you have forgotten, perhaps because you want to, that there's a much bigger issue here, and it won't go away by ignoring it. The Earth's climate changes, and it's currently undergoing a change that has happened before, and appears to be a precursor to bigger, longer term changes. It really doesn't matter, particularly, what's causing it. If it's not us, fine, let's figure out how we can adapt. If it is us, fine, let's figure out how we can adapt (and along the way,we may be able to buy ourselves some time).

The longer we go thinking everything's hunky dory and we don't need to change the way we do things on this planet, the worse it'll be when or if things do go substantially against us. There is no downside to assuming we are having an impact on the global climate and looking for ways to fix, adjust, or adapt to it. None. In fact, there are tangible and achievable upsides, even if we aren't having an impact. There are real, tangible, and some not so distant impacts to business as usual, and the potential downsides are really quite bad.

Sticking your head in the sand, calling scientists liars, and espousing conspiracy theorists isn't at all helpful. But, you're entitled to your beliefs. All I ask is that you get the fuck out of the way as others try to make some progress and leave behind some sort of liveable planet for our grandkids. If you're not going to help, that's fine. Just don't be a hinderance.


----------



## dmc (Dec 20, 2012)

I think we are contributing to global warming with this thread... haha..


----------



## ScottySkis (Dec 20, 2012)

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2
I'm sure it does BG but I actually have not been on MJ for a year now.


----------



## speden (Dec 20, 2012)

I kind of like the approach some environmental groups are taking now, where they are trying to work on a more local and regional level than at the national level.

We've seen how every world summit on cutting greenhouse gas emissions has been a dismal failure.  Every country worries about their economy faltering without cheap polluting energy and agrees to do precisely nothing.  Then you had Al Gore trying the grab the bull by the horns and advocate for change on a national level.  But that just politicized the issue and now you see the kind of entrenched do nothing crowd that has sprung up in reaction.

Groups like the R20 Regions of Climate Action (the one founded by good old Arnold Schwarzenegger) seem to be able to move forward on green projects while the national governments remain paralyzed.  I also like the local efforts of some ski areas to source their energy from renewable sources, and to put up wind turbines.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 20, 2012)

ctenidae said:


> cut down trees



In most places on the planet?  Sure, as long as it's responsibly done (i.e. dont do what England did in the 17th and 18th centuries).



ctenidae said:


> over fish the oceans


Again, fish as much as you like as long as individual species aren't overfished. 



ctenidae said:


> pump more CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into  the atmosphere



Until proven otherwise, CO2 is merely plant food to me.  There have been previous times the earth has sustained life in which CO2 was higher than today.



ctenidae said:


> increase factory farming



Well, it's either that or we legalize homicide.  How about real life Hunger Games?  If case you haven't noticed, the global population is increasing, someone needs to feed them.   I've seen some real extremist eco-crazy talk by some so concerned about the growth of the human race that they desire a plague of some sort to substantially cull back our numbers.  Nuts.



ctenidae said:


> I get it that you think the government is always out to take every penny  they can from you.



I'd say that's figuratively accurate.



ctenidae said:


> I get it that you think folks who are concerned  about anthropogenic impacts on the climate are alarmist nutjobs.



That's incorrect.  I don't fault anyone for believing AGM is true.  I fault those who believe it with blind faith, which in my suspicion is some number > 50%.   I also fault anyone who ostensibly claims to be talking about a scientific *THEORY* (all caps and bolded for emphasis) and in the same breath uses some form of _"there's no debate it's not true" _or_ "all the scientists agree"_ or some similar, which is frankly the intellectual equivalent of simply stating loudly that you have no idea what you're talking about.  I also fault those who dont realize that various global governments couldnt care less about whether AGM is true or not either way, but use it to extract $$$$ from both individual citizens and corporations, in addition to enacting increased controls and regulations over the populace and various sectors of the economy (and it's getting worse).


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 20, 2012)

ctenidae said:


> What I don't know is whether you think diversifying our energy sources  makes sense.



Yes, as long as it's economically sensible.  Natural gas, for instance,  is the future in this country, and a no brainer.   But then you have  something like solar - in many places in America, solar is a complete  and total scam that makes no financial sense, and is enabled completely  by government waste/kickbacks. 



ctenidae said:


> I don't know if you think that protecting wild spaces is  important.



Depends.  The way PA has done it is great I think.  The way NJ has done  it is horrendous.  And I think the way NY did it with the Cats and Dax  is a good example of extremism.  When Hunter cant even put a few ski  trails on *its' own property *which happens to be joined  to one of the biggest natural expanses in all of Continental America?   Houston, we have an eco-extremist problem.



ctenidae said:


> I don't know if you think that saving species from extinction  by human actions is worthwhile.



Almost always.  The few exceptions are when it's used in fraud by   eco-extremists (which is on the increase sadly), and when it's dumb.  A   "dumb" example is, for instance, when they rescue the 1 or 2 manatees   each year that swim to Connecticut etc....  All they did is waste $$$,   and potentially harmed the future of the manatee species.  Lastly, and  this one is real tough for people to hear, but sometimes nature *****  up.  Some species should probably be left to peacefully go extinct,  because they were "evolutionarily dumb".  Specialists are the best  examples, the hognose snake will probably go extinct someday with or  without us.  Those cute Panda bears? Yeah, they were probably doomed  with or without mans' incursions as well.



ctenidae said:


> calling scientists liars, and espousing conspiracy theorists isn't at all helpful.



Especially if you have zero interest in the truth given some of the top  UN scientists have in fact been caught in lies and coverups.



ctenidae said:


> *All I ask is that you get the fuck out of the way as others try to make some progress* *and leave behind some sort of liveable planet for our grandkids*. If you're not going to help, that's fine. Just don't be a hinderance.



And here comes the self-righteous, egregiously pious, over-the-top  self-esteem boost language that's so customary.  Often from the same  people that tell you 38 times per month they own a Prius.  Luckily, I  live on the UWS, it's no sweat, I'm used to it.


----------



## ctenidae (Dec 21, 2012)

BenedictGomez said:


> And here comes the self-righteous, egregiously pious, over-the-top  self-esteem boost language that's so customary.  Often from the same  people that tell you 38 times per month they own a Prius.Luckily, Ilive on the UWS, it's no sweat, I'm used to it.



