Go Back   CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums > People > Chit - Chat for Cruisers
Register Forgot Password?

Chit - Chat for Cruisers Open Forum for non-cruise posts. Please refrain from inflammatory rhetoric that could be considered offensive. We reserve the right to edit or delete for any reason.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old August 4th, 2007, 12:01 PM
AR AR is offline
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,473
Default

The thing I don't understand is why some people--either seriously or jokingly--point to "natural" causes for climate change (the sun, fate, percentages, or some other theory) to support an implicit or stated argument that we don't need to do anything about it.

It's sort of like saying, "Well, we haven't figured out exactly what causes Alzheimers yet, so why bother working on treatments, prevention schemes, or whatever?" Isn't it worth trying to fix no matter what the cause?

I agree that the political extremes are what's preventing a thoughtful, humanist approach at this point. And not just to this subject, either. . .
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old August 4th, 2007, 01:34 PM
mehawk's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Houston aka Space City, Texas, USA
Posts: 9,687
Default

I have so much to say about this subject but if I do, others would consider me a hatemonger, which, I certainly assure each of you, I certainly am not. None of the remarks would be pointed to anyone on this site but, they would still be misinterpreted so I will respectfully stay on the sidelines and keep my vocalizations in check.
__________________
Michael

Cruised more times than I can remember.

Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Courage and perserverance have a magical talisman; before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into the air.

Pick your company wisely! Hang around people who are going to help you become all God created you to be.
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old August 4th, 2007, 02:16 PM
sirobin171's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 113
Send a message via Yahoo to sirobin171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mehawk
I have so much to say about this subject but if I do, others would consider me a hatemonger, which, I certainly assure each of you, I certainly am not. None of the remarks would be pointed to anyone on this site but, they would still be misinterpreted so I will respectfully stay on the sidelines and keep my vocalizations in check.
I totally respect you not wanting to alienate people. However you should never feel like its not ok to state your views. As long as its tactful you should not care what others think.If someone does not like your point of view they can debate it or tune it out, but we are in a free country and no one should feel preasure to be quiet because of society.
__________________
on Navigator of the Seas.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old August 5th, 2007, 04:20 AM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 82
Default

Oeps, seems like I got into a big ole discussie about the American politics.
As a Dutch person I have heard of certain things that America wants to do climate wise but this is way above my head. I was thinking more of something scientists know that we don't know ( about the climate changes).
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old August 5th, 2007, 10:57 AM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Miamisburg Ohio
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AR
The thing I don't understand is why some people--either seriously or jokingly--point to "natural" causes for climate change (the sun, fate, percentages, or some other theory) to support an implicit or stated argument that we don't need to do anything about it.
A valid concern and point well taken. As I have repeatedly stated, we should be better stewards of our planet. If I were "Earth Czar" we would all be driving electric cars. I would even demand motorcycles (yes I know they get good mileage) run on batteries. I would demand hydroelectric, wind, solar and geothermal power replace coal and gas power plants. And I would push for development of fusion power to replace fission nuclear power.

Then the crying would begin and reality would set in.

You see there are only a few places you can really build a big enough hydroelectric dam to make it cost effective and the world has pretty much done that almost everywhere it is practicable. (Some environmentalists tend to complain about the fact you have to flood large areas when the dam creates a lake behind it.) Wind power is great, provided you can find a place where it is almost constantly windy (yes there are such places – off the coast of Martha’s Vineyard was one, but the two Senators from Massachusetts led the fight against it, go figure). Solar power is great, but the physics say you can only convert so many milliwatts of power using a single photon of solar energy, no matter how good the solar cell is designed. And then there’s that problem with fog, clouds and night-time. Geothermal is good, but unreliable and there are only so many places you can build such a plant. We could build a great geothermal power plant on Yellowstone but I’m willing to bet a few people are going to object. And the holy grail of power, fusion power, is still in development. Even if it is realized, protestors with visions of mushroom clouds dancing through their heads will drive their gas guzzling limos and SUVs to any potential build site, shut down production, and keep the process tied up in the courts for years.

