What does 10 TRILLION gallons of water even equate to?

Newbiecampers wrote:
t's just another excuse, and typical of the "Not in my backyard" and/or "Do as I say, not as I do" type crowd.


Does not matter how supposedly "little" in your opinion RV's are contributing to the supposed climate change problem as some see it. The fact is they -are- contributing to it (if the problem even exists), just like any other fossil fuel burning vehicle. If someone -truly- believed that man is having a detrimental and negative effect on the earth's climate and environment via pollution, and that we have to change our ways to prevent catastrophe, they would not be contributing to said pollution any more than they possibly needed to.

Driving around in a gas-guzzling RV is not minimizing one's footprint to implement said change, that according to some, must happen. Especially when it is done for nothing more than sight-seeing. RV's are burning 2-3 times more fuel than the personnal vehicles you lamented about.

It is hypocrisy at it's finest. Especially when someone is throwing around the typical and worn-out accusations of "science deniers."

But I understand that the truth can be hard to accept at times, especially when one is looking at one's self in the mirror.

What is it .... all or nothing with regards to GW - otherwise one is a "GW hypocrit"? I disagree that one's only choices are to be whole hog into "green" ... or live the life of a dogmatic denier polluter.

Recreational use of fossil fuels pales in comparison to the daily-running-around/non-public-transportation use of fossil fuels that 7-8 billion people are doing, which leads to this -> if the world's population was at a running total no greater than around 1/7 th of what it is, we could all live paying less attention to fossil fuel use while at the same time not be ruining the Earth. What's the obvious present and future real problem here?

P.S. Gary (the OP) ... sorry for this gigantic segue off your original heavy rains topic!! The way it's going, we're finally not going to run out of water this summer at our residence from a dry spring and well plus, more importantly, we'll be able to once again tow our small boat behind our RV to a CA lake that actually has water and fish in it. :) :C

Just to throw a wrench in the works...

We are talking harmful Greenhouse Gases here, right?

Do you know the biggest producer of Greenhouse Gas?

It's from cows producing Methane gas, a gas more destructive than CO2.
Another little tidbit, it's from cow burps. How absurd is that?

I caught all the on a BBC documentary.
I looked it up so can you.

SO!!
You can keep the RV but you have to throw out the BBQ.

garyhaupt wrote:
That's one weather prediction for southern California in the next week.


Gary Haupt

WOW just WOW this thread has not only gone sideways but upside down then went to beating that old dead horse.......

THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS TO US HERE IN CALIFORNIA!!!
Nuff Said.

pnichols wrote:

So, I guess that you don't agree with my earlier post - repeated below. In what way don't you agree with it?:

pnichols wrote:
IMHO, recreational vehicles of all types will never be much a part of the overall pollution problem ... there's not enough of them on a world scale. I hope they continue to get powered by natural gas or gasoline or diesel for many years to come so that we can continue to refuel everywhere with these high energy storage-per-unit sources.

To my knowledge it's the trucks, planes, ships, daily living personal vehicles, building heating/cooling equipment, eating of beef products, and deforestation that are the main concerns.

It's just another excuse, and typical of the "Not in my backyard" and/or "Do as I say, not as I do" type crowd.


Does not matter how supposedly "little" in your opinion RV's are contributing to the supposed climate change problem as some see it. The fact is they -are- contributing to it (if the problem even exists), just like any other fossil fuel burning vehicle. If someone -truly- believed that man is having a detrimental and negative effect on the earth's climate and environment via pollution, and that we have to change our ways to prevent catastrophe, they would not be contributing to said pollution any more than they possibly needed to.

Driving around in a gas-guzzling RV is not minimizing one's footprint to implement said change, that according to some, must happen. Especially when it is done for nothing more than sight-seeing. RV's are burning 2-3 times more fuel than the personnal vehicles you lamented about.

It is hypocrisy at it's finest. Especially when someone is throwing around the typical and worn-out accusations of "science deniers."

But I understand that the truth can be hard to accept at times, especially when one is looking at one's self in the mirror.