I don't really have the energy to continue the debate point by point, and don't want to bump this thread yet again to the top of the page. So, sorry to everyone for doing that.

My sole point is that denial, particularly loudly proclaimed, is more dangerous than blind acceptance. There are no positive outcomes if you deny and are wrong. There are positive outcomes if you accept and are wrong. Pure and simple. Blind devotion to any one belief is dangerous, overall- people who thin we should stop using all fossil fuels and go 100% solar immediately are more dangerous than people who think solar is a useful addition to the mix, but realize that fossil fuels are the reality for the medium term.

People who stand on their soapbox and loudly proclaim that scientists are liars and governments are crooks, and therfore we shouldn't be concerned about or try to do anything about the impacts we have on our environment are, in my opinion, dangerous.

For the record, I work in the energy industry- we've lost our shirts on renewables, and made a boatload of money on coal. Gas and oil are going to be the fuels of choice for a long time. I also drive a twin turbo V8 engined car that gets about 14 miles to the gallon when I'm in traffic. I like to drive, and the electric options suck, except for the Tesla, and I can't get one yet, or I'd have one because I like to support diversification. 

I don't think my opinions are infallible, I don't think everyone should believe the same things I do. I do, however, think a simple 2x2 logic square will steer you right more often than it will steer you wrong.


----------



## witch hobble (Dec 21, 2012)

Did the OP ever even check back in to this one?


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 29, 2014)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...y-prices-soaring-in-top-10-wind-power-states/


----------



## Domeskier (Oct 29, 2014)

ctenidae said:


> My sole point is that denial, particularly loudly proclaimed, is more dangerous than blind acceptance. There are no positive outcomes if you deny and are wrong. There are positive outcomes if you accept and are wrong.



No quite true.  The consequences of denying and being wrong will be imposed primarily on people who do not now exist - people whose very existence will most likely depend on our denying and being wrong.  Because the policy changes that believers advocate would likely result in different people being born in the future.  So it looks like everyone wins if we deny and are wrong.  We win, because we don't have to change our current behavior.  And future generations win because they wouldn't exist if we changed our current behavior.  So unless global warming will at some point make like not worth living, we seem to have no reason to change our current behavior.

Not sure what's wrong with the above argument, except the absurd conclusion that we should do nothing about global warming even if it's man-made.  I guess we could challenge the premise that the effects of our contributions to global warming would not be experienced in our own lifetimes.  Or the premise that the people who exist in the future will depend on what policies we adopt now.  Or maybe the implicit premise that it's not wrong to adopt a policy that will make life worse in the future if no one in the future could complain (because they would not have existed if we had adopted difference policies today).


----------



## Abubob (Oct 29, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...y-prices-soaring-in-top-10-wind-power-states/



Anti wind farm protesters will have a field day with this type of article. Any articles written about solar energy like this would greatly cripple non fossil fuel industry.


----------



## trackbiker (Oct 29, 2014)

All you have to do is google this guy and you can see where his paycheck comes from. Scan down and see the list of "articles" he has written.
There is no evidence of cause and effect in the article. Only a correlation. You could also say that states that grow the most corn have had the highest energy cost increases.

http://heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 29, 2014)

Abubob said:


> Anti wind farm protesters will have a field day with this type of article. Any articles written about solar energy like this would greatly cripple non fossil fuel industry.



Solar is bad too, but it's not even remotely as bad as wind energy.  Wind is in a league of its' own in terms of being a complete waste of money and government boondoggle.  Might as well create energy by burning $100 bills.


----------



## Edd (Oct 29, 2014)

Abubob said:


> Anti wind farm protesters will have a field day with this type of article. Any articles written about solar energy like this would greatly cripple non fossil fuel industry.



Your comment states that an article(?) would cripple an industry?  Did you mean something else?


----------



## Abubob (Oct 29, 2014)

trackbiker said:


> All you have to do is google this guy and you can see where his paycheck comes from. Scan down and see the list of "articles" he has written.
> There is no evidence of cause and effect in the article. Only a correlation. You could also say that states that grow the most corn have had the highest energy cost increases.
> 
> http://heartland.org/james-m-taylor-jd



That does not surprise me. Politics  and industrial espionage/disinformation always clouds issues like this. We will never get a clear picture on this issue.



BenedictGomez said:


> Solar is bad too, but it's not even remotely as bad as wind energy.  Wind is in a league of its' own in terms of being a complete waste of money and government boondoggle.  Might as well create energy by burning $100 bills.



Many people feel this way



Edd said:


> Your comment states that an article(?) would cripple an industry?  Did you mean something else?



Well maybe not one article but this type of thinking, this type of propaganda, if you will, CAN cripple whole industries. I believe it's meant to.


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Might as well create energy by burning $100 bills.



Once we finish burning our non-renewable sources, we'll have to get down to burning $100 bills if we haven't developed alternative energy sources. 

Well not us specifically, but somebody's kids. Bummer for them.


----------



## Puck it (Oct 29, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Once we finish burning our non-renewable sources, we'll have to get down to burning $100 bills if we haven't developed alternative energy sources.
> 
> Well not us specifically, but somebody's kids. Bummer for them.


 so you are not subscriber to abiotic theory :wink:


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 29, 2014)

I've spent about 600 miles in the car cris-crossing Northern Maine for work the past few days.  Despite their being several  wind farms in the area, I only caught a glimpse of one briefly.  Everything to the east of I95 is essentially a flat evergreen forest/bog with hardly any views to be had. Views beyond 200 yards off the state highways in these areas are practically non-existent except for around blueberry farms. I had never spent much time around Houlton, Lincoln, Calais and Machais before, but it's as barren as it gets.  

The State's paper industry has fallen in catastrophic fashion over the past several decades and the poverty you see in Northern Maine is the worst of any rural area in New England; it is pretty bad.  If I were local, I'd be pushing for wind and solar projects up the wazoo to at least utilize the land and funnel some cash back into the area.


----------



## jack97 (Oct 29, 2014)

Abubob said:


> Politics  and industrial espionage/disinformation always clouds issues like this. We will never get a clear picture on this issue.



i'm still trying to figure out why co2 is a pollutant, from a scientific pov.


