How to stop global warming

flaja · by **flaja** on 10/27/07, 5:29 pm

Would any of these things help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus work towards reversing global warming?

1. Adoption of organic farming on a commercial scale by having the government at all levels mandate that a certain percentage of the foodstuffs and fiber purchased for the military, prisons and school lunch programs be produced without using petroleum-based fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, feed additives etcetera.

2. Widespread use of biodiesel fuel in government and commercial vehicles.

3. Eliminating urban sprawl and the corporate power that fosters it in order to reduce the need for and use of personal automobiles: New Urbanism, reduce business hours and maybe implement Blue Laws so large stores like Super Wal-Mart and Home Depot won’t be as profitable as they can be operating 24-7.

4. Adoption of waste disposal technologies that generate biogas/biomethane so the carbon that biomass and organic waste materials would put into the air anyway as they decay could be cycled through energy extraction processes.

5. Nationwide semi-public mass transportation system using trains and buses to provide transportation between and within urban centers that have populations of at least 5,000 people.

If any of these things would work to reverse global warming, why is it I have never encountered any environmentalist on any internet forum that is willing to accept them when they learn that I do not believe that global warming is a bona fide scientific fact?

I have a bachelor’s degree in biology from Emory University, so I know something about the scientific method. I am aware that for any hypothesis to be scientifically valid it must be tested through a controlled experiment. Since we do not have a duplicate of the earth to serve as a control group in an experiment, we cannot test the hypothesis that global warming is caused by manmade greenhouse gases. We don’t have an earth that is without manmade greenhouse gases, so we have no way of knowing what effect manmade greenhouse gases have on the earth we do have.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that the earth is truly getting any warmer as a whole. It is true that the air over urban centers has gotten warmer over the past 20 years or so, but there is some indication that the air over non-urban centers has shown no change in temperature over the past 50 years or so. Any increase in temperature measurements likely is due to the fact over the past 40, and especially the past 20, years, land-based weather monitoring stations have been overtaken by urban sprawl. Since urban surfaces (roads, buildings, parking lots) trap more heat than woodland or farmland or water does, it is only natural that recorded temperatures have gone up. But, since this stored heat has not traveled to non-urban areas, it does not add up to global warming.

I support the 5 options I have outlined here, but I do so to achieve goals other than combating global warming. I support these things in order to promote national security by reducing our dependence on oil imports from hostile countries, save money by harnessing nature to do what we now have petroleum and manmade chemicals do, promote local economic self-reliance and improve societal cohesion by promoting neighborhoods and communities rather than suburbs. But, because I don’t accept the left’s global warming dogma, I get nothing but hostility from left-leaning environmentalists. This tells me that the true goal of left-leaning environmentalists is not the saving of the environment, but rather the destruction of America through the worshipping of nature.

ultracon · by **ultracon** on 10/27/07, 6:40 pm

flaja,

Where is all the strange formatting in your post coming from? Are you cutting and pasting from another site or from a local document?

Thanks..

flaja · by **flaja** on 10/27/07, 8:25 pm

neocon wrote:flaja,

Where is all the strange formatting in your post coming from? Are you cutting and pasting from another site or from a local document?

Thanks..

Some of what I have posted here is from MS Word documents that I have previously written, and I try to put everything else that I post through MS Word's spell checker. I cannot say that the formatting codes are coming from MS Word; I've never seen any other board act the way this one is acting.

SoldiersMum · by **SoldiersMum** on 10/27/07, 9:40 pm

flaja, to tell you the truth, I think Hugo Chavez would love your ideas. Do you have any idea how close you are coming to real communism? You want to eliminate this..control that..have the Government take over everything. I'm sorry but the controls you are listing would fit right in to communist China, not a free USA.

flaja · by **flaja** on 10/27/07, 9:58 pm

SoldiersMum wrote:flaja, to tell you the truth, I think Hugo Chavez would love your ideas. Do you have any idea how close you are coming to real communism? You want to eliminate this..control that..have the Government take over everything. I'm sorry but the controls you are listing would fit right in to communist China, not a free USA.

