What does 10 TRILLION gallons of water even equate to?

Newbiecampers wrote:

2oldman wrote:

westend wrote:
There is a lot of well funded propaganda developed to disrespect the science of climate change and climatology, in general.

I do notice that some of the naysayers (seems to be those with the least science background, too) have resorted to name calling and weak humor to try and bolster their stance. Beyond that, some have a financial interest in concurrent polluting industries that make them want to disallow any notion of climate change or the effect of greenhouse gases.

I'm sorry to say that I have given up trying to share any information about ecology, the environment. or pollution on this Forum. There are just too many that rebuff any science involved.

Well put.

I find that few if any deniers really understand the CO2 cycle and how it traps heat. Global climate change is not that complicated, and if you understand how it works, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion than industrialized man is causing it. If you deny it, chances are you really don't understand it. It baffles me how people deny something they don't understand.

Science has always been rebuffed when its findings disrupt any industry. The tobacco companies come to mind. And getting lead out of gasoline was a 20-year battle. Seems obvious now, but back then as now, it was a hell of a fight.

It is futile to argue with a denier. It's like arguing about Trump. Everyone's mind is made up and there's no changing it.

But I am guessing that just like others here, despite all your understanding on the science, you still drive around gas-guzzling RV vehicles. Despite your understanding of what it does to the environment.

But alas, just as you say it is futile to argue with a denier, it is futile to argue with the typical "not in my backyard" "do as I say not as I do" type. There is always an excuse or justification on how when they do what they say others need to stop or reduce doing, it is "ok."

Wind! is the answer......oh, bbbut wait, you can't put them off the coasts where the wind is.... that would destroy -my- view. We need to drastically reduce the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere.....wait, but my E450 is just fine to use. There aren't that many of us.

This all reminds me of a conversation I had with an individual who flies his own aircraft for recreation. He was extremely vocal about how the world needed to reduce, yet he gladly flies around in his airplane to sight see or get the proverbial $100 hamburger at another airport. Burns through all those gallons of -leaded- fuel per year, year after year for the last 20+, but that is just fine.

I always ask those that are on a solar and wind kick if they have a cloths dryer. Well, yes, of course I do they say. Why aren't you using the environmentally friendly solar and wind available outside (and free) to dry your cloths?? Bbbut I need my cloths dryer, because__________ (insert excuse).

I really can't find anyone telling you (or anyone else) to change any of your behavior within this thread. You're confusing process with cause and effect.

Personally, I don't have any great answers to the climate change problems. If there was a "magic bullet" that hit the target with all of us, I would sure suggest it.

I sure don't have anything against decentralizing the electrical grid and individuals using alternative energy sources like wind, solar, and hydro. If Mr. Jones down the street has an array of solar panels but Mrs. Jones uses a clothes dryer, I'm not going to lose any sleep.
I tend to believe that a majority of us are well-thinking adults and can make appropriate decisions.

Newbiecampers wrote:
I always ask those that are on a solar and wind kick if they have a cloths (clothes) dryer. Well, yes, of course I do they say. Why aren't you using the environmentally friendly solar and wind available outside (and free) to dry your cloths (clothes)?? Bbbut I need my cloths (clothes)dryer, because__________ (insert excuse).

All of your points are well taken, but that doesn't mean GW doesn't exist. Hypocrisy (if that's what you're getting at) is the easiest argument in the world to make, but it doesn't mean because I drive a diesel truck I can't have interest in GW.

No GW believers I know, including me, are telling people what to do. We're telling our government what to do. That's where real change starts.

By the way, as a boondocker I will use a laundromat to wash, but I never use a dryer. I hang them up at the campsite and let the warm desert wind do its thing. I have lots of solar which keeps my generator use to a minimum. It's not much, but I try.

Newbie,

As you figured out you are dealing with the do as I say, not as I do crowd. Most GW proponents fall into that category. No sense arguing with that mentality.

2oldman wrote:

westend wrote:
There is a lot of well funded propaganda developed to disrespect the science of climate change and climatology, in general.

I do notice that some of the naysayers (seems to be those with the least science background, too) have resorted to name calling and weak humor to try and bolster their stance. Beyond that, some have a financial interest in concurrent polluting industries that make them want to disallow any notion of climate change or the effect of greenhouse gases.

I'm sorry to say that I have given up trying to share any information about ecology, the environment. or pollution on this Forum. There are just too many that rebuff any science involved.

Well put.

I find that few if any deniers really understand the CO2 cycle and how it traps heat. Global climate change is not that complicated, and if you understand how it works, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion than industrialized man is causing it. If you deny it, chances are you really don't understand it. It baffles me how people deny something they don't understand.

Science has always been rebuffed when its findings disrupt any industry. The tobacco companies come to mind. And getting lead out of gasoline was a 20-year battle. Seems obvious now, but back then as now, it was a hell of a fight.

It is futile to argue with a denier. It's like arguing about Trump. Everyone's mind is made up and there's no changing it.

But I am guessing that just like others here, despite all your understanding on the science, you still drive around gas-guzzling RV vehicles. Despite your understanding of what it does to the environment.

But alas, just as you say it is futile to argue with a denier, it is futile to argue with the typical "not in my backyard" "do as I say not as I do" type. There is always an excuse or justification on how when they do what they say others need to stop or reduce doing, it is "ok."

Wind! is the answer......oh, bbbut wait, you can't put them off the coasts where the wind is.... that would destroy -my- view. We need to drastically reduce the amount of CO2 we pump into the atmosphere.....wait, but my E450 is just fine to use. There aren't that many of us.