Newbiecampers wrote:
Gotta love all this talk here and the thread about the German ban on ICE. Especially when those on the "man is to blame with his CO2 emissions" side are driving around in 8 MPG RV's. Not to mention the environmental impact of camping (more like glamping) all on it's own.

Hypocrite much?

And spare me the "carbon offset" scams (like other's have said: follow the money), or how much you may have reduced at home. If one was truly concerned about man's negative effect as it relates to climate change, one would -NOT- be driving around in an RV burning through all that gas at 8 MPG. One would not be driving anywhere on long-distance trips burning all that fossil fuel to simply sight-see.

Any excuses or "bbbbbut we reduced!" are just that, excuses to mentally justify driving around in a gas-guzzling RV while at the same time, calling other people "science deniers" and whining about man's impact on the environment.

So, I guess that you don't agree with my earlier post - repeated below. In what way don't you agree with it?:

pnichols wrote:
IMHO, recreational vehicles of all types will never be much a part of the overall pollution problem ... there's not enough of them on a world scale. I hope they continue to get powered by natural gas or gasoline or diesel for many years to come so that we can continue to refuel everywhere with these high energy storage-per-unit sources.

To my knowledge it's the trucks, planes, ships, daily living personal vehicles, building heating/cooling equipment, eating of beef products, and deforestation that are the main concerns.

Newbiecampers wrote:
Gotta love all this talk here and the thread about the German ban on ICE. Especially when those on the "man is to blame with his CO2 emissions" side are driving around in 8 MPG RV's. Not to mention the environmental impact of camping (more like glamping) all on it's own.

Hypocrite much?

And spare me the "carbon offset" scams (like other's have said: follow the money), or how much you may have reduced at home. If one was truly concerned about man's negative effect as it relates to climate change, one would -NOT- be driving around in an RV burning through all that gas at 8 MPG. One would not be driving anywhere on long-distance trips burning all that fossil fuel to simply sight-see.

Any excuses or "bbbbbut we reduced!" are just that, excuses to mentally justify driving around in a gas-guzzling RV while at the same time, calling other people "science deniers" and whining about man's impact on the environment.

Umm!.....I don't drive around in my RV like a daily driver. I don't think most people do. Even my Excursion only sees 2-4k miles a year. And when camping we use less water and less electric than we would when we are home in a larger home. Yes we use more gas getting there, but for the short trips it is a non issue.

It`s always easier to point a finger at someone than accept natures cycle. No excuse, scientific fact! Ok maybe in the grand scheme of things man will have something to do with climate change, it may come a year or 2 earlier over a 100,000 year run, for that I apologize! :R

Gotta love all this talk here and the thread about the German ban on ICE. Especially when those on the "man is to blame with his CO2 emissions" side are driving around in 8 MPG RV's. Not to mention the environmental impact of camping (more like glamping) all on it's own.

Hypocrite much?

And spare me the "carbon offset" scams (like other's have said: follow the money), or how much you may have reduced at home. If one was truly concerned about man's negative effect as it relates to climate change, one would -NOT- be driving around in an RV burning through all that gas at 8 MPG. One would not be driving anywhere on long-distance trips burning all that fossil fuel to simply sight-see.

Any excuses or "bbbbbut we reduced!" are just that, excuses to mentally justify driving around in a gas-guzzling RV while at the same time, calling other people "science deniers" and whining about man's impact on the environment.

Fizz wrote:
There is a standing joke in the research community.
If you're submitting for a grant on anything make sure you insert something about it's effect on global climate, related or not.

X2.

The National Science Foundation is one of the most politicized agencies in the government.

What is one's motive for denying that recent human activity is causing the planet to warm too much ...

1. because they don't trust scientists?

2. because they're jealous of scientists?

3. because they don't trust science in general?

4. because they don't like anyone who in anyway resembles a nature lover?

5. because they flat-out don't want to have to make any changes in how they're living?

Hmmmmmmm.

And if you are a climate change denier you can always get a grant from Exxon-Mobil, the Koch brothers, or the Heritage Foundation.