What does 10 TRILLION gallons of water even equate to?

[garyhaupt]

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


Gary Haupt

[NYCgrrl]

..currently listening to this "cuz" it fits most any current events mode I can think of..
Won't Get Fooled Agin

Could go off on a riff about the barbarians at the gate but that might be a bridge too far. Still why not?

Same as It Ever Was

[TechWriter]

TechWriter wrote:

ExxWhy wrote:
The only name calling I see in this thread is those who like to call me and others "deniers" (with dripping venom). Yet those same people can't seem to realize they deny the existence of many scientists who disagree with their conclusions.

Examples?

Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

[RambleOnNW]

How Climate Change Deniers Sound to Normal People

[okhmbldr]

rjxj wrote:
Ray Stevens says this

Very funny, I always enjoy Ray Stevens.

So now I guess we have the "Denier's" and the "Gullible's"!

[azrving]

Ray Stevens says this

[ExxWhy]

Of course the climate change industry is pure and beyond corruption.

[westend]

Problem is these days, one person's "scientific fact" could very well end up being nothing more than modified, tainted, or just flat-out wrong results in order to achieve a desired result. And once again, it comes from ALL sides. To emphasize again, as far as I am concerned, all sides are guilty of junk science and facts.

We are, after all, talking about the same "science" that has said over the years:

-Asbestos was safe.
-Lead in paint and fuel was safe.
-The thyroid medication my grandmother took that caused her cancer (and death) was safe.
-All manner of health destroying artificial food products are safe (obesity, diabetes, etc. epedemic anyone?)
-DDT was safe to use
-etc. etc. etc.


Science can be wrong. Has been throughout our entire history.

Science can be wrong because humans are, well, human. They can be wrong. They can be influenced by greed, arrogance, indifference, agendas, etc..

And I am not saying the current GW science is wrong. But I am not saying it is right either, especially to the level of some of the doom-and-gloom predictions.

You have a very slanted view of "science". I'm guessing that it is all more of a mystery than a discovered set of facts.

The items in your list of products that are not safe were all discovered by a "scientist" to be unsafe, rather than invented by "science". We now have Govt. agencies with scientists that protect our well being, the FDA and EPA.

Pure science can not be wrong, as you surmise and in the intentions that you list. It is a discovery of phenomena that lead to rules of facts, nothing more. How these facts can be used in the products we use or to bad intentions by corrupt industries that know better is where the "wrong" enters the picture.

From the last paragraph in your post, it appears that you accept some truth in the discoveries of climate science but are unwilling to believe that bad outcomes are a possibility. Or, that you are uncertain what any future holds with regard to climate change.
With the amount of risk involved, wouldn't you want to know?

[pnichols]

The accusations of hypocrisy in my using an 8-10 MPG small motorhome for just about our ONLY petroleum fuel based and fairly simple recreation in life is what I was reacting to - after all this is a "wheel powered camping vehicle" forum. The overall petroleum based fuel usage of wheel powered camping vehicles pales in comparison to the sum total world usage for airplane travel recreation, boat cruising recreation, ATV running around recreation, personal vehicle sightseeing recreation, etc..

The petroleum based chemicals and petroleum based fuels required for the complex lifestyles of all types all over the world of too many people is the real reason for either creating a - or speeding up a - hothouse affect that scientists (ooops - there's that word again) say is going to be a disaster for humankind. By "disaster" I don't mean one that will eliminate all humankind ... I mean one that will radically restrict how and where a much smaller populaton lives on this planet in order to be on the reduced coastal areas, avoid the large ice/snow fields, avoid the higher average temperatures, and avoid the higher average humidities.

Everyone doesn't need to do everything ... some of us need to do more and some of us are doing enough already. This is of course assuming that the quantity making up "everyone" becomes less and less. By population control I don't mean deciding who gets eliminated and who gets to stay. I mean reduction all over the world of the number of births per couple ... generation after generation going forward.

[Fizz]

The bottom line here is that the problem, no matter the cause of it, has been acknowledged by those who can do something about it.

Fixing it might take decades but it has started.
It's like stopping a speeding train after you slam on the brakes. It still takes over a mile to bring it to a full stop.

[Newbiecampers]

pnichols wrote:
Control of the hothouse affect doesn't require taking every action possible or available by every individual ... it requires that all of us take high priority actions as much as possible or available.

This is definitely where we disagree.

To me, for someone to be so concerned about the catastrophic end result to the point of them talking about population control or other solutions (which affects others), and some of the other items you mentioned in your list, to then leave other certain activities in their lifestyle makes no sense.

If the situation is as dire as some make it out to be, then yes, it seems to me it must be an "every action possible" by "every individual" solution to rectify it.

Quick and dirty calculation on recreational energy usage in this country:

For the average "rv user" (whether it be campers, airplanes, boats, atvs, driving a car on vacation to see the sights, any and all of it) I'm thinking gas usage is conservatively 500 gallons per year. Number of households in the country that partake in "rv" usage I think could be very conservatively estimated at 2 million. Thats a billion gallons of fossil fuel per year. And I think I am low on my numbers. Add in the energy required to manufacture, transport, sell, maintain, service, store, etc. those vehicles, I would not think that is an insignificant number to individuals of a certain opinion.