----------



## Not Sure (Oct 29, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Once we finish burning our non-renewable sources, we'll have to get down to burning $100 bills if we haven't developed alternative energy sources.
> 
> Well not us specifically, but somebody's kids. Bummer for them.



Burning up non renewables may save the human race. Yup I said that. 

When the Metor hits...no secondary explosion ...LOL


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 29, 2014)

jack97 said:


> i'm still trying to figure out why co2 is a pollutant, from a scientific pov.



Here's some science you can do at home: put a small plastic bag over your head. Seal all the gaps with duct tape. Leave on for several hours. Report back on your CO2 findings. We'll wait.....


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 29, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> *Once we finish burning our non-renewable sources*, we'll have to get down to burning $100 bills if we haven't developed alternative energy sources.



Oh, you mean like in the year 2010, right?  

The predictions of _"the end of oil" _has been wrong more times than the Jehovah's have predicted the end of the world.



jack97 said:


> *i'm still trying to figure out why co2 is a pollutant, from a scientific pov*.



It's scientifically moronic, but if it's not a pollutant, they cant regulate it. But make no mistake, it's not "anti-science".  It can only be _"anti science"_, when it disagrees with left-wing agenda.



Cannonball said:


> Here's some science you can do at home: put a small plastic bag over your head. Seal all the gaps with duct tape. Leave on for several hours. Report back on your CO2 findings. We'll wait.....



That's pretty sick......


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Oh, you mean like in the year 2010, right?
> 
> The predictions of _"the end of oil" _has been wrong more times than the Jehovah's have predicted the end of the world



So do you believe that oil is infinite? Or do you believe that humans will cease to exist before oil runs out?  Because those are really the only two options that would make it untrue that sombody's kids will have to deal with the end of oil.


----------



## Not Sure (Oct 29, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> So do you believe that oil is infinite? Or do you believe that humans will cease to exist before oil runs out?  Because those are really the only two options that would make it untrue that sombody's kids will have to deal with the end of oil.



Two words ..."Solylent Brown " problem solved


----------



## Abubob (Oct 29, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> The predictions of _"the end of oil" _has been wrong more times than the Jehovah's have predicted the end of the world.



That end of the world thing is still on.


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 29, 2014)

Wait, Harold Camping died last year.  

Who has assumed the throne in predicting The Rapture?


----------



## jack97 (Oct 29, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Here's some science you can do at home: put a small plastic bag over your head. Seal all the gaps with duct tape. Leave on for several hours. Report back on your CO2 findings. We'll wait.....



yep...that is sick. guess you have zero tolerance for those who have different views.


----------



## jack97 (Oct 29, 2014)

Abubob said:


> That end of the world thing is still on.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 29, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> *do you believe that oil is infinite?*



Infinite is a very strong word.  But......


SHORT VERSION:  Human beings tend to only be able to see the world  as they literally can "see" it, in the moment.  There are about 642  other things I'd worry about before I'd get to "oil running out" being on the  list.

LONG VERSION: I do believe that there is likely more than enough oil on our planet given the known and theorized current supply, plus the recent technological advances that are STILL greatly expanding that supply, to last years and years and years, by which time, it's at least as statistically likely that there will be a generational technological advance or discovery that could make oil somewhat trivial, if not rendering it completely obsolete.  




Cannonball said:


> *Or do you believe that humans will cease to exist before oil runs out?*



That's a possibility too.   




Abubob said:


> *That end of the world thing is still on.*



Is it?   I didn't know that.  I remember when one came to my door when I was a kid telling me the world was about to end (it was one of the times when they had an actual date). Handed me some kindof frightening magazine with scary images of the world ending, etc...


----------



## Judder (Oct 29, 2014)

Yorkers and Jersey folk driving up to Vermont every weekend aint sustainable...


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 29, 2014)

jack97 said:


> yep...that is sick. guess you have zero tolerance for those who have different views.



Give us a break Jack.  You can be intolerant of AGW supporters and as snarky and condescending as anyone in these conversations.

Cannonball makes an off color joke, and it was that, not malicious intent and you act the victim.  If you're going to dish it out, learn to take it.


----------



## steamboat1 (Oct 30, 2014)

Judder said:


> Yorkers and Jersey folk driving up to Vermont every weekend aint sustainable...


It sustains Vermont. Where do you think all the college kids & skiers come from. If not for them.......


----------



## jack97 (Oct 30, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Give us a break Jack.  You can be intolerant of AGW supporters and as snarky and condescending as anyone in these conversations.
> 
> Cannonball makes an off color joke, and it was that, not malicious intent and you act the victim.  If you're going to dish it out, learn to take it.



 who said i'm a victim? i think the person who needs a break are people who can't handle opposing views without adding the usual ad hominems or hyperbole, the later as reflected in your reply.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 30, 2014)

Mount Abram to power 70% of it's electricity needs with new solar power system this winter.

http://www.pressherald.com/2014/10/30/skiing-green/


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 30, 2014)

jack97 said:


> yep...that is sick. guess you have zero tolerance for those who have different views.



Please explain how my joke can be interpreted that way.

I can understand calling it 'sick' (some of the best jokes are).  But I can't figure out how it could equate to zero tolerance for people with other views.


----------



## Highway Star (Oct 30, 2014)

swampwiz said:


> Reading through the comments of an article I referenced previously in another thread, I noticed this one:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/us/climate-change-threatens-ski-industrys-livelihood.html
> 
> ...



I think this reporter is a first class moron:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2007/03/09/serial-misinformer-kit-seelye-reportedly-set-to/138246



> However, Seelye's previous political coverage for the _Times_ has been broadly criticized. In particular, she has been singled out for advancing -- and, in some cases, generating -- misleading attacks on former Vice President Al Gore during the 2000 presidential race.


----------



## witch hobble (Oct 30, 2014)

I found it funny, and topical.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 30, 2014)

Judder said:


> *Yorkers and Jersey folk driving up to Vermont every weekend aint sustainable.*..



If you live in Vermont, you'd better hope that it is.



steamboat1 said:


> *It sustains Vermont.* *Where do you think all the college kids & skiers come from. If not for them.......*



Seriously.  Isn't tourism like the 2nd or 3rd most important contributor to Vermont?