And lets not forget the NASCAR, INDY, and Motocross folks, dirt bike enthusiasts, pleasure boaters, private pilots, Harley and Honda riders, sports car drivers, and people who own SUVs-limos-vans-historic/classic cars, et-all, who use gas gulping engines for pleasure, sports, etc. Yes, we could eliminate a lot of excess emissions if we stopped all of that, but I doubt they would be so inclined to give it up and switch to electric.

And then come’s the realization that there really are some things beyond our control. If the problem is that big yellow ball in the sky there is nothing we can do about it. Take a dime and lets say that’s the earth. Now take 11 more and lay them side by side. You now have the diameter of the planet Jupiter. Now lay 12 Jupiter’s (or 144 dimes) side-by-side and you have the diameter of the Sun. Sorry AR, but nobody makes a big enough wrench to fix that problem.

So let us not rule out those scientists who are not at the moment in step with the former Vice President. Whatever the cause of the problem is, let us use good science and good common sense to solve it if we can.

Or make me Earth Czar.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old August 5th, 2007, 01:44 PM
Paul B's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,834
Default

Nice post. Another alternative to develop is fuel cell and hydrogen technology. These may be costly and require a long time, but hopefully they may erventuallty become available.

There are untapped oil fields off our coasts and vast coal deposits that should be used until other alternatives become available. The energy bill passed by the US House on the evening of August 4, apparently opposes these developments and encourages conservation.

There are more cars and more drivers, particularly in China and India, all the time. Unless everyone uses bicycles, planes become dirigibles, everyone uses candles and all ships use sails, conservation by itself will solve no problems.

I sill do not believe that human activity by itself is the sole cause of global warming. This planet has heated and cooled all by itself numerous times in the past when no humans even existed. Volcanic eruptions and forest fires must be contributing factors. Whatever the basic cause, cutting down as much as possible on energy use should help alleviate the situation.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old August 5th, 2007, 05:53 PM
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 566
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AR
The thing I don't understand is why some people--either seriously or jokingly--point to "natural" causes for climate change (the sun, fate, percentages, or some other theory) to support an implicit or stated argument that we don't need to do anything about it.
It is quite bizarre. The scientific evidence in support of global climate change is not disputed by scientists. But for reasons I cannot fathom, the topic has taken on political overtones. Many on the right wing know nothing of the evidence, but are convinced it is all a lie and a liberal plot. To what end only their paranoid minds know.

Listening to some rant about it reminds me of evolution, but at least in that case the facts contradict a cherished superstition. With climate change, I don't understand the reason for such misguided emotion.

Cheers, Aidan
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old August 6th, 2007, 10:43 AM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default Offsetting Emissions?

Can we reduce the impact of our cruising by offsetting the carbon? Many companies will plant trees or replace inefficient lightbulbs or whatever to counteract our own excesses.

I consider myself quite green. So because I think the weight of evidence points strongly towards global warming being largely man-made, I consider reducing my CO2 emissions is an important part of this. Partly because of this, and partly for lifestyle reasons, my wife and I run a car-free no-flight household. This is easy to do where we live, because the public transport is excellent. We also recycle, buy local food where possible, our electricity comes all from eco-friendly hydro etc. So, we have a pretty small carbon footprint for westerners. We're not nutters, and we don't wear socks and sandals, but we're careful.

Now, we are very excited about our first cruise but, having booked it I suddenly realised (I know - I should have thought of it before) that the related CO2 emissions are going to be pretty high. Does anyone know where I can find reliable statistics on the emissions from a cruise liner? What are the general opinions on offsetting the carbon as with flights? Is there anything else I can do to reduce the impact of the cruise on the environment and/or my tortured concience?
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old August 6th, 2007, 11:36 AM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,875
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
I'm not aware that he was found to be wrong with any part of his movie, can you back up your claims?
First of all, Sirobin, I have to say how much I admire you. Your picture shows someone who difinitely lives life according to his own standards, which I believe is great, but the way you write you sound as if you might dress like AR.

In any case - while I do not know if global warming is a fact or not, there are indeed many scientists who refute the movie, just do a Google on "an inconvenient truth".

