best new website

[Ganzo]

http://www.eol.org/home.html

it might take 10 years to complete

[Diekan]

Good idea. Thankfully, the republicans are out of office for a few years. Might be able to save a few species from going extinct before they finish.

[Harrison]

Good idea. Thankfully, the republicans are out of office for a few years. Might be able to save a few species from going extinct before they finish.

You have serious issues...

[Diekan]

If you don't think the money loving GOP wouldn't sell the health of this planet or YOU, for that matter, out for an increase in their business'es bottom line... you're retarded.

This planet would look black from space (air pollution) if it weren't for more liberal, earth friendly watch groups keeping those hypocrites in check.

I hate the GOP, make no mistake. A middle aged, child molesting, money loving, white-boys only club.

What I hate most about the GOP is how they thump their collective chests as the champions of Christianity... lol... the only "God" those rasict fucks worship is the almighty dollar.

What's the point here? GOP = Big Business. Big Business = our collective deaths if they aren't kept in check.

Again, if you think for a second the GOP and Big Businesses who suck on the cock of the political right give one fuck about the health of this planet or the viability of this planet's life.... you're a complete Mindiaesque tard.

The Democrats realize the importance of actually taking care of the planet we live on. They also understand the importance of protecting the various species who also live here.

The republicans only care about how much money they can make if they can find a way around environmental watch groups to dump their toxic wastes undetected.

I want to get a T-shirt that says...

"Save the Planet, Kill a Republican." Or - as I like to put it STPKAR

[Yamori]

Nerd Rage

[Lueyen]

Diekan your vaunted watch dog groups aren't any picnic themselves. Most are blind and clueless feel good causes as best, or at worst organizations that push socialist agenda via an environmentalist vessel.

I've personally seen many results of so called environmentalist policy implementations who's results were actually worse for the environment because of them. This is generally the result of well intentioned but clueless ideas resulting from a complete lack of understanding and knee jerk reactions.

One example was a stretch of road in Wyoming where on one side the land was owned by a rancher who put cattle to pasture on it, on the other BLM land where cattle were not allowed to graze to "preserve" the environment. After 5 years the ranchers land looked beautiful and well preserved, and the BLM land looked more like a waste land. The reason was that grazing cattle replaced the ecological function of the virtually wiped out buffalo. They fertilized and stirred up the ground which was conducive to plant growth, something the BLM land completely lacked and it showed. A little foresight and understanding of ecology by so called environmental experts would have went a long way, but instead a theoretical feel good action was taken, one that failed to take into account the actual ecology.

Then there is the history of doom and gloom environmental scares drummed up to justify some action that most of the time dictated a response of more government control over citizens, and yet these catastrophes never seem to come to pass.

I'm still waiting for the ice age to happen, or the African bees to become a major issue throughout the entire country. Why hasn't acid rain completely destroyed the environment yet? Oh and when are we all going to die because of bird flu? How come we aren't all dead yet from cancer because of a world wide complete loss of ozone?(hint there never has been a hole in the ozone layer anywhere)

One can only hear wolf cried so many times before you start to become a bit skeptical. I imagine in 15 years global warming will be a conveniently forgotten issue and some new impending doom will have taken it's place.

[Zanchief]

You hate the idea of environmental causes because you can think of a handful of bad ones? How about the thousands of good ones?

I suppose since Chenney doesn't believe in global warming we have nothing to worry about, Lueyen. Ignore the problem, what's the worst that could happen?

[Griever]

This thread went from ecological archiving solutions to political differences in 0.3 seconds.

Way to derail a thread.

[Lueyen]

You hate the idea of environmental causes because you can think of a handful of bad ones? How about the thousands of good ones?

Nope I'm all for prudent environmental action if it's based in reality and not just what makes people feel good about doing something for the environment. I gave just one example, but I've seen quite a few. Granted hindsight is 20/20, but most often it's things that could be avoided and better solutions provided if more attention was given to actually trying to find a solution to a problem rather then just make people feel like they are doing something to "save the planet".

I suppose since Chenney doesn't believe in global warming we have nothing to worry about, Lueyen. Ignore the problem, what's the worst that could happen?

Again I'm skeptical, not really in regards to temperature change, but in the exact cause and severity. I don't think it's to be completely ignored but I have yet to see anything that makes me believe we need to take immediate drastic actions out of fear of impending doom. This is not to say ignore it, as Brinstar pointed out in a past thread, regardless of the severity of the problem reducing carbon emissions is a good idea anyway. I just don't agree that it needs to be done in a fanatical matter which places the importance above all else in complete disregard to financial and lifestyle impact. For instance I don't see it as a needed or even a good idea to set carbon usage caps on individuals and force carbon credit payments for those that go over. First of all I find the relative impact of carbon credit organizations lacking in effect as an offset, and secondly I see it as another way for government to eventually get into the populations pocket book. There are groups right now pushing for this.

[Zanchief]

How do you write so much and say so little.

