Environment - July 2007

i bet they are hoping for horrible catastrophic weather..those BAST%$DS!

2007-07-19 13:14:40 · 15 answers · asked by federalistcapers 2 in Global Warming

Honest and creative.

http://s205.photobucket.com/albums/bb317/ElliotTompson/

2007-07-19 13:09:14 · 9 answers · asked by Quincy Jones 1 in Other - Environment

Equation can be found here:

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

Before anyone gets after me for using Wiki, this comes directly from:

Geophysical Research Letters, Vol 25, No. 14, pp 2715-2718, 1998

I ask because I am interested in knowing what they are trying to account for by the use of this coefficient in the equation.

Does this co-efficient account for the less than 100% absortion efficiency of CO2? Does it account for non-radiative relaxation processes, such as collisional relaxation? etc.

2007-07-19 13:08:40 · 4 answers · asked by Marc G 4 in Global Warming

2007-07-19 12:54:37 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

We are all talking about global warming and it's affects, so lets hear about your area.
My Cashmere Goats didn't start to shed until June, usually it happens in Feb.- pacific northwest

2007-07-19 12:48:48 · 12 answers · asked by R M 5 in Global Warming

I don't mean to be a troll, honestly, it's just that the arrogance of humans thinking we can destroy the entire world single-handedly or that we have the ability to change it now astounds me. I mean, seriously, take a look at how the climate has changed throughout history:

http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

Our effects on this planet are just a small scratch and our entire existence will only be a speck upon time. We are nothing in the great scheme of things.

2007-07-19 12:34:32 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

Have we given up on ourselves? Don't we love life enough?

I'll start with myself.

1. Until three months ago I washed the dishes under running water from start to end but now i put them all in a sink full of soapy water, scrub and then rinse them off.

2. I take the train to work.

3. I shower in a third of the time I was using up before which is kind of sad but we'll get used with time.

4. I recycle everything , from paper, plastic, glass, batteries, old clothes etc.

5. I've completely switched off all the machines in the home that have been on standby waiting to be used a month from any given day.

And I don't know if that's enough. Do you?

2007-07-19 11:54:41 · 25 answers · asked by Mrs. Midnightbully 4 in Global Warming

The question struck me recently, If you float an ice cube in a glas and it melts, the water level is the same.
Earth's water supply is only 1.6% Ice and Most of Earth's Ice is currently under Sea Level.
So if all the ice on Earth melted...how much would Ocean levels Actually rise?
It takes half a Million Cubic kilometers of water added to the ocean to raise it 1 meter, not accounting for any lowering due to ice no longer floating in it, So I'm thinking Gore predictions of it rising 100 meters is ridiculous.
So what would the real Net impact be?

2007-07-19 11:36:33 · 9 answers · asked by enders_knight 2 in Global Warming

...flooding all of the major ports around the world... Then you could look over at the jackass who thinks Gore is a twit and say, "I told you so...moron... It's not a big conspiracy afterall, dumb***"

I think that would be funny.

2007-07-19 10:35:01 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

I always wanted to be an astronaut. O_o

2007-07-19 10:04:52 · 38 answers · asked by Anonymous in Green Living

2007-07-19 09:47:15 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

a. improving fuel efficiency
b. giving subsidies to car makers for each low-polluting, energy-efficient car they sell.
c. raising annual registration fees on older, more polluting cars.
d. using pollution control devices.

I think is b... any thoughts?

Thank you!

2007-07-19 09:29:21 · 9 answers · asked by Natalie N 2 in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Can a scientist be neutral in politics while remaining objective to the data if they take a cool quarter of a million dollars from a candidates political campaign, then endorse that candidate while saying that he has the best environmental plan?

Doesn't Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars skew one's objectivity?

How much does it take to buy science these days?

2007-07-19 08:29:16 · 6 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Global Warming

At one time phrenology was considered to be real because it was plausible and a consensus of very well educated scientist said it was real.

Eugenics is another scientific field where the data was viewed as plausible, so the consensus of scientist believed that it was real. Some today still believe that eugenics is real.

Then there were the scientists and experts who claimed that planes would drop out of the sky, banks would lose all our money, the stock market would crash, toasters would fail, gas pumps would be inoperable, cars would stop working at the stroke of midnight on Jan 1, 2000 because of the Y2K problem.