You obvioiusly have no clue what real communism is. And you don't have any clue what conservatism is either. When something needs to be done and the private sector either cannot or will not do it, what alternative is there but the government?

EnragedParrot · by **EnragedParrot** on 10/28/07, 12:05 am

flaja wrote:
I know something about the scientific method. I am aware that for any hypothesis to be scientifically valid it must be tested through a controlled experiment. Since we do not have a duplicate of the earth to serve as a control group in an experiment, we cannot test the hypothesis that global warming is caused by manmade greenhouse gases. We don’t have an earth that is without manmade greenhouse gases, so we have no way of knowing what effect manmade greenhouse gases have on the earth we do have.

Actually, we do have a way to run controlled experiments on a "second" Earth: climate modeling. Scientists can construct reliable and accurate physical models of Earth's climate to experiment on. They aren't quite as good as another Earth, but they're the next best thing.
Of course, our understanding of greenhouse gases comes not from climate modeling but from our understanding of the laws of physics. The physical properties of carbon dioxide, and many of the other greenhouse gases, can be directly measured under controlled conditions in laboratory experiments.

Furthermore, I am not convinced that the earth is truly getting any warmer as a whole. It is true that the air over urban centers has gotten warmer over the past 20 years or so, but there is some indication that the air over non-urban centers has shown no change in temperature over the past 50 years or so. Any increase in temperature measurements likely is due to the fact over the past 40, and especially the past 20, years, land-based weather monitoring stations have been overtaken by urban sprawl. Since urban surfaces (roads, buildings, parking lots) trap more heat than woodland or farmland or water does, it is only natural that recorded temperatures have gone up. But, since this stored heat has not traveled to non-urban areas, it does not add up to global warming.

A study done by Peterson et al. in 1999 demonstrated that the UHI effect does not contaminate the temperature record. To see if the UHI produced a statistically significant contribution to the overall trend, Peterson took the data from only rural stations and compared it to the data from both urban and rural stations. The rural stations showed a trend of 0.7 Cº per century, while the data including both urban and rural stations actually showed a trend of 0.65 Cº per century. So it appears that including data from urban stations does not artificially inflate the warming trend but, rather, deflates it.

Another study by Parker et al. in 2004 produced similar results. And yet another survey by Peterson in 2003 confirmed these results.

flaja · by **flaja** on 10/28/07, 4:15 pm

EnragedParrot wrote:Actually, we do have a way to run controlled experiments on a "second" Earth: climate modeling. Scientists can construct reliable and accurate physical models of Earth's climate to experiment on.

Computer models are only as good as the data that goes into them, and as they say, garbage in garbage out. You can program a computer model to say anything you want it to say.

BTW: How does your computer model explain the Little Ice Age or the Medieval Warm Period?

A study done by Peterson et al. in 1999 demonstrated that the UHI effect does not contaminate the temperature record. To see if the UHI produced a statistically significant contribution to the overall trend, Peterson took the data from only rural stations and compared it to the data from both urban and rural stations. The rural stations showed a trend of 0.7 Cº per century, while the data including both urban and rural stations actually showed a trend of 0.65 Cº per century. So it appears that including data from urban stations does not artificially inflate the warming trend but, rather, deflates it.

Then explain how and why Harry Hillaker has concluded that rural regions have shown no sign of warming?

Global warming is not a universally accepted fact:

http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/home.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/cooler_heads_needed_on_warming.html

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=513

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/global_warming/03.html

Eyas · by **Eyas** on 10/28/07, 7:12 pm

Would any of these things help reduce greenhouse gas emissions and thus work towards reversing global warming?

1. Adoption of organic farming on a commercial scale by having the government at all levels mandate that a certain percentage of the foodstuffs and fiber purchased for the military, prisons and school lunch programs be produced without using petroleum-based fertilizer, pesticides, herbicides, feed additives etcetera.

Organic food is a pet peeve of mine. Doing as you suggest would do very little, if anything, to reduce our overall petroleum usage. Furthermore, organic food is not economically viable on a large scale, only as a niche market.