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 30, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Seriously.  Isn't tourism like the 2nd or 3rd most important contributor to Vermont?



Curious at to what would be first or second.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 30, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> *Curious at to what would be first or second.*



It's way the heck up there wherever it is.    

Point being, a Vermonter wishing to put an end to that is like a Panda Bear wishing for a bamboo blight.


----------



## witch hobble (Oct 30, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Point being, a Vermonter wishing to put an end to that is like a Panda Bear wishing for a bamboo blight.


Or a polar bear adopting your points of view


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 30, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> If you live in Vermont, you'd better hope that it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously.  Isn't tourism like the 2nd or 3rd most important contributor to Vermont?



Contributor of?  The answer probably depends on who you ask.



BenedictGomez said:


> It's way the heck up there wherever it is.
> 
> Point being, a Vermonter wishing to put an end to that is like a Panda Bear wishing for a bamboo blight.



Blight is an interesting choice of words


----------



## Judder (Oct 30, 2014)

Just trying to stir some sh!t up.

Tourism = absolutely vital to the VT economy.  The way it currently works = unsustainable and killing winter as we know it.

When you have thousands of SUVs driving hundreds of miles each weekend just to play in the snow, that's just a kick in the balls to mother nature, climate, and our energy resources.  Sh!t aint sustainable for long.  I'm to blame for this too; I need my car for everything.

It'll be curious to see what the NE ski industry is like in 50 years.  Cars? Alternative Transportation? Climate?


----------



## spring_mountain_high (Oct 30, 2014)

Judder said:


> Just trying to stir some sh!t up.
> 
> Tourism = absolutely vital to the VT economy.  The way it currently works = unsustainable and killing winter as we know it.
> 
> ...



natural gas...the future belongs to natural gas...natural gas is my ho and i am pimping her all over town


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 31, 2014)

Judder said:


> *Tourism = absolutely vital to the VT economy.  The way it currently works = unsustainable and killing winter as we know it.*



People driving to Vermont is "killing winter" is it?   Wow.  I never knew how low the Global Warming (aka rebranded Climate Change) bar could be set.



Judder said:


> *When you have thousands of SUVs driving hundreds of miles each weekend just to play in the snow, that's just a kick in the balls to mother nature, climate, and our energy resources.  Sh!t aint sustainable for long.*  I'm to blame for this too; I need my car for everything.



Do you eat meat (hamburger, steak, chicken, hotdogs)?

Do you own a pet dog or cats or horses?

Because IF (and it sounds like you do) you believe the IPCC science claiming that man is to blame for Global Warming, then EITHER of those activities above are worse than driving an SUV.  So why are you focusing on fuel?


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 31, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> People driving to Vermont is "killing winter" is it?   Wow.  I never knew how low the Global Warming (aka rebranded Climate Change) bar could be set.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Despite what it written in the internet, the claim that a pet consumes more energy than an SUV is not true, and I'm pretty sure you know that.  Comparing fuel consumption to food energy without any consideration to lifecycle (of both the fuel and SUV) is plain dumb and not scientific.

I'll give you that pets do nonetheless have a non-negligible carbon footprint.  However, using this as an excuse to not to act on another front is weak at best.


----------



## VTKilarney (Oct 31, 2014)

Morality is not going to change whether or not people drive SUVs to Vermont to go skiing.  What will affect behavior is cost.  Costs need to increase by quite a bit before behavior is affected in any meaningful way.

It's a double edged sword.  If government increases costs through taxation in order to impact behavior, it would be extremely regressive.  Al Gore can absorb the increased cost much easier than someone driving to their job at the local motel.


----------



## Domeskier (Oct 31, 2014)

I don't even own a car, but I bet I do more harm to the environment in a single international flight than these weekend warriors do all season with their SUVs.  I am ashamed.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 31, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Despite what it written in the internet, the claim that a pet consumes more energy than an SUV is not true, and I'm pretty sure you know that.  Comparing fuel consumption to food energy without any consideration to lifecycle (of both the fuel and SUV) is plain dumb and not scientific.
> 
> I'll give you that pets do nonetheless have a non-negligible carbon footprint.  However, using this as an excuse to not to act on another front is weak at best.



IF you believe the IPCC:

Eating meat is worse than driving, even if you drive an "evil" SUV.  

Owning pets can be worse than driving, depending on how many dogs/cats/animals you own and their size (i.e teacup chihuahuas versus Mastiffs) and what you feed them (SEE: Eating meat is worse than driving).   True the pets thing isn't an absolute, I'll give you that, but even if it's somewhat "close", why do you suppose you never hear people say that "owning pets is evil", but "driving SUVs" is?   Why do you suppose we dont constantly hear from the politicians that "eating meat" is evil?   Do you have an answer for that, because I'm genuinely curious.


----------



## dlague (Oct 31, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Despite what it written in the internet, the claim that a pet consumes more energy than an SUV is not true, and I'm pretty sure you know that.  Comparing fuel consumption to food energy without any consideration to lifecycle (of both the fuel and SUV) is plain dumb and not scientific.
> 
> I'll give you that pets do nonetheless have a non-negligible carbon footprint.  However, using this as an excuse to not to act on another front is weak at best.



Wow this debate took place last winter!  If you want to look the overall picture then concert promoters, professional sports teams, concentration of corporations with in cities, etc are all to blame.  In reality there could be a single natural event like volcanos (for example) that can change the climate dramatically!  Skier traffic to ski areas in like a fart in the wind!  there are about 16 million skiers at best averaging 6 days per year.  There are over 300 million in the US - ALL of those non skiers are going somewhere else!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 31, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> I don't even own a car, but I bet I do more harm to the environment in a single international flight than these weekend warriors do all season with their SUVs.*  I am ashamed*.



Why?  Didn't you get the memo?   You can do as much damage to the planet as you want as long as you purchase "carbon offsets".

Whenever you're in doubt, just ask yourself WWLDD (What Would Leonardo DiCaprio Do).


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 31, 2014)

dlague said:


> *  Skier traffic to ski areas in like a fart in the wind! *



Yes, that was my initial point.

Or, alternatively, skier traffic is like 1/1,000,000,000th of a Chinese baby fart.