Time as proved all these experts wrong. How much longer will it be before we put the global warming alarmist into this group?

2007-07-19 08:04:17 · 11 answers · asked by Dr Jello 7 in Global Warming

If 100% is very difficult, how about 20% or 50%? Economic opportunity for a backyard refiner? Can it really be made from used cooking oil for less than 1$ a gallon?

2007-07-19 08:00:03 · 4 answers · asked by Anonymous in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Recycling is unique per product. Plastic is hard to recycle and not presently 'valuable' on the market as a buy back. Alluminum is easier to recycle and has high post recycle resale. Newspaper is easy to recycle but it cheaper for companies to buy new paper for printing.

So to better recycle is to better purchase. Should I buy that 12oz alluminum can over the 16oz plastic bottle?

Who has those answers??
Anyone....
Bueller....

2007-07-19 07:06:55 · 3 answers · asked by No more soda 1 in Green Living

Why did I only get one? I received no booklet of information! What do I do?

2007-07-19 06:56:56 · 5 answers · asked by kfed55 2 in Green Living

Cow farts are methane. This is a serious question.

2007-07-19 06:53:57 · 12 answers · asked by Fafeom 3 in Global Warming

2007-07-19 06:44:20 · 8 answers · asked by monti 4 in Other - Environment

How much pollution does millions and millions of cigarettes and cigars put into the air each day?

2007-07-19 06:41:59 · 14 answers · asked by heada_bone 3 in Global Warming

I understand many lake communities have regulations. I live in Minnesota and own a small "harbor" that has access to the lake. This harbor has a lot of weeds / vegetation that make it difficult to swim or move the boat around. Also, the wind doesn't move the surface so algae accumulates rather quickly. I've raked, skimmed and pulled but can't seem to make a dent. How do I rid myself of this issue?

2007-07-19 06:11:36 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Environment

Were American Indians Really Environmentalists?
By Thomas E. Woods
Posted on 7/19/2007
| Subscribe or Tell Others |

The traditional story is familiar to American schoolchildren: the American Indians possessed a profound spiritual kinship with nature, and were unusually solicitous of environmental welfare.

According to a popular book published by the Smithsonian Institution in 1991, "Pre-Columbian America was still the First Eden, a pristine natural kingdom. The native people were transparent in the landscape, living as natural elements of the ecosphere. Their world, the New World of Columbus, was a world of barely perceptible human disturbance."

If we are to avert environmental catastrophe, the not-so-subtle lesson goes, we need to recapture this lost Indian wisdom.

As usual, the real story is more complicated, less cartoonish, and a lot more interesting.

In his 1992 book Earth in the Balance, then-Senator Al Gore cited a nineteenth-century speech from Chief Seattle, patriarch of the Duwamish and Suquamish Indians of Puget Sound, as evidence of the Indians' concern for nature. This speech, which speaks of absolutely everything in the natural world, including every last insect and pine needle, as being sacred to Seattle and his people, has been made to bear an unusually heavy share of the burden in depicting the American Indians as the first environmentalists.

The trouble for Gore is that the version of the speech he cites is a fabrication, drawn up in the early 1970s by screenwriter Ted Perry. (Perry, to his credit, has tried without success to let people know that he made up the speech.) Still, it was influential enough to become the basis for Brother Eagle, Sister Sky, a children's book that reached number five on the New York Times bestseller list in 1992.

Earlier versions of the speech, also cited by environmentalists, are suspect for reasons of their own. But experts say that the intention of Chief Seattle is clear enough, and that it wasn't to say that every created thing, sentient and non-sentient, was "holy" to his people, or that all land everywhere had an equal claim upon their affection. "Seattle's speech was made as part of an argument for the right of the Suquamish and Duamish peoples to continue to visit their traditional burial grounds following the sale of that land to white settlers," explains Muhlenburg College's William Abruzzi. "This specific land was sacred to Seattle and his people because his ancestors were buried there, not because land as an abstract concept was sacred to all Indians." Writing in the American Indian Quarterly, Denise Low likewise explains that "the lavish descriptions of nature are secondary" to the purpose of Chief Seattle's argument, and that he was saying only that "land is sacred because of religious ties to ancestors."