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19358 This is one.

One of his most compelling points to me in the movie, the hockey puck chart, is based on tree rings, and while it appears to be a good indication, I have read articles that say there are several other reasons why the chart could be diverging now other than global warming. In fact, the scientist who created the chart was forced by peers to revise it. And as I said, that piece of the movie is presented as something of the coup de gras to prove his point.

To me, it doesn't make any difference whether global warming is a fact or not, and I honestly do not know if it is. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It is like predicting hurricanes, all you can say is "indications are".

Nevertheless, economocally we need to stop depending on foreign oil (or ANY oil) for economic reasons. The fact is that oil is running out and if we don't find alternatives first we will be faced with a crisis like we've never had before.

The Europeans already charge $8 gallon, and the French rely on almost 100% nuclear power.

Anyway - I am glad we are not making this discussion political. Just because I write this it does not mean I am conservative or liberal. I can be either one -depending on the topic, and the people I suspect the most are the ones who buy into every platform about one or the other party solely because they say belong to that party. It appears the people here are very capable of discussing topics without drawing lines in the sand. Good for us.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old August 6th, 2007, 12:02 PM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter
It appears the people here are very capable of discussing topics without drawing lines in the sand.
Well said. You're right that climate scientists are not unanimous on the significance of climate change, nor on the causes of climate change. Even if they were, it wouldn't make them right. But these days there are in fact very few serious climatologists saying that we aren't causing significant warming. There are some saying that, and they might turn out to be right, but I think the balance of probability must be that the vast majority of climatologists are right. In a funny way we couldn't run out of oil too soon. [/b]
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old August 6th, 2007, 12:42 PM
Fieldmouse's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aidan
Quote:
Originally Posted by AR
The thing I don't understand is why some people--either seriously or jokingly--point to "natural" causes for climate change (the sun, fate, percentages, or some other theory) to support an implicit or stated argument that we don't need to do anything about it.
It is quite bizarre. The scientific evidence in support of global climate change is not disputed by scientists. But for reasons I cannot fathom, the topic has taken on political overtones. Many on the right wing know nothing of the evidence, but are convinced it is all a lie and a liberal plot. To what end only their paranoid minds know.

Listening to some rant about it reminds me of evolution, but at least in that case the facts contradict a cherished superstition. With climate change, I don't understand the reason for such misguided emotion.

Cheers, Aidan
Because, like the title of Gore's book it IS 'An Inconvenient truth'

All of us on planet earth, including governments and businesses would/must make changes, and some are costly! Now, it's ok for YOU to make life-style and business changes...but why must I be required to make changes? Or how about this: Let future generations worry about it!!!

We can readily see what kind of caretakers Mankind has been for planet earth. Just imagine what man would do if let loose on the rest of the universe.

Right now in India and other neighoring Asian countries, MILLIONS are homeless because of flooding... It's hard to wrap your mind around the fact that suddenly 19 million people, (moms, dads, grandparents, children, lovers, newlyweds, etc.) are homeless! Flooded out...

We want to believe that all is well...we need to believe that planet earth will continue to be ok, and this is just another earth cycle...after all the alternative reality is....

really really inconvenient!
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old August 6th, 2007, 02:45 PM
Phyllbo's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,502
Default

Oh, how hard it is to not respond to this very difficult issue, and as you can see I couldn't hold back. :-)

I do believe that we are experiencing global warming; however I'm not sure what is the real cause of it just as I'm not sure what caused the ice age or why the ice age ended. I think we should do our best to take care of this great planet earth, but we also need to recognize how much of it is out of our control. It would be great if we could all be sure of what is the truth and what isn't. Each of us will have to decide that one for ourselves.

Phyll
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old August 6th, 2007, 03:17 PM
Mean Dean's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Portland, Oregon
Posts: 2,280
Default

Here’s the thing that concerns me, and one we haven’t talked about, although we’ve hinted around at it.

A long, long time ago, on a planet not so far away, (the one right here, in fact!) the bulk of the planet’s carbon was underground. It was contained in the fossils we now use for fuel. So what has happened is that mankind has extracted those fossil fuels from underground, and burned them, thus releasing carbon into the atmosphere. Until humans came along, this wasn’t happening – the carbon was underground.

