Comments on: the heat of anger is an indicator of inefficiency http://www.localoaf.org/2007/01/17/the-heat-of-anger-is-an-indicator-of-inefficiency/ Information: It's the Magic Sat, 02 Jan 2010 19:23:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: k7lim http://www.localoaf.org/2007/01/17/the-heat-of-anger-is-an-indicator-of-inefficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-228 k7lim Sat, 20 Jan 2007 04:45:59 +0000 http://localoaf.org/2007/01/17/the-heat-of-anger-is-an-indicator-of-inefficiency/#comment-228 even if man's activities a) don't significantly contribute to global warming and b) don't end up wreaking havoc, how can we take that chance? i have heard this analogy: so you won't end up knowing if smoking will contribute to your death. perhaps cigarettes a) don't, with your unique physiology, cause any ill effect, or b) ends up not being the cause of your death. do you still want to take that chance? even if man’s activities a) don’t significantly contribute to global warming and b) don’t end up wreaking havoc, how can we take that chance?

i have heard this analogy:

so you won’t end up knowing if smoking will contribute to your death. perhaps cigarettes a) don’t, with your unique physiology, cause any ill effect, or b) ends up not being the cause of your death.

do you still want to take that chance?

]]> By: Ken-ichi http://www.localoaf.org/2007/01/17/the-heat-of-anger-is-an-indicator-of-inefficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-226 Ken-ichi Fri, 19 Jan 2007 07:53:28 +0000 http://localoaf.org/2007/01/17/the-heat-of-anger-is-an-indicator-of-inefficiency/#comment-226 Regarding hydroelectricity, dams are pretty evil outside of a climate change context as well. More than just flooding the surrounding landscape, dams have profound effects on the downstream watershed, eliminating wetlands and, esp. in California, blocking access to breeding areas of fish like salmon. Cows are also pretty evil, esp. in areas clearly unable to support them without heavy modification, like semi-arid and desert areas. They eat and destroy the habitat of native plants, and generally just draw on local resources. Sadly, I really don't know enough about global warming. When I was home in December, walking along the beach with my mom in the unseasonable warmth, she asked if this was global warming, and I just had no idea. In the end, my knowledge of it is largely based on faith in scientific journals and the admittedly liberal news media I trust/consume. Which is just as bad as the other side. Where's the evidence? Regarding hydroelectricity, dams are pretty evil outside of a climate change context as well. More than just flooding the surrounding landscape, dams have profound effects on the downstream watershed, eliminating wetlands and, esp. in California, blocking access to breeding areas of fish like salmon. Cows are also pretty evil, esp. in areas clearly unable to support them without heavy modification, like semi-arid and desert areas. They eat and destroy the habitat of native plants, and generally just draw on local resources.

Sadly, I really don’t know enough about global warming. When I was home in December, walking along the beach with my mom in the unseasonable warmth, she asked if this was global warming, and I just had no idea. In the end, my knowledge of it is largely based on faith in scientific journals and the admittedly liberal news media I trust/consume. Which is just as bad as the other side. Where’s the evidence?

