G Scale Model Train Forum banner

1 - 20 of 121 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,315 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I note two significant developments within the last few days.

1) The opening of the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve to drilling was once again voted down in the U.S. Senate. ANWR could potentially contain as much recoverable oil as has already been pumped through the Alyeska Pipeline in its 30 years of existence. This decision is not surprising, but it IS disappointing. And, right up there with mandated ethanol as a monumentally stupid decision at a time when oil prices are so high.

2) The polar bear JUST been declared a threatened species due to the effects of global warming. This decision comes despite strong evidence that there has been no measurable global warming in the last decade. Furthermore, there are now strong indications that we may have entered a period of global warming. This decision is potentially the most damaging of all. The ramifications are far-reaching and will likely include moratoriums on ANY further oil drilling or other development along the Arctic coastline.

I cannot begin to express how disappointed I am at these two decisions. We cannot conserve ourselves out of this. We already tried that under a previous administration nearly three decades ago. Nor are there any alternative energy sources out there significant enough to save us from these two decisions that are likely to impact us for decades to come.

The bear is . . . SAFE ! Lucky us. *


* Polar bear numbers in the arctic have risen significantly over the last three decades--much like the numbers of caribou around Prudhoe Bay. What does that tell you?
Senate rejects ANWR drilling
The U.S. Senate rejected a Republican energy plan to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and instead voted to temporarily halt deposits in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try to lowerprices at the pump.
Polar bear listed as threatened species
Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced Wednesday that the agency will list the polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, a decision that could cast the bears as the enduring symbol of the effects of global warming.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Well, that about does it. Our politically correct govt. and environmently enhanced people have finally put animals ahead of the human race. You and I no longer count. I guess Yale, Princton, Berkley, etc. have taught our children well, and now we will reap the benifits of such teachings. LONG LIVE the POLAR BEARS!!!/DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
759 Posts
It seem there will always be people who fail to understand the problems we face as a society, unfortunately.

We got ourselves into this mess by recklessly wasting the very planet on which we live. The problem is not that we're not allowed to drill for oil in Alaska, or that terrorists control a major portion of the world's oil supply, or any of a number of other politically sensitive topics. There's no magic bio-fuel that will let you keep driving that Lexus SUV 70 miles each way to work and back (alone). There's no conspiracy to force feed us gasoline, or to overcharge us for it.

The problem is us, people! The solution is simple - change our habits. THERE IS NO OTHER PERMANENT SOLUTION!

The averave American, and probably most of the western world, lives a wasteful, self centered lifestyle that is devestating our environment and our economy. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but we'll all have to change the way we live, work, and play if we actually want to solve this problem.

sigh......
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
249 Posts
Posted By DKRickman on 05/14/2008 3:12 PM

The average American, and probably most of the western world, lives a wasteful, self centered lifestyle that is devestating our environment and our economy. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but we'll all have to change the way we live, work, and play if we actually want to solve this problem.
sigh......




Way too true, and unfortunately, very few of us are willing to believe that. The "Ugly American" has come home to roost.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,908 Posts
The solution is simple - change our habits. THERE IS NO OTHER PERMANENT SOLUTION!

Unfortunately, I have to agree with Kenneth.

The "Ugly American" has come home to roost.

But I don't agree with Rick! I thought "ugly americans" were the tourists with cameras who refused to learn the local lingo.
It's not an american problem - we just got there first. The rest of the world is eagerly buying SUVs and burning coal, just as we do/did!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
62 Posts
Is the proposal to go back to the stone age or something similar to the show "Alaska Experiment" (I think that's the title) where the people live off of the land?

If the ANWR legislation hadn't been vetoed in 1995, we wouldn't be in the position we are in now. 85% of our resources have been put off limits by a small group of people and we are powerless to change that.

The entire economy is based on oil -- not just for gas, but everything we use in our daily life. I don't see them coming up with a replacement for oil in the near future.

Terry
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
62 Posts
One other thought after reading the posts. We do more to clean up the environment than most of the rest of the world. It's the world's problem, not just the USA as some people are implying.... If you're worried about the environment, talk to Russia, China, and India to name a few.

Terry
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,383 Posts
Posted By flatracker on 05/14/2008 2:20 PM
Well, that about does it. Our politically correct govt. and environmently enhanced people have finally put animals ahead of the human race. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif" border=0>" border=0>" border=0>


What do you mean finally? Obviously you have no idea of how many projects were stopped because of: Keno checker-spot butterflies, Palo Verde blue butterflies, Stephen's kangaroo rat, California gnat catcher, Least Bell's vireo, Least tern, California desert tortoise, three-spined stickle-back fish, Arroyo toad, etc., etc., etc. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/doze.gif"
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,910 Posts
Posted By toddalin on 05/15/2008 10:58 AM
Posted By flatracker on 05/14/2008 2:20 PM
Well, that about does it. Our politically correct govt. and environmently enhanced people have finally put animals ahead of the human race. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/hehe.gif" border=0>" border=0>" border=0>" border=0>


What do you mean finally? Obviously you have no idea of how many projects were stopped because of: Keno checker-spot butterflies, Palo Verde blue butterflies, Stephen's kangaroo rat, California gnat catcher, Least Bell's vireo, Least tern, California desert tortoise, three-spined stickle-back fish, Arroyo toad, etc., etc., etc. /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/doze.gif" border=0>"




Yes, and you wouldn't want the permanent loss of some species of animal to prevent the construction of another linens and things. I mean, I need a couple more George Foreman grills and why should I have to drive five miles to get one?