That global warming is occurring isn’t in dispute – what’s causing it seems to be. The Earth seems to have warmed and cooled itself throughout its history. The Sun seems to play some role in this, and asteroids have made their marks.

But what has never occurred before, is the release of carbon on a global scale. We don’t know what the effects of this will be – except that this happened on Venus once……….

So as I understand it, the real issue is: How do we get all the carbon back underground where it belongs?

The only two ideas I can think of are to stop releasing carbon into the atmosphere (hydrogen power, fusion, etc) and then hope someday we discover a way to get the carbon back underground.

See – and you guys thought this was going to be difficult, didn’t you……….?

Dean
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old August 6th, 2007, 04:14 PM
mehawk's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Houston aka Space City, Texas, USA
Posts: 9,687
Default

Way to go Dean! I fall somewhere in the middle actually. I realize that Mother Earth is warming up in some places, and cooling in others. Is it the carbon-based life on it doing it? Maybe... maybe not. Afterall, this has happened before mankind was here and before animals were here. It;s in the history and science books.

Now, my complaint is how some groups of people will take the mantra up and demand that others change their lifestyle. For instance, now there are some green groups who claim that cattle produce too much methane and that must be stopped. Ok, then slaughter all the animals and we'll all become vegans. No more pets, no more protein from meat source.

Then, others complain that humans should breathe much more shallower, because humans preoduce too much carbon upon exhalation. Gosh, if we shouldn't breathe because Mother Earth is getting too messed up, then I propose that those who say this should be the first ones to take the knives to their breasts, as the Japanese warriors do, and comment Hari Kari. But, of course, they won't do that. That is for the "others" to do.

Can you imagine, we will walk back and forth to do what??? We couldn't work because everything we do produces carbon of some sort. If we just lay in our dirty beds, because we can't wash the linens, for pollution, then we are just in bad shape. No electricity becasue of the carbons spewed by the plants, no candles because of that carbon.... Hey, let's just nuke everything and start all over.

Not this man!!
__________________
Michael

Cruised more times than I can remember.

Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Courage and perserverance have a magical talisman; before which difficulties disappear and obstacles vanish into the air.

Pick your company wisely! Hang around people who are going to help you become all God created you to be.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old August 6th, 2007, 04:26 PM
Fieldmouse's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyllbo
Oh, how hard it is to not respond to this very difficult issue, and as you can see I couldn't hold back. :-)

I do believe that we are experiencing global warming; however I'm not sure what is the real cause of it just as I'm not sure what caused the ice age or why the ice age ended. I think we should do our best to take care of this great planet earth, but we also need to recognize how much of it is out of our control. It would be great if we could all be sure of what is the truth and what isn't. Each of us will have to decide that one for ourselves.

Phyll
Maybe. But on the other hand...let me offer you this example:

Let start with my belief in germs. Since I believe they exist and affect my life and and the lives of my family, friends and others I come in contact with, I take appropriate action to support that belief.
(frequent washing of my hands, careful food preparation, etc.)

Now...on the other hand, lets say there is a restaurant cook who just as firmly believes there is no such thing as germs or bacteria...he/she can't see them, no one he/she knows has seen them. In their opinion, people have lived for thousands of years without the discussion or belief of germs. Is this ok? Does it even matter what he/she believes?

How about this: Does their firm belief change reality?

Not really. Their actions or non-action can and does affect others. (does E Coli, Salmonella, Listeria monocytogenes...sound like anything you want to leave to chance or someone else's belief system?)

So, the issue of 'gobal warming'...If certain people/businesses, countries, etc. have the power by their actions OR non-action, to impact others...it does matter 'what the truth is'. It really ceases to be just personal preferance. That knowledge, that 'truth' is vital!
Reply With Quote
  #46 (permalink)  
Old August 6th, 2007, 06:16 PM
Phyllbo's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,502
Default

The problem is that of deciding whose truth to believe fieldmouse. I have seen the evidence supports your germ analogy. I have not seen the evidence that supports the claims of human causes of global warming to the extent that I accept them. I don't believe the truth hinges on my belief or unbelief in the end.