]]> By: n8agrin http://www.localoaf.org/2007/01/17/the-heat-of-anger-is-an-indicator-of-inefficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-225 n8agrin Fri, 19 Jan 2007 03:36:03 +0000 http://localoaf.org/2007/01/17/the-heat-of-anger-is-an-indicator-of-inefficiency/#comment-225 I'm not sure I fully buy the whole 'dams are producing lots of CO2 / CH4' argument, mostly because I've heard this argument quite a bit recently, and I think it's all relative. Nearly any energy production or conversion process produces some negative impact on the environment. Technically, we do as well when we process food and water into energy and exhale CO2 (and methane). Building solar collectors would most likely have some unforeseen negative impacts on the environment as well, either in the chemicals needed for producing the cells, or in battery production. Dams do cause a lot of environmental problems with migrating fish populations, eventual build up of silt behind the dam (rendering them useless), and diversion of water from downstream resources into one big reservoir. No doubt there is also CO2/CH4 production from degrading plant matter, but the real question should be 'What is the impact relative to say, burning thousands of tons of coal or oil to produce the same amount of energy?' The New Scientist study cites one damn in Brazil that has 3x the production of greenhouse gases than an equivalent oil burning facility. OH MY GOD! 3x the greenhouse gases!! Remember though, this is for ONE dam. What about the average dam? And what are the solutions available to decrease the amount of degrading plant matter behind a dam? Are they cheaper and more 'environmental' than cleaning up pollution from the burning of fossil fuels? Personally I don't support dams simply because of their detrimental impact on the water resources they consume, not because one dam in Brazil supposedly produces lots of greenhouse gases. I would rather have a dam then a coal burning plant. Call me a skeptic... I’m not sure I fully buy the whole ‘dams are producing lots of CO2 / CH4′ argument, mostly because I’ve heard this argument quite a bit recently, and I think it’s all relative. Nearly any energy production or conversion process produces some negative impact on the environment. Technically, we do as well when we process food and water into energy and exhale CO2 (and methane). Building solar collectors would most likely have some unforeseen negative impacts on the environment as well, either in the chemicals needed for producing the cells, or in battery production. Dams do cause a lot of environmental problems with migrating fish populations, eventual build up of silt behind the dam (rendering them useless), and diversion of water from downstream resources into one big reservoir. No doubt there is also CO2/CH4 production from degrading plant matter, but the real question should be ‘What is the impact relative to say, burning thousands of tons of coal or oil to produce the same amount of energy?’ The New Scientist study cites one damn in Brazil that has 3x the production of greenhouse gases than an equivalent oil burning facility. OH MY GOD! 3x the greenhouse gases!! Remember though, this is for ONE dam. What about the average dam? And what are the solutions available to decrease the amount of degrading plant matter behind a dam? Are they cheaper and more ‘environmental’ than cleaning up pollution from the burning of fossil fuels?

Personally I don’t support dams simply because of their detrimental impact on the water resources they consume, not because one dam in Brazil supposedly produces lots of greenhouse gases. I would rather have a dam then a coal burning plant. Call me a skeptic…

]]> By: Kesava Mallela http://www.localoaf.org/2007/01/17/the-heat-of-anger-is-an-indicator-of-inefficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-224 Kesava Mallela Fri, 19 Jan 2007 02:14:57 +0000 http://localoaf.org/2007/01/17/the-heat-of-anger-is-an-indicator-of-inefficiency/#comment-224 You wouldn't have thought so much about Global Warming if you had not been to Philippines in the first place. Travel helped you, didn't it? ( Remember the recent press coverage on Blair's views of air travel ? http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1991302,00.html ) I sometimes wonder if genes have an unintended self-destructing recipe in them, when the species is extremely successful in terms of population and exploiting resources around them. Success is again so relatively defined, but never the less, I hope I have made my point. You wouldn’t have thought so much about Global Warming if you had not been to Philippines in the first place. Travel helped you, didn’t it? ( Remember the recent press coverage on Blair’s views of air travel ? http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1991302,00.html ) I sometimes wonder if genes have an unintended self-destructing recipe in them, when the species is extremely successful in terms of population and exploiting resources around them. Success is again so relatively defined, but never the less, I hope I have made my point.

]]> By: mangosquasher http://www.localoaf.org/2007/01/17/the-heat-of-anger-is-an-indicator-of-inefficiency/comment-page-1/#comment-223 mangosquasher Fri, 19 Jan 2007 00:45:14 +0000 http://localoaf.org/2007/01/17/the-heat-of-anger-is-an-indicator-of-inefficiency/#comment-223 One specialist that doesn't attribute global warming to human efforts is Jack Hollander, a professor emeritus of Energy and Resources at UC Berkeley. See: http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Hollander/RushingJudgment.pdf I don't know if I concur, but it's an interesting read. One specialist that doesn’t attribute global warming to human efforts is Jack Hollander, a professor emeritus of Energy and Resources at UC Berkeley. See: http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Hollander/RushingJudgment.pdf

I don’t know if I concur, but it’s an interesting read.

]]>