----------



## Domeskier (Oct 31, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Why?  Didn't you get the memo?   You can do as much damage to the planet as you want as long as you purchase "carbon offsets".
> 
> Whenever you're in doubt, just ask yourself WWLDD (What Would Leonardo DiCaprio Do).



I wonder if he'll drive me to Sundown this winter if I promise to plant a petunia.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 31, 2014)

Judder said:


> Just trying to stir some sh!t up.



I think you all are missing this part of the post.......


----------



## Scruffy (Oct 31, 2014)

Time to lock another thread!

You assholes that want to talk global warming in a ski forum, go find "I'm always correct, and your views are wrong, about global warming forum" to c#nt up. 

Jesus Fing Crips Give it a Fucking rest!


----------



## jack97 (Oct 31, 2014)




----------



## fbrissette (Oct 31, 2014)

dlague said:


> Wow this debate took place last winter!  If you want to look the overall picture then concert promoters, professional sports teams, concentration of corporations with in cities, etc are all to blame.  In reality there could be a single natural event like volcanos (for example) that can change the climate dramatically!  Skier traffic to ski areas in like a fart in the wind!  there are about 16 million skiers at best averaging 6 days per year.  There are over 300 million in the US - ALL of those non skiers are going somewhere else!



I am not arguing that driving to the mountain is bad.  I simply said that the lifecycle carbon footprint of a SUV is larger than that of a pet.   That's it.   Ne need to jump.  I fully agree that driving to the mountain is a drop in the ocean.


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 31, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> IF you believe the IPCC:
> Eating meat is worse than driving,



You will not find this in any official IPCC document.




BenedictGomez said:


> Why do you suppose we dont constantly hear from the politicians that "eating meat" is evil?   Do you have an answer for that, because I'm genuinely curious.



Because politicians are mostly clueless idiots or agenda-driven self-serving asses (and often both).


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 31, 2014)

Please visit this link folks, it is an interactive history of weather modification (mostly in the USA).

In the last 10 years, as climate fear has increased, so have weather modification projects increased in the field.

If you go through this timeline you'll have a better idea what we're dealing with. Climate change IS caused by humans, but not for the reasons many of you seem to believe.

http://climateviewer.com/weather-control/


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 31, 2014)

The goal of scaring people into believing that any year now we'll be under water is to introduce worldwide geo-engineering.

Bill Gates, JASON Group, Raytheon, Boeing, David Keith, Ken Caldeira are all pushing this.

The National Science Foundation along with NASA and NOAA have already proven solar radiation management works in the field.

If enough people think the world is about to end, they will demand geo-engineering. Yes, they'll demand 40 million tonnes of sulphuric acid, titanium and aluminum be introduced into the stratosphere every year to reproduce the effects of a volcano.

We are rapidly heading in this direction. The weather experiments alone are myriad. When actual SRM geo-E starts, you can expect not to see blue skies for quite a long time. And this looks to begin in earnest within a year or a few years.


----------



## bobbutts (Oct 31, 2014)

Resident know it all complains about number of climate change threads, then proceeds to post 20 times in each.


----------



## Edd (Oct 31, 2014)

This thread has taken a most excellent turn.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 31, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> You will not find this in any official IPCC document.



There are _multiple_ IPCC members who have publicly stated we should become vegetarians to "combat" climate change because eating meat is bad for the planet, and yes, worse than driving.

From the BBC:


> *A 2006 report concluded meat production was responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions - more than transport*.......*Leading figures in the climate change establishment, such as  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chairman Rajendra  Pachauri and Lord (Nicholas) Stern, have also quoted the 18% figure as a  reason why people should consider eating less meat*.


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 31, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> There are _multiple_ IPCC members who have publicly stated we should become vegetarians to "combat" climate change because eating meat is bad for the planet, and yes, worse than driving.



Believe it or not, it is possible for more than one thing at a time to be important.  I know that makes things a little complicated for your cue cards, but it's true.  

Just because Tyson's right was deadly, doesn't mean you'd be fine getting hit with his left.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Oct 31, 2014)

cow farts did it!


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 31, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> There are _multiple_ IPCC members who have publicly stated we should become vegetarians to "combat" climate change because eating meat is bad for the planet, and yes, worse than driving.
> 
> From the BBC:



Once again, you are confusing opinions, news reports and science.  You will not find serious science on 'eating meat is worse than driving'. 

With respect to my previous post on politicians, Rajendra Pachauri used to be a scientist.  He is now a politician of the second category (agenda-driven self-serving ass).  Al Gore belongs to both categories.


----------



## jack97 (Oct 31, 2014)

imo, the lodge should only sell vegan to offset all that carbon they use to keep the lift running, groomers going and blowing the manmade. Hmm... there's that 94% number again. luv that tramp stamp.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 31, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Just because Tyson's right was deadly, doesn't mean you'd be fine getting hit with his left.



Then why do the trainers commonly inform you about Tyson's left, so much so that it's complete common knowledge to even the most low-information of individuals, and yet virtually nobody on the planet is even aware that Tyson's right is more deadly?


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 31, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Then why do the trainers commonly inform you about Tyson's left, so much so that it's complete common knowledge to even the most low-information of individuals, and yet virtually nobody on the planet is even aware that Tyson's right is more deadly?



Exactly.  All the things you keep saying "how come nobody talks about this??"....EVERYBODY talks about.   Heck Jack even has the shirt!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 31, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> *You will not find serious science on 'eating meat is worse than driving'. *




I have a feeling the scientists, researchers, and statisticians at the UN FAO would probably disagree with you.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Oct 31, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Exactly.  All the things you keep saying "how  come nobody talks about this??"....*EVERYBODY talks about.   *Heck Jack  even has the shirt!



You're full of crap if you're saying you GENUINELY believe that there is a similar number of people who are aware that "eating meat" is even in the same ballpark as "driving cars" in terms of being harmful.    

There aren't many people who have even heard "eating meat" causes Global Warming (I'll say it's less than 10%) , but close to 100% (literally) of people know carbon emissions from vehicles do.




jack97 said:


> imo, the lodge should only sell vegan to offset all that carbon they use to keep the lift running, groomers going and blowing the manmade. Hmm... there's that 94% number again. luv that tramp stamp.