Today I heard a scientist say that no matter what we do it will be like a small puff of wind. Is he correct? Does that mean I do nothing? No, I try to live responsibly. We may not agree on all things, but I think we can all agree that things are not as they ought to be.

Phyll
Reply With Quote
  #47 (permalink)  
Old August 6th, 2007, 07:18 PM
AR AR is offline
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,473
Default

Michael--

What's your point? Surely we all know that there are whack jobs at the fringes of every position on every issue. All you're saying is that you're not buying the snake oil being peddled by the fringe elements.

That's fine, but it doesn't indict those who honestly want to address the problem and ameliorate it.

In logic classes they call it arguing to the absurd, and there's a lot of that going on these days, on a lot of issues.

Since the group here seems to generally agree that the cause of climate change is (or should be) irrelevant when it comes to discussions of what to do about it, I think we can pretty much agree to put farting animals and breathing people aside as we talk about solutions.
Reply With Quote
  #48 (permalink)  
Old August 6th, 2007, 07:39 PM
Fieldmouse's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: California
Posts: 1,109
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phyllbo
The problem is that of deciding whose truth to believe fieldmouse. I have seen the evidence supports your germ analogy. I have not seen the evidence that supports the claims of human causes of global warming to the extent that I accept them. I don't believe the truth hinges on my belief or unbelief in the end.

Today I heard a scientist say that no matter what we do it will be like a small puff of wind. Is he correct? Does that mean I do nothing? No, I try to live responsibly. We may not agree on all things, but I think we can all agree that things are not as they ought to be.

Phyll
YES!
Reply With Quote
  #49 (permalink)  
Old August 6th, 2007, 08:00 PM
Phyllbo's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,502
Default

Ar, just for clarification can you tell me what you meant when you made the statement about those who honestly want to address the problem and ameliorate it? The way I read it sounded like maybe you were impling that those who disagree with your position are not honestly taking the issue seriously. Was that implied in your statement or did I misread it?

Your other statement puzzled me too. If people agree that the cause of the problem is not as important as the problem then how are we going to solve it? Don't we have to understand the cause before we can solve it?

Perhaps I've made myself look as dumb as I probably am, but .....

Phyll
Reply With Quote
  #50 (permalink)  
Old August 6th, 2007, 10:53 PM
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Miamisburg Ohio
Posts: 74
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by "Aidan
It is quite bizarre. The scientific evidence in support of global climate change is not disputed [i
by scientists[/i]. But for reasons I cannot fathom, the topic has taken on political overtones. Many on the right wing know nothing of the evidence, but are convinced it is all a lie and a liberal plot. To what end only their paranoid minds know.

Listening to some rant about it reminds me of evolution, but at least in that case the facts contradict a cherished superstition. With climate change, I don't understand the reason for such misguided emotion.
Aidan, makes some interesting observations.

First is that "...evidence in support of global climate change is not disputed by scientists." Actually, as I have pointed out several times in this post, a number of scientists, albeit a minority of them, do in fact dispute the majority opinion. Would you like names of those that do? How about Dr Robert Simpson, co-creator of the Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale and former director of the National Hurricane Center? I believe he counts as a scientist, yes?

I do agree with you that the topic has taken on political overtones, and further agree that it should not do so. However, your statement that "Many on the right wing know nothing of the evidence, but are convinced it is all a lie and a liberal plot. To what end only their paranoid minds know." is at best, disingenuous.

I am not a member of either party, and hardly think that global warming is “…a lie or liberal plot.? To the contrary, I believe that mankind is contributing to the problem; however, I do investigate both sides of complex issues in order to arrive at an informed opinion based on fact. As I have stated before, fill a glass to the halfway point. Some will say it is half full, others will say half empty. Both arguments can be equally correct and equally wrong.

As far as having a “…paranoid mind…? I can only hope that’s not the case. But why would you revert to placing a label on someone based on the fact that they question the current mainstream thought? After all, is not the fact that I question the mainstream on this issue a liberal attitude on my part? Wouldn’t that make you the new conservative?

