"Green Jobs"

Our grandchildren will so ashamed of us for being snookered by the whole "climate change" scam.

Loveland ski opens today, A-Basin on Friday
By John Meyer
The Denver Post
POSTED: 10/06/2009 02:56:45 PM MDT
UPDATED: 10/07/2009 10:06:35 AM MDT


Loveland Ski Area was making snow Tuesday afternoon. (Loveland Ski Area )
And the winner is ... Loveland Basin.

Boasting its earliest opening day in 40 years, Loveland officials opened for skiing today. Arapahoe Basin announced it would open Friday.

Loveland is the first ski area in North America to open its season, with $44 lift tickets. Loveland trail crews were able to begin snowmaking operations on Sept. 21.

"We took advantage of the cold temperatures and got an early start making snow this year," said Eric Johnstone, snowmaking and trail maintenance manager. "Now we can move some equipment to other trails and try to open more terrain as quickly as possible."

Like the body can heal, so can the earth, however once the oil is used, we need to heal ourselves "wiseman"

Don't drink the Kool-aid. Petroleum MIGHT be finite (no one knows), but we are in no danger of running out, ever.

quote:

Originally posted by CashGap:
Don't drink the Kool-aid. Petroleum MIGHT be finite (no one knows), but we are in no danger of running out, ever.

Correct. We'll find a way to drill on the moon to sate our appetite for oil.

I don't see the question as "will we run out of oil?" so much as "do we want to give billions of dollars a year to Hugo Chavez, Russia and the Middle East to finance THEIR agendas or should wee develop an American-produced replacement that we can export?"

quote:

Originally posted by CashGap:
Our grandchildren will so ashamed of us for being snookered by the whole "climate change" scam.

Cold (or hot) weather in one location (or country) is not indicative of a "Global" temperature change.

I agree, our grandchildren will probably be the ones to learn the truth about this issue.

I sincerely hope that you are right and either nothing is happening or we can't do anything about what is happening.

If however, 95% of all scientists are correct and something is happening AND it's caused by man AND possibly mitigated or reversible by our actions, I want to tell my grandchildren I did my part.

quote:

95% of all scientists are correct

Though I hope you intended that figure as hyperbolic, keep in mind that scientists are now shunned and denied grants if they do not kneel at the altar of Global Climate Change Caused By Evil Capitalist Man. It's not as if we receive their unbiased opinions.

Environmentalism is perhaps the most narrow faith-based movement afoot today, and professional execution of heretics is swift and sure. There is no longer time for debate, remember?

I really wish the "We're causing a new ice age!" thing had worked out for them. You do have to admire their ability to revise the "science" to deal with the reality in front of our eyes. I hope they kept the advancing glacier images handy, they may need them when this whole "We're melting! We're melting" thing wears a little thin.

quote:

Originally posted by CashGap:

Though I hope you intended that figure as hyperbolic

Nope, I didn't:

"The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?

About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role."

I was off by a little bit. 82% if you take "all respondents" and 97% if you just take the people who study this for a living.

Please note this is an anonymous study, so there's no "fear factor" as you described earlier.

Also note that most climatologists would likely be unemployed were it not for the theory of Global Warming.

I wonder how many of those surveyed were believers in the predominantly held theory of Global Cooling 20 years ago?

Personally I would have gone with "And in 1542, 97% of scientists thought the Sun revolved around the Earth" but that works too.

All good points.

Yes, the weather is different today than yesterday. And we can extrapolate that to 100 years ago and 100 years from now.

Human activity? Oh, our ego's would drive us to think we make a SIGNIFICANT impact. And science is asleep, replaced with faith labelled as "consensus". But I don't think many people who have seen a forest fire or volcano actually BELIEVE we impact the climate much more than the proverbial butterfly wings.

Unrelated, I think MLB should handle World Series(R) venues much like the NFL does with the SuperBowl(tm). What with all the "man-influenced climate change", it's getting to the point that the series needs to either be played in the South, in a dome... or in the snow!!!

quote:

Originally posted by CashGap:
But I don't think many people who have seen a forest fire or volcano actually BELIEVE we impact the climate much more than the proverbial butterfly wings.

I have seen a volcano and I have seen 100 square miles of clear-cut forest. Their impact was essentially the same.

The difference was that it took the earth millions of years to make that volcano and it took 2,000 men just 3 years to cut that 100 square miles.

If you really believe we can't have any effect on the environment, why do you pay for trash services? Why not just dump it at the edge or your property and let the earth's natural healing power sweep it away?

quote:

I have seen a volcano and I have seen 100 square miles of clear-cut forest. Their impact was essentially the same.

Check back in five years.

The trash would be handled eventually, but I don't want to stare at it for decades.

We should excuse the P4P'ers and argue over coffee when I get back like we usually do!

We should excuse the P4P'ers and argue over coffee when I get back like we usually do![/QUOTE]

I don't know...I for one kind of enjoy the banter.

For what it's worth...I recycle. I figure if there is someone that wants a portion of my trash, I don't mind maintaining a seperate container to accommodate but it has nothing to do with trying to save a tree or anything else for that matter. Like Jay Leno's old Dorito commercials..."We'll make more." If we get low on trees...

Well, I recycle as well, but my goal is mainly to prevent my trash from winding up in a landfill.

As far as the trees, we're currently using more of them than we are replacing. The amount of forested area on the Earth is massive, so cutting down a tree or 100 or 1,000 trees doesn't seem like it makes any effect.

Over a 5 year period, we lose about 1% of our forested areas. This means an area previously listed as "forest" has to be reclassified as something else like plain, swamp, etc. That 1% is equal to 36 million hectares (about 89 million acres).

Considering the amount of CO2 we're putting out with cars, airplanes, etc. and considering that trees turn CO2 into oxygen, I don't think having less trees is a good idea.

You'd be disappointed in me if I didn't catch that less forested area does not necessarily mean fewer trees.

It's hard to place an accurate count on the number of trees we lose over a span of time because of the size of the number. Easier to track the loss of areas designated as forests since that highlights the biggest change, usually from nearly 100% of the surface area covered by trees to nearly 0%.

The number of trees in a forested acre obviously varies wildly (from about 200 to well over 1,000 per acre), but let's use 500 to start. 500 trees per acre would equal 44 billion trees lost over the 5 year period. So, to replace them, we'd simply need every man, woman and child on the face of the earth to plant about 7 trees.

I think it's a pretty safe assumption that hasn't happened.

Assumes (uh oh) that the areas deforested were at or above average density, that no areas became more dense, and that measurement in deforesting areas is as aggressive as in reforesting areas.

That last one is particularly tough, since the forestation counting task draws folks who drink the Kool-aid "straight" and let their faith ("Ice age is coming! No, wait, we're melting! No... wait... freezing!") influence their work.