2. Widespread use of biodiesel fuel in government and commercial vehicles.

Neither biodiesel, nor ethanol produce less CO2, but they do produce more NOx (smog). There are other problems with these alternatives & I don't think they're the best answer to reducing either carbon emissions or our dependence on foreign oil.

3. Eliminating urban sprawl and the corporate power that fosters it in order to reduce the need for and use of personal automobiles: New Urbanism, reduce business hours and maybe implement Blue Laws so large stores like Super Wal-Mart and Home Depot won’t be as profitable as they can be operating 24-7.

Capitalism, believe it or not, is not the source of environmental woes. I don't think that limiting a company's profits would necessarily solve any environmental problems, and it's not a good policy for a Free Market to get involved in.

I address New Urbanism below.

4. Adoption of waste disposal technologies that generate biogas/biomethane so the carbon that biomass and organic waste materials would put into the air anyway as they decay could be cycled through energy extraction processes.

I like it, I think we should use more biomass - but then, I'm not up-to-date on all the technologies or possible drawbacks. Your guess is as good as mine.

5. Nationwide semi-public mass transportation system using trains and buses to provide transportation between and within urban centers that have populations of at least 5,000 people.

I love many of the ideas & solutions of New Urbanism. It seems to me, however, that those local governments who try it simply drop a "light rail" in the middle of a city designed around the automobile. Why would anyone take the light rail if it were faster & more convenient to take your own car. Also, I hate HOV restrictions. I've never seen them work.

I think a bullet train along the East Coast would be a cool (albeit expensive) idea.

I think what would be needed to make New Urbanism work would be to design from scratch an entire City layout that both 1. makes mass transit quick & easy, 2. makes driving inconvenient but not impossible.

If any of these things would work to reverse global warming, why is it I have never encountered any environmentalist on any internet forum that is willing to accept them when they learn that I do not believe that global warming is a bona fide scientific fact?

Well, most of the ideas you present aren't large-scale solutions to "global warming" or oil dependency.

However, in my experience most "global warming" alarmists will automatically disregard anything else you say if you admit to being a "global-warming" denier. In their minds, you are essentially equivalent to Hitler. They're not even willing to listen to any argument that doesn't support "global warming". Likewise, we "deniers" must be so stupid and evil that nothing we say on any other subject could possibly have value.
Global Warming alarmists -- a more closed-minded group of people you will never find.

flaja · by **flaja** on 10/28/07, 8:48 pm

Eyas wrote:Organic food is a pet peeve of mine. Doing as you suggest would do very little, if anything, to reduce our overall petroleum usage. Furthermore, organic food is not economically viable on a large scale, only as a niche market.

How so? To my knowledge most organic farmers sell their produce locally. This means less energy is used for transportation. How would this not reduce petroleum use?

BTW: A few years ago I read that something like 1/3 of all fruits and vegetables produced in America are wasted. Due to long-distant shipping food spoils before it ever reaches it market or processor. Reducing this spoilage would certainly reduce petroleum use.

Neither biodiesel, nor ethanol produce less CO2, but they do produce more NOx (smog).

I cannot say anything about smog one way or another. But both biodiesel and ethanol (as well as all other biofuels) recycle the carbon dioxide that is already in the atmosphere. Burning fossil fuels takes carbon that had been sequestered in fossil fuel deposits and pumps it into the atmosphere. Biofuels wouldn’t reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, but by replacing fossil fuels they would keep the carbon concentrations in the atmosphere from going any higher.

There are other problems with these alternatives & I don't think they're the best answer to reducing either carbon emissions or our dependence on foreign oil.

How to stop global warming

How to stop global warming

Re: How to stop global warming

Re: How to stop global warming

Re: How to stop global warming

Re: How to stop global warming

Re: How to stop global warming

Re: How to stop global warming

Re: How to stop global warming

Re: How to stop global warming

Re: How to stop global warming

Conservative Videos

Rush Limbaugh Graphics

Right Resources

Sites We Like