I hardly think my questioning of global warming could be considered as a “rant?, nor the result of “misguided emotion?. Good science must be able to withstand scientific scrutiny. The majority in this instance may well be correct and I will allow for that possibility. However, I will not close my mind to contrary evidence without at least considering its possible implications. It’s the liberal in me.

My debate teacher used to say that when you revert to personal attacks, you have admitted you cannot win with facts, and have lost the debate. Let’s try to keep it civil and respectful, shall we?

As for evolution, I believe in that as well, but that’s another topic for another time.
Reply With Quote
  #51 (permalink)  
Old August 6th, 2007, 11:28 PM
sirobin171's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 113
Send a message via Yahoo to sirobin171
Default

Paul,

Thank you for the kind words sir.

I am so glad that so many people are talking about this topic, right or wrong, left or right its on our minds and thats so great.

I also have to respond to the poster above going on their first cruise, where they are concerned about the CO2 being generated on the cruise.

Think about what you are not doing while cruising.

No driving
Little use of electricity at home
etc.


Think about the cruise line, they want to save money so they are really efficient, they recycle, clean waiste water, and they have a highly efficient laundry system, it goes on and on.

I would say your being more green for the week on the cruise then at home in my opinion.

Thx
Rob

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
I'm not aware that he was found to be wrong with any part of his movie, can you back up your claims?
First of all, Sirobin, I have to say how much I admire you. Your picture shows someone who difinitely lives life according to his own standards, which I believe is great, but the way you write you sound as if you might dress like AR.

In any case - while I do not know if global warming is a fact or not, there are indeed many scientists who refute the movie, just do a Google on "an inconvenient truth".

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=19358 This is one.

One of his most compelling points to me in the movie, the hockey puck chart, is based on tree rings, and while it appears to be a good indication, I have read articles that say there are several other reasons why the chart could be diverging now other than global warming. In fact, the scientist who created the chart was forced by peers to revise it. And as I said, that piece of the movie is presented as something of the coup de gras to prove his point.

To me, it doesn't make any difference whether global warming is a fact or not, and I honestly do not know if it is. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. It is like predicting hurricanes, all you can say is "indications are".

Nevertheless, economocally we need to stop depending on foreign oil (or ANY oil) for economic reasons. The fact is that oil is running out and if we don't find alternatives first we will be faced with a crisis like we've never had before.

The Europeans already charge $8 gallon, and the French rely on almost 100% nuclear power.

Anyway - I am glad we are not making this discussion political. Just because I write this it does not mean I am conservative or liberal. I can be either one -depending on the topic, and the people I suspect the most are the ones who buy into every platform about one or the other party solely because they say belong to that party. It appears the people here are very capable of discussing topics without drawing lines in the sand. Good for us.
__________________
on Navigator of the Seas.
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 08:32 AM
sirobin171's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 113
Send a message via Yahoo to sirobin171
Default

I found this new article tonight. I think this is happening and I do believe that generally the information in Gores movie is accurate.

"There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10 million a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community," Gore said at a forum in Singapore. "In actuality, there is very little disagreement."

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wir...C-RSSFeeds0312
__________________
on Navigator of the Seas.
Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 08:40 AM
ommthree's Avatar
Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Zuerich, Switzerland
Posts: 33
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
No driving
Little use of electricity at home
etc.
I take your points there sirobin, but in my case: I don't drive anyway and all my electricity is carbon free. Of course your 'etc' covers a multitude of my sins, but I'm still not convinced that I'm really generating less CO2 while at sea. You could be right though. I think I need to get my calculator out...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian and Phyllis in Ohio
I will not close my mind to contrary evidence without at least considering its possible implications.
That's well said. Many's the time that the scientific concesus has turned out to be wrong, and we should never assume that it will be right. That the consensus is allowed to change is what makes science science but - understandably - people get uneasy about this when the stakes are so high. There's an important sense however in which we can't really make up our own minds on these scientific issues. That we can do so is a misconception sometimes promoted by science educators so that people feel 'involved' in science. The trouble is: we lack the tools.