Seriously, the amount of oil in the ANWR is highly debated. Those in favor of drilling describe it as Saudi Arabia on ice, those opposed describe it as chump change. As far as I can tell, it will produce at best less than 9% of our daily consumption of oil. See this link, which seems to be trying to be as unbiased as possible:

http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm


It's not a panacea--it would stave off the inevitable for a while, but it would not chage anything major. My guess is eventually we'll be drilling there, and eventually the polar bears will only be in zoos. In the meantime, not living in Alaska or benefiting from job growth in Alaska, I'd rather see the US develop a comprehensive, well-funded approach to minimizing dependence on oil--a Manhattan project for alternative energy. I'd happily pay more for gas if I ended up with better public transit alternatives or greener, less polluting energy
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
62 Posts
Lownote,

It not just gas, it's the entire economy which is oil based. There's no substitute for oil in all of the products we use daily.

Terry
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,315 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Posted By DKRickman on 05/14/2008 3:12 PM

It seem there will always be people who fail to understand the problems we face as a society, unfortunately. We got ourselves into this mess by recklessly wasting the very planet on which we live[/i]. The problem is not that we're not allowed to drill for oil in Alaska, or that terrorists control a major portion of the world's oil supply, or any of a number of other politically sensitive topics. There's no magic bio-fuel that will let you keep driving that Lexus SUV 70 miles each way to work and back (alone). There's no conspiracy to force feed us gasoline, or to overcharge us for it. The problem is us, people! The solution is simple - change our habits. THERE IS NO OTHER PERMANENT SOLUTION! The averave American, and probably most of the western world, lives a wasteful, self centered lifestyle that is devestating our environment and our economy. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but we'll all have to change the way we live, work, and play if we actually want to solve this problem. sigh......


All of this is a value judgment which ignores the strategic implications of not making ANWR or other regions available for drilling. It was not that long ago that Alaska still supplied the US with 16 percent of its oil. At one time it was nearly double that. Access to ANWR could potentially double that once again. Then there are the estimated tens of thousands of jobs that opening up ANWR andupgrading the existing Alyeska pipeline would create. You don't think that would have a positive impact on our economy?


But my point goes well beyond even that. While continuing to develop our own oil reserves is not a permanent solution, I guess I should point out that there is never a permanent solution to anything. At least this buys us time and makes us less dependent on foreign suppliers.


Then there is the matter of this decision being a political one based on junk science. There is no proof of global warming--only computer models using selected data. To the extent that the climate is changing--something we can count on no matter what we do--there are so many factors involved that for us to attempt to regulate climate change is the height of arrogance and stupidity. I am just disgusted that so many people would buy into this junk science at the expense of the American people. We cannot sacrifice or conserve ourselves out of this dilemma. We can only do the smart things of which a part includes developing what resources we have rather than purchase them at ridiculous prices from our avowed enemies.


Our "recklessly wasting our planet" is exactly what makes this hobby a possibility. It is what builds economies and brings entire nations out of poverty--which is exactly what is happening largely thanks to our "reckless wasting." Somehow I have a hard time feeling guilty about that.



If we were to stop being avid consumers (recklessly wasting . . . ) the first casualty would be discretionary endeavors such as large-scale model railroading.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
62 Posts
DKR,

Who is the "WE" that you speak of? Only the US or the whole world?

Kind of foolish to say "WE" are wrecking the world -- We have no control over what mother nature does and we will never have control. The planet has been here for a long time before us and it will be here a long time after we are gone. The planet will recover from whatever "WE" do.

It seems to me that the global warming thing is a big hoax -- The planet has been cooling down for the last eight or nine years. It was a lot warmer in the period of 1000 AD to ~ 1400 AD. The vikings went to "GREENLAND" and lived there. Then it got cold. They crossed the Atlantic when it was warm, they couldn't do it now because it is too cold.

What should the ambient temperature of the planet be?