Add in things like the energy to supply hotels/resorts, private and public pools, places like Vegas (that only exist for recreation), etc. etc. etc. and you have a large energy use picture for "recreation" in this country.

[monkey44]

Newbiecampers wrote:

spoon059 wrote:
Not really going to weigh in on the pro GW vs anti GW rant, but the money doesn't need to get to the end of the line (scientist) in order for people to be concerned about the money trail. There are hundreds of millions (maybe even billions) of dollars every year spent on global warming research. That is a LOT of coin being spent on a controversial subject.

You could ARGUE (again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here) that there is a large industry with a huge financial interest in global warming research. Continuing to argue human involvement will encourage governments and private liberal investors to keep pouring more money into research, those funding huge projects and ensuring that these research firms are well supplied with capital.

Again... Devil's Advocate. The scientist at the end of the line making $50K a year doesn't mean that there isn't a LOT of money being invested in research.

Exactly. You said it better than I.

There is big money being thrown around. And everybody from various governmental departments, to universities on down have their hands out.

The same mentality has invaded many segments. Healthcare is another great example. Treating symptoms seems to always be the focus now, not the cure. More prescriptions! More prescription drugs.

Saw this ridiculous prescription med commercial the other day. It was about a guy that had constipation caused by a mediacation (don't remember which one). The answer? Another prescription med! to cure his constipation, which was caused by a prescription med. And I am sure big pharm would love to see yet another med to help out with the problems caused by the anti-constipation med that he took to solve a problem caused by the first medication.........etc.

HA hahahahhaha that's funny -- We saw that same commercial too and said the exact same thing - We're wondering when the med community will make a drug we can take when these drug commercials make us sick !!! 🙂

[Newbiecampers]

2oldman wrote:
It is the height of human ignorance is to disbelieve scientific evidence, and to look for any possible way out of it, by misdirection and finger-pointing. Do you remember what a fight it was go get lead out of gasoline?

I didn't want to enter into this anymore because it's a waste of time, but you specifically attacked me. Dismiss me, call me names.. I don't care. Science doesn't care what you believe.

Problem is these days, one person's "scientific fact" could very well end up being nothing more than modified, tainted, or just flat-out wrong results in order to achieve a desired result. And once again, it comes from ALL sides. To emphasize again, as far as I am concerned, all sides are guilty of junk science and facts.

We are, after all, talking about the same "science" that has said over the years:

-Asbestos was safe.
-Lead in paint and fuel was safe.
-The thyroid medication my grandmother took that caused her cancer (and death) was safe.
-All manner of health destroying artificial food products are safe (obesity, diabetes, etc. epedemic anyone?)
-DDT was safe to use
-etc. etc. etc.


Science can be wrong. Has been throughout our entire history.

Science can be wrong because humans are, well, human. They can be wrong. They can be influenced by greed, arrogance, indifference, agendas, etc..

And I am not saying the current GW science is wrong. But I am not saying it is right either, especially to the level of some of the doom-and-gloom predictions.


Specifically attacked you? Ummmm.....no.

I responded to -your- post which quoted one of mine. Nothing more, nothing less. Alot of what I have been writing is addressed towards a general crowd, not an individual person (with some exceptions). The arrogance part was not directed at you whatsoever. Thats why I inserted multiple spaces between the paragraphs.

You said nobody here asks for a change in people. You said you are having the government do that. I countered that statement.

Chillax

[westend]

There is big money being thrown around. And everybody from various governmental departments, to universities on down have their hands out.

All the claims of climate science being a huge "cash cow" would be more believable if some figures accompanied them. What I've found in my reading is that the total budgets for climate science totals about $11.5 billion. That figure includes aid to other countries and research on different technologies.

Office on Management and Budget report

[NYCgrrl]

Hypocrites generally don't know they are by the very definition of the word.
Interesting thread on many levels.

[Newbiecampers]

spoon059 wrote:
Not really going to weigh in on the pro GW vs anti GW rant, but the money doesn't need to get to the end of the line (scientist) in order for people to be concerned about the money trail. There are hundreds of millions (maybe even billions) of dollars every year spent on global warming research. That is a LOT of coin being spent on a controversial subject.

You could ARGUE (again, I'm playing Devil's Advocate here) that there is a large industry with a huge financial interest in global warming research. Continuing to argue human involvement will encourage governments and private liberal investors to keep pouring more money into research, those funding huge projects and ensuring that these research firms are well supplied with capital.

Again... Devil's Advocate. The scientist at the end of the line making $50K a year doesn't mean that there isn't a LOT of money being invested in research.

Exactly. You said it better than I.

There is big money being thrown around. And everybody from various governmental departments, to corporations, to universities on down have their hands out.

The same mentality has invaded many segments. Healthcare is another great example. Treating symptoms seems to always be the focus now, not the cure. More prescriptions! More prescription drugs.

Saw this ridiculous prescription med commercial the other day. It was about a guy that had constipation caused by a mediacation (don't remember which one). The answer? Another prescription med! to cure his constipation, which was caused by a prescription med. And I am sure big pharm would love to see yet another med to help out with the problems caused by the anti-constipation med that he took to solve a problem caused by the first medication.........etc.


Edit: added corporations