I'm a scientist but I lack the skills and knowledge to decide for myself whether climate change is real, and what causes it, because it is not my speciality. I cannot do the experiments myself, or even understand the primary literature (at least not in the time I have available!). I'd love to be able to but I'm not, and the vast majority of people aren't. If a builder told me my house needed some repair quick to prevent it falling down then I'd get it done, or I'd get a second opinion from another builder. I wouldn't try to take some measurements myself or ask my grandmother what she thought, or possibly some local politicians. But that doesn't mean I think builders are infalible.

So we have to rely on trusting the specialists, not to be right, but to have done the best they can to find the truth, and to present their conclusions honestly. We have to be guided by the scientific consensus, with our eyes remaining wide open to the fact that it might turn out to have been wrong all the time.
__________________
MSC Lirica Copenhagen to Copenhagen
Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 09:11 AM
Mike M's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: You're Looking At Me
Posts: 23,764
Default

My opinion of this is that: Yes: In the last 100 years the overall temperature of the earth has risen by about .5 to 1 degree F. Is this a problem to our current way of life? Yes.

Should we do something? Yes; but we should make sure we don't do something we regret later. We are infants in the world of science. Humans like to think we know more than we do. We may make a tool but have little idea on how to interpret the results especially when comparing it with climate patterns on a scale as big as the length of earth history.

The thing I have observed is that it takes a crisis or a perceived crisis in order to get mankind to get their collective butts in gear and kick in their intellectual and technological brains.

The famines caused by the mini ice age, (16th - 19th Century) led to the greatest advances in migration, agriculture and industry. This was for survival. This mini ice age was not caused by man but were natural phenomena(s).

What I take from all this is that no matter what happens is that we will benefit from the technological advances that come from this. We will cut our dependence on foreign oil and perhaps on all fossil fuels. We will find new types of fuels and resources to power our cities and lives and find alternatives that have less negative impact on the planet. We will never be truly green (no life form is) but we can strive to be as close as we can.

I just hope that in our rush to stop we don't make the big mistakes such as creating "tire reefs", throw all our eggs in one basket only to find it is non-sustainable or completely discount theories that climate change is created by man or is only created by natural occurrence. Both are plausible theories and both need close and ongoing scrutiny. While we can destroy ourselves nature can kill us much, much faster.

Take care,
Mike
__________________
Cruisemates Community Leader/Moderator

"There is a great difference between being well traveled and just having been to many places." ~Me

"Fear is the assassin of dreams." ~Me
Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 09:15 AM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Missouri
Posts: 2,917
Send a message via ICQ to JamesRT Send a message via MSN to JamesRT Send a message via Yahoo to JamesRT
Default

Mike,
By Jove, I think you got it!
__________________
Fantasy X 3
Conquest 2006
Triumph 2006
Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 09:15 AM
sirobin171's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 113
Send a message via Yahoo to sirobin171
Default

I admire you for doing carbon credits, I would also like to offset my foot print in the future this way.

I have no scientific evidence to show cruising is more green.

I would suggest this.

Imagine even 60% of the people on board all driving around in their car and the emissions it creates in comparison to the emissions the ship creates. In my mind the ship wins.

With that said maybe we can figure out how to create the equation and create an answer based on some specifications we find on Google based on similar diesel generators and a specific car "most" people might have.

What we need to know is how much Co2 you emit driving around in one day in comparison to your small part of the emissions your foot print creates on a cruise ship in one day.

Does anyone know how we would calculate this?

Rob
Quote:
Originally Posted by ommthree
Quote:
Originally Posted by sirobin171
No driving
Little use of electricity at home
etc.
I take your points there sirobin, but in my case: I don't drive anyway and all my electricity is carbon free. Of course your 'etc' covers a multitude of my sins, but I'm still not convinced that I'm really generating less CO2 while at sea. You could be right though. I think I need to get my calculator out...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian and Phyllis in Ohio
I will not close my mind to contrary evidence without at least considering its possible implications.
That's well said. Many's the time that the scientific concesus has turned out to be wrong, and we should never assume that it will be right. That the consensus is allowed to change is what makes science science but - understandably - people get uneasy about this when the stakes are so high. There's an important sense however in which we can't really make up our own minds on these scientific issues. That we can do so is a misconception sometimes promoted by science educators so that people feel 'involved' in science. The trouble is: we lack the tools.