To me it's being very naive to think the vast majority of the scientific community is lying. People much smarter than you and I have spent their lives studying weather patterns and effects of smog on urban areas, and because of a handful of people, all of whom have serious financial and political motivation to lie, tell you otherwise, you're inclined to believe them?

Seems like a pretty dangerous opinion to have.

[Lueyen]

How do you write so much and say so little.

To me it's being very naive to think the vast majority of the scientific community is lying. People much smarter than you and I have spent their lives studying weather patterns and effects of smog on urban areas, and because of a handful of people, all of whom have serious financial and political motivation to lie, tell you otherwise, you're inclined to believe them?

Seems like a pretty dangerous opinion to have.

Naievity is not questioning one sides possible ulterior motives and completely dismissing the other based on possible ulterior motives.

[Zanchief]

How do you write so much and say so little.

To me it's being very naive to think the vast majority of the scientific community is lying. People much smarter than you and I have spent their lives studying weather patterns and effects of smog on urban areas, and because of a handful of people, all of whom have serious financial and political motivation to lie, tell you otherwise, you're inclined to believe them?

Seems like a pretty dangerous opinion to have.

Naievity is not questioning one sides possible ulterior motives and completely dismissing the other based on possible ulterior motives.

Trusting 1% over 99% because they happen to root for the same team as me is slightly destructive IMO.

Your brevity is appreciated though.

[Evermore]

lueyen what is more important? finances and lifestyles or having a planet to live on? seems to me that not being able to breathe the air just may have a very fanatical impact on finances and lifestyles

[Lyion]

Neat website, Ganzo. It'll be interesting to see it when it's been developing for a few years.

At this point, I'd be happy for a new season of Meerkat Manor.

[Griever]

Global warming will always occur whether we are here or not. The Earth always "resets" itself. The last Ice Age was the only one recorded by humans. There were many more before and will be many more to come.

It is also proven that natural volcanic eruptions release more o-zone harming chemicals into the atmosphere than humans do. Yes we add a new variable to the equation that nature has already established, but it does not mean that nature won't adapt. Trying to stop global warming is futile and unneccessary. What we need to is focus all efforts on discovering a new fuel to replace fossil fuel and expand our exploration in space to start establishing colonies on other planets. The new fuel will help in reducing the time it takes for the inevitable "reset" of Earth, and the further exploration will the be long-term final answer to the problem.

This is an attempt to shift this thread onto a scientific and geological debate as opposed to a political one.

[Arlos]

Uh, yes there certainly HAS been a hole in the ozone above the Antarctic. I dunno what retarded creationist right-wing anti-science idiocy you read that particular nugget from, but you're 100% wrong there. Hell, look at: http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/peg/stratozone.html if you want info straight from the EPA. Even THIS administration admits the hole in the ozone layer is a problem, and you know how they normally treat any science above grade-school level as voodoo magic.

As for Acid Rain, it's MUCH less of a problem now because of the Clean Air Act, which was first enacted in 1990 (must give Bush Sr. some props for signing it, at least. The more I see of his son, the more regard I have for the father, much as I didn't care for him at the time. Still not a good president, but not historically bad like Jr.) Anyway, we are now producing 41% less acid-rain causing emissions than was happening in 1980. That has had a large impact in reducing the acid rain problem, which was a very serious problem in the Northeast in the 80s.

Let me be blunt here: If it comes to protecting the environment and protecting corporate profits, I will *ALWAYS* side on the side of the environment. Corporations can deal with short-term losses necessary to install expensive pollution control equipment. Dividend trust-fund babies can sufer through getting less dividend this quarter. Environmental damage can take decades or longer to fix, and have catastrophic consequences. Go read Silent Spring, for example. How many decades did the government and chemical companies try and tell us pesticides, etc. were harmless? How wrong were they? How many species were driven to the edge of extinction by DDT? (hint: lots)

Furthermore, I am fucking sick and tired of people bandying about the term "Socialist" as a scare tactic. What is wrong with borrowing good ideas from other philosophies and forms of governments and adapting them to our own situation if it improves our lives? You try and make it sound like if we initiate reforms like universal health care or more environmental protection that we'll all end up standing in Kruschev-era soviet-era 5-hour lines to buy bread and toilet paper in short order. That is such monumental levels of bullshit that not even hip waders would be enough to stay above it. You want to argue against individual ideas, fine, but don't go waving ism-phobia around like a flag just because something scares you. Tough shit.

-Arlos

[Gaazy]

Get the lazy power companies off their ass to build new power plants with the new scrubbing technology for coal. The technology exists and is already used, and can scrub and even reuse 95%+ of harmful emissions. The environmentalists wont try to push that existing technology, just to get rid of it.

Now oil on the other hand, thats a different story. At least we wouldnt have to go to war for coal supply.