Was "organic" really necessary there?


----------



## Cannonball (Oct 31, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> There aren't many people who have even heard "eating meat" causes Global Warming (I'll say it's less than 10%) , but close to *100% (literally) of people know carbon emissions from vehicles do.*



It's nice to hear you finally say it.

It seems like the thread is kind of done. Now that even you say that.


----------



## jack97 (Oct 31, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Was "organic" really necessary there?



sorry, i got mesmerized by that tattoo. it's a weakness.


----------



## fbrissette (Oct 31, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I have a feeling the scientists, researchers, and statisticians at the UN FAO would probably disagree with you.



Are you reading right ?   I've never said that the CO2 footprint of animals is not important.  The climate forcing due to methane emissions from animals has been researched and is indeed taken into account in climate modelling.  You just won't find serious science saying eating meat is worse than driving.  That's all.


----------



## jack97 (Oct 31, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> Are you reading right ?   I've never said that the CO2 footprint of animals is not important.  The climate forcing due to methane emissions from animals has been researched and is indeed taken into account in climate modelling.




more than just cow fart


Dario Caro co authored paper in Climate Change.... i assumed it was peered reviewed so it must be legit.


----------



## steamboat1 (Nov 1, 2014)

bdfreetuna said:


> cow farts did it!


Hey it powers the K-1 gondola & Peak Lodge.
...


----------



## jack97 (Nov 1, 2014)

so which resort is going to step up and go vegan? think of all that land mass saved where the greenies can use for solar farms... oh yeah they use factory meat production, but that corn can be use for ethanol instead of cattle feed. its a win win which allows for higher ethanol mandates.

btw, i'm sure those who believe in the green house gas hypothesis has already converted to vegan right? otherwise they are hypocrites.


----------



## Edd (Nov 1, 2014)

jack97 said:


> btw, i'm sure those who believe in the green house gas hypothesis has already converted to vegan right? otherwise they are hypocrites.



Not exactly. They're hypocrites if they're telling others to go vegan and they don't. Just because they believe in the hypothesis doesn't mean they'll automatically do something about it.  

Take an obese person who grossly overeats.  He admits to himself that, yup, I'm way to heavy because of the food. But he doesn't do anything about it. He's not a hypocrite.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 1, 2014)

Edd said:


> Not exactly. They're hypocrites if they're telling others to go vegan and they don't. Just because they believe in the hypothesis doesn't mean they'll automatically do something about it.
> 
> Take an obese person who grossly overeats.  He admits to himself that, yup, I'm way to heavy because of the food. But he doesn't do anything about it. He's not a hypocrite.



the ghg believers who supports co2 as a pollutant, give tax breaks for wind/solar and carbon trade.... they are the hypocrites. they are imposing their manifesto while not partaking in a vegan diet.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 1, 2014)

Edd said:


> Not exactly. They're hypocrites if they're telling others to go vegan and they don't. Just because they believe in the hypothesis doesn't mean they'll automatically do something about it.
> 
> Take an obese person who grossly overeats.  He admits to himself that, yup, I'm way to heavy because of the food. But he doesn't do anything about it. He's not a hypocrite.



I have to agree with this.   

But if you complain about an activity due to your believed negative effect it has on Global Warming, and you simultaneously participate in a different activity with and even larger believed negative effect on Global Warming, that = hypocrite.



jack97 said:


> the ghg believers who supports co2 as a pollutant, give tax breaks for wind/solar and carbon trade.... they are the hypocrites. they are imposing their manifesto while not partaking in a vegan diet.



Definitely.  

Though I would argue most of the politicians who give the $$$$ to Wind & Solar certainly aren't doing it to combat "Global Warming", that's just the cover story.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 1, 2014)

jack97 said:


> the ghg believers who supports co2 as a pollutant, give tax breaks for wind/solar and carbon trade.... they are the hypocrites. they are imposing their manifesto while not partaking in a vegan diet.



What is your point ?

- that it is pointless to reduce industrial/transportation GHG emissions until we all go vegan ?
- that going vegan is the most important step in reducing GHG emissions ?
- that it is OK to drive a gaz-guzzling behemoth (or a gas efficient car while commuting 60 miles every day) as long as you don't eat beef ?

Or are you simply throwing bits of information/disinformation just to justify doing nothing ?


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Though I would argue most of the politicians who give the $$$$ to Wind & Solar certainly aren't doing it to combat "Global Warming", that's just the cover story.



Mostly agree with the above.  In Canada, I think some politicans truly believe it is for the greater good, but without a doubt, the ones in position to make decisions have agendas.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 1, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> What is your point ?
> 
> - that it is pointless to reduce industrial/transportation GHG emissions until we all go vegan ?
> - that going vegan is the most important step in reducing GHG emissions ?
> ...



where is the disinformation? that cartoon is from green friendly web site, surely they would not lie.

edit, its from scientific america..... so it must true. btw, you have a good recipe for veggie chilli?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/slideshow/the-greenhouse-hamburger/


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 1, 2014)

jack97 said:


> where is the disinformation? that cartoon is from green friendly web site, surely they would not lie.



It's the lack of context that makes it disingenuous.  While it would be easy to argue the numbers, I'll grant you that the cartoon info is more or less correct.  However, do you think it's fair to compare the life cycle emissions from food against that of emissions from the sole use of fuel from point A to point B ?

You have not answered my question.


----------



## bobbutts (Nov 1, 2014)

Simple answer, not at all.  The more energy we consume, the wealthier and more fulfilled we are.  As skiers we're likely all relatively close to the top of that pyramid.  We drive long distances to recreation, we live in heated and AC'd homes, our standard of living is facilitated by energy consumption.  We will not give up this lifestyle easily.  
I think it is fair to conclude that the environmental cost of using dirty energy is increasing.  Even if you ignore other factors, the increasing demand in China especially supports this.  It's incalculable, but at some point we (humans, not just Americans) will be costing ourselves more than we're gaining when we use these types of sources.  One of the issues is the tragedy of the commons here, no country will act alone.


----------



## jwt (Nov 1, 2014)

*Experts can ( and do) disagree*



jack97 said:


> more than just cow fart
> 
> 
> Dario Caro co authored paper in Climate Change.... i assumed it was peered reviewed so it must be legit.