Terry
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,910 Posts
I'm certainly aware of the ubiquity of oil. It's in just abut everything we consume, directly or indirectly. But surely the point in th same--a ten percent savings in oil consumption just for heating, electricity and driving would more than make up for not drilling in ANWR. It's hard to imagine a state of zero dependence on oil. But its easy to imagine thorough, habitiul conservation measure, coupled to large scale investment in alternatives, having a huge impact
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,910 Posts
Posted By terry_n_85318 on 05/15/2008 2:17 PM
DKR,
It seems to me that the global warming thing is a big hoax -- The planet has been cooling down for the last eight or nine years. It was a lot warmer in the period of 1000 AD to ~ 1400 AD. The vikings went to "GREENLAND" and lived there. Then it got cold. They crossed the Atlantic when it was warm, they couldn't do it now because it is too cold.
What should the ambient temperature of the planet be?
Terry

Oy Global warming is an established fact. Sure, the planet has heated and cooled in the past. It's heating now, as far as anyone can tell, at a much faster rate than ever before. And is it just a coincidence that it's heating at a faster rate since the industrial revolution. Could be, but virtually all the scientific evidence says global warming is accellerating and that carbon dioxide is a reason.
But don't believe me--here's president Bush
Interview with President Bush
By WHITE HOUSE TRANSCRIPT | 5/13/08 5:17 PM EST
Text Size:
Page 3
Q Mr. President, I wonder if in your eight years in office what the changes have been, in your view, of climate change?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it's been more clearly defined as a problem. But what hasn't changed is the realistic notion that new technologies are going to be the solution, and the fundamental question is how do you grow the economy at the same time, and at the same time encourage new technologies. And my administration has done more for the new technologies necessary to change our lifestyles without sacrificing wealth than any other administration.
Q Mr. President, for the record, is global warming real?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is real, sure is.


here's the link: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10316_Page3.html

I mean look at it this way. There is a natural tendency for soil to erode. If you strip the vegetation off a hillside, soil will erode faster. So soil erosion is a hoax, because it happens anyway?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
62 Posts
Lownote,

So the cooling over the last decade was imaginary? The sunspot cycle has nothing to with the temperature variation of the planet? Are we responsible for the temperature increase on Mars and Venus also?

I asked this before -- What should the temperature of earth be? When the dinosaurs were around, it was a real hot house (this was determined by looking at the foilage fossils). Who's to say that it's not supposed to be a hot house?

Global warming has not been proven. A consensus of scientists means nothing. Where did they get thier data? -- science is black and white with proven facts. What about the half of the scientists that don't agree? If you choose to believe the pap they are saying, you have that right. I don't.

I am an engineer and I don't see the facts required to say that humans are causing global warming. To think that humans can control the environment is being egotistical. If we were that powerful, we would control the weather, stop hurricanes, stop tornados, etc. How can they predict warming trend when they can't predict the weather more than a day or two in advance?

Terry
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,910 Posts
What cooling? Do you have some evidence of this cooling? The polar ice caps are melting at a faster rate than predicted. Average global temperatures keep going up. There is no "half" of scientists who don't believe in global warming. Where are you pulling this stuff from?

Here, read this:

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

Or don't--it's pretty clear you aren't interested in facts on this


Look, as I said, the earth has gone through cycles of cooling and warming before. All the evidence suggests that warming is happening faster than ever before, and there is a clear connection between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and rising temperatures. No one is arguing that everything can be predicted or controled,it's simply an argument that since the industrial revolution, global temperatures have risen faster than ever before. It could be purely a coincidence, or it could be--i dunno, just maybe-that pumping billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the air, at a rate never before seen, has an effect. Or it could be sunspots. Or venusians. Hey, the water's rising--let's do nothing. After all, north america was once covered by anm inland sea, and who's to say how high the water should be?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
62 Posts
Lownote,

It is obvious that both of us believe strongly in our positions. Therefore, we will have to agree to disagree on this subject.

Have a nice day,

Terry
 
G

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
well, the lines are drawn.
Here, read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Or don't--it's pretty clear you aren't interested in facts on this

i don't think, this topic will bring any consensus.

global warming reminds me a lot of the "sour rain", much feared in europe during the 70ies and 80ies. every politician, every journalist knew then, that "sour" rain was killing all trees.
laws were made, to clean the factory smokes, the (in)famous Katalisators were put in cars.
goverment-funded institutes all found "proof" that in the year 2000 most of the european woods would be destroyed by sour rain.
those few retired or otherwise independent scientists, who pointed out, that rain MUST be sour, and allways has been, because destilated/evaporated water is sour, were simply ignored.

now the industries went to eastern european countries, the woods in east and west are growing healthy, the used katalisators cause high costs to be broken down...
but today nobody talks about that. - why not? simply, because they got a new toy. it is called "global warming".
... and all the goverment-funded scientists all over the world hasten to secure their funds by telling the politicians, what those want to hear.

nobody thinks twice. nobody notes, that a simple cloud (evaporated water in the air) reflects more rays in a day, than those 3% CO² in the air can in a whole year. nobody wants to aknowledge the sunspot cycle and its influence on temperature.
and... - ... nobody seems to notice, that a temperature like there was a thousand years ago, with higher CO² concentration would be good, not bad. higher CO² means, that plants can grow faster. (they feed on that stuff) higher temperature means, that more land can be used to produce food. higher temperature means more evaporation - more rains. filling our empty aquifers.
and we (here i mean humankind) need two things most urgently: more food and more sweetwater. global warming could give us just that.

i hope, we get global warming.

korm
.
 
1 - 20 of 121 Posts
Top