[Arlos]

Griever: Yes, the planet had warm and cold periods before this, of course it did. But to claim that we are having no impact is short-sighted claptrap. We have absolute atmospheric records going back for nearly 1,000,000 years. We can track temperature patterns back that far by looking at ice layers from antarctica. There has always been a direct correlation between CO2 levels and planetary temperatures. Guess what, our CO2 levels are the highest there has ever been in the last 650,000 years, and not only that, the rate of growth over the last 200 outstrips ANY such growth over the same time span. Since vulcanism now is nothing compared to what it was a long time ago, that leaves only humans as the source.

From the BBC:

Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years.

That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from 3km below the surface of Antarctica.

The scientists say their research shows present day warming to be exceptional.

Other research, also published in the journal Science, suggests that sea levels may be rising twice as fast now as in previous centuries.

Treasure dome

The evidence on atmospheric concentrations comes from an Antarctic region called Dome Concordia (Dome C).

Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time.

Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of temperature.

"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland.

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

Stable relationship

Last year, the Epica team released its first data. The latest two papers analyse gas composition and temperature dating back 650,000 years.

This extends the picture drawn by another Antarctic ice core taken near Lake Vostok which looked 440,000 years into the past.

The extra data is crucial because around 420,000 years there appears to have been a significant shift in the Earth's long-term climate patterns.

Before and after this date, the planet went through 100,000 year cycles of alternating cold glacial and warm interglacial periods.

But around the 420,000 year mark, the precise pattern changed, with the contrast between warm and cold conditions becoming much more marked.

The Dome C core gives data from six cycles of glaciation and warming; two from before this change, four from after.

"We found a very tight relationship between CO2 and temperature even before 420,000 years," said Professor Stocker.

"The fact that the relationship holds across the transition between climatic regimes is a very strong indication of the important role of CO2 in climate regulation."

Epica scientists will now try to extend their analysis further back in time.

Water rise

Another study reported in the same journal claims that for the last 150 years, sea levels have been rising twice as fast as in previous centuries.

Using data from tidal gauges and reviewing findings from many previous studies, US researchers have constructed a new sea level record covering the last 100 million years.

They calculate the present rate of rise at 2mm per year.

"The main thing that's changed since the 19th Century and the beginning of modern observation has been the widespread increase in fossil fuel use and more greenhouse gases," said Kenneth Miller from Rutgers University.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body which collates scientific evidence for policymakers, concludes that sea level rose by 1-2mm per year over the last century, and will rise by a total of anything up to 88cm during the course of this century.

As for ozone destruction: Volcanoes don't produce CFCs, humans do that. Do you have any idea how CFCs work to destroy ozone? Do you have any idea why they're so harmful? It's CFCs that are the biggest destroyer of ozone, and they persist so long that despite the ban in 1991, they won't have cleared out of our atmosphere til sometime in the 2050s.

-Arlos

[Arlos]

Gaazy, as far as I know, most environmentalists would love it if coal plants actually used the rescrubbers. It's just none of the power companies can be bothered to actually spend the money to install them, despite the EPA requirements that they do so.

Oh no, Environmentalists would be QUITE happy to have all coal plants have the pollution control devices. Look to the owners of the plants if you want to find the reason why they don't have them.

-Arlos

[Gaazy]

From what Ive read it is around 40% more expensive to build the plant, and produces about 20% less electricity, but some MIT study released that I read a while back said that all they need to make the technology better is more money to research it. Its there and they know how to make it more cost-effective, but they cant get the money to do it ><

[Arlos]

Just lovely that we can get government funding for Peanut Storage or 500 million dollar bridges to nowhere in Alaska, but money to somewhere like MIT to research improved coal power plant emission controls? Never! That'd be Socialist!

Believe me, if we could eliminate the pollution from coal plants, I'd be all for using far more coal. It's just that non-pollution-scrubber-equipped plants are SO bad for pollution that it's just insane.

What's especially frustrating is that according to agreements the power companies MADE back when the Clean Air act was first introduced, they were supposed to have retrofitted all of them with the pollution control gear by now. But they have completely dragged their feet about it, and once hard deadlines with monetary consequences started getting closer, they started lobbying the Bush administration to gut the requirements, and thus we got the orwellian-named "Clean Skies Initiative", which would've allowed for far more pollution production than before.

-Arlos

[Griever]

Hah, I'm not going to debate with you Arlos. You'll rape me.

Besides, I don't have the time to read the long posts.

[Tacks]

Does anyone read half the shit Arlos posts?

[Arlos]

Well, if your own opinions on the matter are based on such tenuous nebulosity that you cannot defend them, perhaps they could use some re-thinking, hmm? There's tons of information out there on the issues if you want to look for it. Let me just say it all in another way: If you can't back up what you're claiming, perhaps you shouldn't claim it.

If you have proof for what you're saying, lets hear it. But if you're claiming this stuff, and evidince shows different than what you're saying, why do you believe what you do instead of what evidence points to?

-Arlos

[Arlos]

Oh no! I write posts with, you know, Paragraphs! And words! And some of them have more than 2 syllables! And they make an argument that backs up its assertions! OH THE HORRORS! SAVE US FROM HAVING TO *GASP* READ SOMETHING!

Fuck off. Try having an attention span longer than a nanosecond.

-Arlos