I have no formal education on the subject, but from observations over 50+ years I submit the following:

We had 100-150' of ice on New England up to about 10,000 years ago, so seems to be getting warmer.

No anthropogenic produced CO2 then.

.5-1 degree warmer over 100 years + hasn't caused the damage predicted.

That feeble man believes he can control the atmosphere or climate is laughable - but we are charged with stewardship of what God has given us. Just take a look at volcanic activity - think pols can help those folks in Hawaii?

control of energy = control of people == power - 1st thing Gorbachov did after the wall fell was join the environmental extremist groups.

$$ that we ( nor the world) doesn't have can't save anything - we can spent the grandkids cash now as we have since the 70's, but they owe it back. $17.5T and counting - only $300B a yr in interest - as long as it stays put at .5% rates.

Richard Lindzen from MIT disagrees with the concept of man-made, so does this fellow: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/11/earliest-snow-in-columbia-sc/

and of course the re is www.climatedepot.com

I just don't know, but governments trying to control and tax what humans exhale and plants inhale is as ridiculous a thought as there ever was. 

Best never to 'assume' anything though. . . . .


----------



## jack97 (Nov 1, 2014)

fbrissette said:


> It's the lack of context that makes it disingenuous.  While it would be easy to argue the numbers, I'll grant you that the cartoon info is more or less correct.  However, do you think it's fair to compare the life cycle emissions from food against that of emissions from the sole use of fuel from point A to point B ?
> 
> You have not answered my question.



My point was to show that meat production consumes energy as well. Its significance is such that groups of scientist have published peer reviewed papers of the green house gas emission this industry produces and as Caro wrote expects to produce by 2050. The cartoon gives a convenient magnitude of co2-equivalent emission wrt to driving for those who don't want to go thru the numbers every time they eat a hamburger.  

As far being fair the life cycle of food against fuel to go from point A to point B. I'm not enough of a libtard to say what is fair or not fair on how one chooses to emit co2. The fact is meat production and driving both require energy that emits co2-equivalents. 

btw, going vegan is not so bad....


----------



## Harvey (Nov 1, 2014)

bdfreetuna said:


> Does the environmental impact of skiing outweigh the environmental awareness it promotes?



Not even close.

Are you referring to earned turns?


----------



## abc (Nov 1, 2014)

jack97 said:


> the ghg believers who supports co2 as a pollutant, give tax breaks for wind/solar and carbon trade.... they are the hypocrites. they are imposing their manifesto while not partaking in a vegan diet.


Looking at that cartoon, I come to a totally opposite conclusion. So, for every 10 miles of SUV driving, it's the equivalent of eating a pound of steak!

Why should anyone adopt a vagan lifestyle? 

You can eat a pound of beef EVERYDAY if your daily commute BY SUV is less than 20 miles!!! 

I bet the majority of people has a far longer commute. 

So, eat to your hearts content! But move to a place that you can walk to work!

As for the 200 mile one way drive to VT to ski, again by SUV, well... I can only say that's a whole lot of steaks!!!


----------



## Harvey (Nov 1, 2014)

Been walking to work since 1988.  Not a vegan but not a huge meat fan.

Still do my "fair share" (<--ridiculous concept) of driving, maybe 10k or more per year. Skiing mostly.

What I meant to say above is that IMO skiing does nothing to promote enviro awareness. It's an enviro disaster as far as I can tell, and very few think twice about it.  Not claiming to be better than anyone else here.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Nov 1, 2014)

Love how everyone totally ignores 100 years of weather modification and still can pretend they are authorities on so-called climate change.

Fact is weather is made to order and those trading in weather futures are more than aware of this reality.

But yeah let's argue weather its cow farts or cars. Kind of like in the 80s and 90s we were told hairspray was wreaking the ozone layer. AFTER numerous nuclear weapons were tested in the ionosphere.

Manipulating people with climate fears has been on the table for a long time, and its time has come regardless of reality.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 1, 2014)

I'm guessing those trading Alcoa stocks are doing even better.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Nov 1, 2014)

I'll just say it. Anyone who counts their driving miles to feel better about global warming is a useful idiot.


----------



## Edd (Nov 1, 2014)

bdfreetuna said:


> Love how everyone totally ignores 100 years of weather modification and still can pretend they are authorities on so-called climate change.
> 
> Fact is weather is made to order and those trading in weather futures are more than aware of this reality.



This lady agrees.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Nov 1, 2014)

That's funny. But you all arguing about the cause of climate change without even acknowledging weather mod are even funnier. 

I happen to know a research meteorologist worked for US gov in the 80s PNW. Field studies in aerosol weather mod. Cloud seeding on steroids.

People that are otherwise interested in weather and climate I would think will hear me out, but my experience is the whole issue of climate is so politicized by now most people have made up their minds with very little consideration of the science of weather mod and geoengineering.

Trust me when I tell you, you'll find out about this soon enough either way.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 1, 2014)




----------



## Cannonball (Nov 1, 2014)

jack97 said:


> the ghg believers who supports co2 as a pollutant, give tax breaks for wind/solar and carbon trade.... they are the hypocrites. they are imposing their manifesto while not partaking in a vegan diet.



That's a bold indictment. Any facts to back it up?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 1, 2014)

bdfreetuna said:


> Love how everyone totally ignores 100 years of weather modification and still can pretend they are authorities on so-called climate change.
> 
> Fact is weather is made to order and those trading in weather futures are more than aware of this reality.



I remember these posts last year too.

I still cant figure out if they're actually serious or not.


----------



## Cannonball (Nov 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I remember these posts last year too.
> 
> I still cant figure out if they're serious or not.



Me neither. Can't tell if he's really on your side of this discussion. Or just mocking your side. Either way it's comical.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 1, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Me neither. Can't tell if he's really on your side of this discussion. Or just mocking your side. Either way it's comical.



Huh?

The fact you boil it down to a _"side"_ is pretty telling.  That's one of the biggest problems with the issue.

Be that as it may, I don't understand how you could possibly ascertain exactly what he thinks from.....that.


----------



## Cannonball (Nov 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Huh?
> 
> The fact you boil it down a _"side"_ is pretty telling.     Be that as it may, I don't understand how you could possibly ascertain exactly what he thinks from.....that.