This all reminds me of a conversation I had with an individual who flies his own aircraft for recreation. He was extremely vocal about how the world needed to reduce, yet he gladly flies around in his airplane to sight see or get the proverbial $100 hamburger at another airport. Burns through all those gallons of -leaded- fuel per year, year after year for the last 20+, but that is just fine.

I always ask those that are on a solar and wind kick if they have a cloths dryer. Well, yes, of course I do they say. Why aren't you using the environmentally friendly solar and wind available outside (and free) to dry your cloths?? Bbbut I need my cloths dryer, because__________ (insert excuse).

westend wrote:
There is a lot of well funded propaganda developed to disrespect the science of climate change and climatology, in general.

I do notice that some of the naysayers (seems to be those with the least science background, too) have resorted to name calling and weak humor to try and bolster their stance. Beyond that, some have a financial interest in concurrent polluting industries that make them want to disallow any notion of climate change or the effect of greenhouse gases.

I'm sorry to say that I have given up trying to share any information about ecology, the environment. or pollution on this Forum. There are just too many that rebuff any science involved.

Well put.

I find that few if any deniers really understand the CO2 cycle and how it traps heat. Global climate change is not that complicated, and if you understand how it works, it's difficult to come to any other conclusion than industrialized man is causing it. If you deny it, chances are you really don't understand it. It baffles me how people deny something they don't understand.

Science has always been rebuffed when its findings disrupt any industry. The tobacco companies come to mind. And getting lead out of gasoline was a 20-year battle. Seems obvious now, but back then as now, it was a hell of a fight. And there was always a "scientist" wwilling to testify that putting lead in the air was no big deal.

It is futile to argue with a denier. It's like arguing about Trump. Everyone's mind is made up and there's no changing it.

pnichols wrote:
By the way, I've noticed very little response to my post earlier in this thread where I was addressing what the motive(s) might be for those who deny that recent human activities have anything to do with recent global warming and it's upcoming disastrous affects on worldwide weather and sea levels. Motive drives all human thought.

"Human activites" having to do with recent global warming....."upcoming disastrous affects on worldwide weather"

That coming from someone driving around in an E450.

You should be driving nothing but a prius, if even that, if your visions of doom and gloom for the earth and it's inhabitants are truly what you believe.

Motive drives all human thought.

Now here we have complete agreement. And your statement works both ways.

RambleOnNW wrote:
Scientists know for a fact that CO2 levels have not been this high, over 400 ppm, for all the 800,000 years of ice core samples that are available

And yet you, pnichols, and others gleefully drive around in your E450's.

Once again: hypocrites

You want your message to be heard? Maybe try putting your "money where your mouth is."

You make yourselves look foolish yammering on and on about the catastrophic state of the environment due to man and the changes needed to fight it, while at the same time driving around in those things to accomplish nothing more than sight-seeing. Inconvenience or change your own life in an effort to change CO2 emissions? Well, can't have that now can we.

Just like gore flying around in his Gulfstream II private jet back in the day stumping for global warming (burning lots of fossil fuels for a small number of people) while living in his 5000+ sq house(s).

pnichols wrote:

westend wrote:
Rambler,
Good luck on the education. You're just really going to be up against it, though.
There is a lot of well funded propaganda developed to disrespect the science of climate change and climatology, in general.

I do notice that some of the naysayers (seems to be those with the least science background, too) have resorted to name calling and weak humor to try and bolster their stance. Beyond that, some have a financial interest in concurrent polluting industries that make them want to disallow any notion of climate change or the effect of greenhouse gases.

I'm sorry to say that I have given up trying to share any information about ecology, the environment. or pollution on this Forum. There are just too many that rebuff any science involved.

Extremely well stated!!!

By the way, I've noticed very little response to my post earlier in this thread where I was addressing what the motive(s) might be for those who deny that recent human activities have anything to do with recent global warming and it's upcoming disastrous affects on worldwide weather and sea levels. Motive drives all human thought.

Thanks.
I have to believe fear is a predominant motivator--fear of an unknown or a predicted bad outcome.

One of these bad outcomes is a change in deep ocean currents, some believe it's already changing. If that Atlantic current does stall, the US will be in for a much different set of seasons. Temperatures could fall, drastically, in certain parts of the lower 48.

Changes to Atlantic Meridional Circulating Current

westend wrote:
Rambler,
Good luck on the education. You're just really going to be up against it, though.
There is a lot of well funded propaganda developed to disrespect the science of climate change and climatology, in general.

I do notice that some of the naysayers (seems to be those with the least science background, too) have resorted to name calling and weak humor to try and bolster their stance. Beyond that, some have a financial interest in concurrent polluting industries that make them want to disallow any notion of climate change or the effect of greenhouse gases.

I'm sorry to say that I have given up trying to share any information about ecology, the environment. or pollution on this Forum. There are just too many that rebuff any science involved.

Extremely well stated!!!

By the way, I've noticed very little response to my post earlier in this thread where I was addressing what the motive(s) might be for those who deny that recent human activities have anything to do with recent global warming and it's upcoming disastrous affects on worldwide weather and sea levels. Motive drives all human thought.

Rambler,
Good luck on the education. You're just really going to be up against it, though.
There is a lot of well funded propaganda developed to disrespect the science of climate change and climatology, in general.

I do notice that some of the naysayers (seems to be those with the least science background, too) have resorted to name calling and weak humor to try and bolster their stance. Beyond that, some have a financial interest in concurrent polluting industries that make them want to disallow any notion of climate change or the effect of greenhouse gases.

I'm sorry to say that I have given up trying to share any information about ecology, the environment. or pollution on this Forum. There are just too many that rebuff any science involved.