I'm a scientist but I lack the skills and knowledge to decide for myself whether climate change is real, and what causes it, because it is not my speciality. I cannot do the experiments myself, or even understand the primary literature (at least not in the time I have available!). I'd love to be able to but I'm not, and the vast majority of people aren't. If a builder told me my house needed some repair quick to prevent it falling down then I'd get it done, or I'd get a second opinion from another builder. I wouldn't try to take some measurements myself or ask my grandmother what she thought, or possibly some local politicians. But that doesn't mean I think builders are infalible.

So we have to rely on trusting the specialists, not to be right, but to have done the best they can to find the truth, and to present their conclusions honestly. We have to be guided by the scientific consensus, with our eyes remaining wide open to the fact that it might turn out to have been wrong all the time.
__________________
on Navigator of the Seas.
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 09:48 AM
AR AR is offline
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,473
Default

Phyll--

No, not at all. I was just saying that absurd positions on any side get in the way of honest discourse.

As far as the cause and effect thing, my understanding is that some "fixes" can be instituted without knowing for sure what the cause is (things as prosaic as windmills, etc.). I don't think anybody claims there's a cure-all, but it's just an issue of everybody doing something, instead of just saying that because we don't know the cause we don't have to worry about doing our part to help, whatever that may be.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 12:05 PM
Phyllbo's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,502
Default

Thanks for the clarification AR.

Let's hope that the solutions we come up with don't create far greater problems for us.

Somehow the poem "If" by Rudyard Kipling keeps going through my mind. I'm sure you could apply that to either leaning. Just thought I'd share that for what it's worth.

Phyll
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 02:43 PM
Paul B's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 2,834
Default

Right on, Phyll! I believe that we should continue to develop our existing resources, including nuclear, research and develop new technologys and conserve where we can. Wind, thermal and solar energy can never replace, but only supplement oil, coal and natural gas.

I am offended by all the wealthy politicians, celebrities and Hollywood types who burn as much energy in a month or less than most of us do in a year. These hypocrites excuse themselves by buying so called carbon credits while flying their own jets all over the world. When Al Gore starts living in a cave, riding a bicycle and reading by candelight, I will give more credence to what he says.
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old August 7th, 2007, 03:02 PM
sirobin171's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Posts: 113
Send a message via Yahoo to sirobin171
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul B
Right on, Phyll! I believe that we should continue to develop our existing resources, including nuclear, research and develop new technologys and conserve where we can. Wind, thermal and solar energy can never replace, but only supplement oil, coal and natural gas.

I am offended by all the wealthy politicians, celebrities and Hollywood types who burn as much energy in a month or less than most of us do in a year. These hypocrites excuse themselves by buying so called carbon credits while flying their own jets all over the world. When Al Gore starts living in a cave, riding a bicycle and reading by candelight, I will give more credence to what he says.
Not sure why your offended, at least they are doing something rather than nothing but complaining.

By the way why pick on the famous only, how about the president flying all over in that 747, he should fly coach.too? How about you, how much do you waiste? Maybe you should sell your cars and ride the bus or train, or maybe walk?

Rob
__________________
on Navigator of the Seas.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
happening, kimmiegirl, sf, weather

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What is happening in Galverston tonight? Lombard Chit - Chat for Cruisers 8 January 30th, 2008 08:24 PM
Does anybody know what is happening to the Celebration? Thomas Chit - Chat for Cruisers 2 August 25th, 2007 02:18 PM
It's Happening Again... js2003 Carnival Cruise Lines 3 July 10th, 2006 10:25 PM
What's happening Liz hill Cunard 3 November 22nd, 2004 11:24 AM
What's happening? PapaBill Chit - Chat for Cruisers 20 July 15th, 2003 03:40 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


 

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:06 AM.
design by: Themes by Design

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1