OK, maybe not 'sides'. But It's the big gov conspiracy theory stuff that seems pretty consistent between his posts and yours. Can't tell if he's serious or just mocking you posts. Funny either way.


----------



## deadheadskier (Nov 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Huh?
> 
> The fact you boil it down to a _"side"_ is pretty telling.  That's one of the biggest problems with the issue.
> 
> Be that as it may, I don't understand how you could possibly ascertain exactly what he thinks from.....that.



Pretty simple read on it for me.  Tuna is on your "side" in that he doesn't believe carbon emissions are cause for global warming and he thinks people who believe that carbon is cause for global warming are foolish.


........then he throws down the gauntlet and suggest geoengineering such as chemtrails and the like are the cause of climate change.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 1, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> OK, maybe not 'sides'. But* It's the big gov conspiracy theory stuff *that seems pretty consistent between his posts and yours. Can't tell if he's serious or just mocking you posts. Funny either way.



Conspiracy theory?   Oh, do elaborate, and please don't leave out any details.



deadheadskier said:


> Pretty simple read on it for me.  Tuna is on your "side" in that *he doesn't believe carbon emissions are cause for global warming* and he thinks people who believe that carbon is cause for global warming are foolish.



Maybe I missed it in a prior post(s) or didn't take it correctly, but I didn't read it as necessarily meaning that.  I read it as his meaning that whether or not Global Warming is caused my CO2 doesn't matter in the least bit, because the weather is being manipulated anyway.


----------



## Cannonball (Nov 2, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Conspiracy theory?   Oh, do elaborate, and please don't leave out any details.



Yeah, the details have always seemed to be the fuzzy part.  Not that you've let that stop you.  Something about big government meat eating liberals that are trying to kill the economy by subsiding new technologies while conspiring with rich foreigners who want green cards to undermine New Jersey's real estate??? It gets confusing at this point so I'm not sure.  If the weather manipulation stuff fits in at this point, I don't really get it but why not.


----------



## fbrissette (Nov 2, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I remember these posts last year too.
> 
> I still cant figure out if they're actually serious or not.



Missed those posts last year.  There is a significant body of literature on geoengineering and climate change (the most likely solution being to send aerosols in the stratosphere to block incoming radiation).  The IPCC has avoided discussing this so far - it is almost a philosophical debate and we do not have a very good track record at trying to play god. 

Many scientists think geoengineering will be unavoidable somewhere down the line.  Expect this topic to be part of the 6th assessment report.

As to the rest of the climate magic, I don't buy much of it.  Cloud seeding has seen very limited success for example.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 2, 2014)

Harvey said:


> What I meant to say above is that IMO skiing does nothing to promote enviro awareness. It's an enviro disaster as far as I can tell, and very few think twice about it.  *Not claiming to be better than anyone else here*.



exactly.....

but those vegan babes are sure hot.


----------



## Puck it (Nov 2, 2014)

Ok.  Ski season is on we can stop now and talk about the gnar.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 2, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> That's a bold indictment. Any facts to back it up?



al gore finally turned vegan last year and the un poster boy has been one for a while. my point is to the majority of people who vote of such things without realizing the implications. this is being tried in germany with much support.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 2, 2014)

Puck it said:


> Ok.  Ski season is on we can stop now and talk about the gnar.



lo.... gnar on the wrod


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 2, 2014)

Cannonball said:


> Yeah, the details have always seemed to be the fuzzy part.  Not that you've let that stop you.  Something about big government meat eating liberals that are trying to kill the economy by subsiding new technologies while conspiring with rich foreigners who want green cards to undermine New Jersey's real estate??? It gets confusing at this point so I'm not sure.  If the weather manipulation stuff fits in at this point, I don't really get it but why not.



Translation: you've got nothing.  



jack97 said:


> *al gore finally turned vegan last year*



Wait, that happened? Hah!  Was it before or after he sold his Global Warming loving network to one of the largest oil interests on the entire planet?    Please.  I give 10 to 1 odds he still eats meat when not in a restaurant or public setting.  Or when he visits that other hypocrite, John Edward's house which is larger than most city hospitals.


----------



## bobbutts (Nov 2, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Translation: you've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, that happened? Hah!  Was it before or after he sold his Global Warming loving network to one of the largest oil interests on the entire planet?    Please.  I give 10 to 1 odds he still eats meat when not in a restaurant or public setting.  Or when he visits that other hypocrite, John Edward's house which is larger than most city hospitals.



lol you are a true idiot.   Glad to see you wasting so much time with this thread.
there's nothing here except trolling.


----------



## jack97 (Nov 2, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Wait, that happened? Hah!  Was it before or after he sold his Global Warming loving network to one of the largest oil interests on the entire planet?    Please.  I give 10 to 1 odds he still eats meat when not in a restaurant or public setting.  Or when he visits that other hypocrite, John Edward's house which is larger than most city hospitals.



well his cohorts have  not read the latest manifesto....















damn... i feel like going to five guys now.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Nov 2, 2014)

bobbutts said:


> lol you are a true idiot.   Glad to see you wasting so much time with this thread.
> there's nothing here except trolling.



The AZ resident intellectual speaks.



jack97 said:


> well *his cohorts have  not read the latest manifesto....*



Yes, and the answer to my former question (which one will note man-made Global Warming proponents here ignored) is that there's no way to extract taxpayer and/or corporate money from getting people to either eat less meat or to own fewer (or no) pets. 

 Hence those activities, which, IF you believe the UN science behind man-made Global Warming are extremely harmful, garner no focus or attention.  Also, if you tell people they're "bad" for eating meat and that owning pets significantly increases greenhouse gases, you'll lose votes. Cant have that!  A revolt among the useful pawns of America would be most unwelcome.


----------



## skiNEwhere (Nov 2, 2014)

The funny thing about politics: no party will ever admit if or when the opposing party is correct. They'll just keep adding random facts, and the conversion starts to spiral sideways, where points and counter points are made on a topic that doesn't even have to do anything with the original subject at hand.

In the end, neither side wins. Maybe AZ should hire Gallup to figure out the winner, similar to the presidential election debate?


----------