Environmentalists who have cultivated the myth of the environmental Indian who left his surroundings in exquisitely pristine condition out of a deeply spiritual devotion to the natural world have done so not out of any particular interest in American Indians, the variations between them, or their real record of interaction with the environment. Instead, the intent is to showcase the environmentalist Indian for propaganda purposes and to use him as a foil against industrial society.

The Indians' real record on the environment was actually mixed, and I give the details in my new book, 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. Among other things, they engaged in slash-and-burn agriculture, destroyed forests and grasslands, and wiped out entire animal populations (on the assumption that animals felled in a hunt would be reanimated in even larger numbers).

On the other hand, the Indians often succeeded in being good stewards of the environment — but not in the way people generally suppose.

Although we often hear that the Indians knew nothing of private property, their actual views of property varied across time, place, and tribe. When land and game were plentiful, it is not surprising that people exerted little effort in defining and enforcing property rights. But as those things became more scarce, Indians appreciated the value of assigning property rights in (for example) hunting and fishing.

$25
"The real story is more complicated, less cartoonish, and a lot more interesting."

In other words, the American Indians were human beings who responded to the incentives they faced, not cardboard cutouts to be exploited on behalf of environmentalism or any other political program.

In some tribes, family- and clan-based groups were assigned exclusive areas for hunting, which meant they had a vested interest in not overhunting, and in making sure enough animals remained to reproduce for future years. They likewise had an incentive not to allow people from other families and clans to hunt on their land. In the Pacific Northwest, Indians assigned exclusive fishing rights that yielded a similar kind of stewardship: instead of catching all the salmon, some were left behind with an eye to the future. Whites who later established control over salmon resources unfortunately neglected this important Indian lesson.

Indians have not always recalled that lesson themselves. Consider the Arapahos and Shoshones on Wyoming's Wind River Reservation, who in recent years (and with the help of all-terrain vehicles and high-powered rifles) have all but wiped out entire animal populations. Whatever happened to their spiritual kinship with nature?

In fact, this is the predictable result when wildlife is said to belong to everyone. There is no incentive to preserve any stocks for the future, since anything you might leave behind will simply be killed by someone else. Without property rights in hunting, there is no way (and no incentive) for anyone to prevent such short-term, predatory behavior. That's why Indian tribes assigned these exclusive rights — it was the best way to preserve animal species and provide for the future.

Say, doesn't this lost Indian wisdom bear repeating?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is a resident scholar at the Mises Institute. He is the author of 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. His other recent books include The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy, The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History (a New York Times bestseller) and How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Send him mail. See his archive. Visit his website. Comment on the blog

2007-07-19 06:01:11 · 8 answers · asked by MIkE ALEGRIA 1 in Other - Environment

i think that everyone should wish upon a star to ask god to help save this pathetic world. people should really stop making pollution and really help clean it up.i don't know about some people but i want to live a long and healthy life and not die from pollution.now it would be really great and i am sure god would be happy if people would stop and help clean up this world. if you read this please spread the word.please and thank you... oh and GOD BLESS EVERYONE!

2007-07-19 05:58:49 · 27 answers · asked by Cassie S 1 in Global Warming

Is the battery technology not there yet? Is it an oil company conspiracy? Really, what gives?

2007-07-19 05:22:25 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

Who are they try to fool? The official report says: "the asbestos in not in the air but in the dust". Alright and what do you think it's in the air? Well dust gets in the air with just a little of wind, so if you do a sampling of the air with no wind and assuming the dust stays on the ground (which doesnt happen) then the air is safe. Fooled again by another "Official Report"? I think the truth is: "ooooops its a mess, and now we have to come up with a story to prevent the panic to spread and people leave NYC". What do you think?

2007-07-19 04:18:02 · 5 answers · asked by Umpalumpa 4 in Other - Environment

2007-07-19 03:55:59 · 12 answers · asked by Martin K 2 in Global Warming

So who on here thinks Global Warming affects the Hurricane season making it worse and produceing stronger hurricanes? All you that thinkit is are idiots and are totally eating what they are feeding you!!!

2007-07-19 03:44:59 · 14 answers · asked by Ben 1 in Global Warming

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcXLFDuAJNE&NR=1

2007-07-19 03:10:56 · 20 answers · asked by brian e 2 in Alternative Fuel Vehicles

2007-07-19 03:08:16 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Global Warming

2007-07-19 02:53:16 · 5 answers · asked by smartbala_s 1 in Alternative Fuel Vehicles