Lutz: always entertaining
#12
02-25-2008, 08:33 AM
Re: Lutz: always entertaining
I'd say my life view /experiences are EXACTLY opposite that of GPSman1.
Hmmm, go figure.
Oh well, here's to supporting those who want to help, to those who live and breathe and want to be more in balance with our little home called earth.
Hmmm, go figure.
Oh well, here's to supporting those who want to help, to those who live and breathe and want to be more in balance with our little home called earth.
#13
02-25-2008, 11:44 AM
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: All over the Central U.S.
Posts: 3,616
Re: Lutz: always entertaining
Therefore since you can infer so much from me, I infer you must:
Only care about yourself, you are short-sighted, pour your used motor oil down the river, burn styrofoam ( and inhale ), ask for extra cheese on that triple Whopper, use CFC hairspray, harpoon baby whales for sport, use bald eagles for target practice, leave the lights on 24/7, let infants play with plastic bags, drive your car to your own mailbox... warm up your car for 30 minutes in the driveway before needing to go some where... think being in Iraq is "helpful" to the people there... think being in Iraq is helpful to the people here... and probably helped the 9-11 hijackers learn how to fly? Is that correct? That's what you are leading me to believe.
Read some more of my other posts, (please)...
Cheers,
Only care about yourself, you are short-sighted, pour your used motor oil down the river, burn styrofoam ( and inhale ), ask for extra cheese on that triple Whopper, use CFC hairspray, harpoon baby whales for sport, use bald eagles for target practice, leave the lights on 24/7, let infants play with plastic bags, drive your car to your own mailbox... warm up your car for 30 minutes in the driveway before needing to go some where... think being in Iraq is "helpful" to the people there... think being in Iraq is helpful to the people here... and probably helped the 9-11 hijackers learn how to fly? Is that correct? That's what you are leading me to believe.
Read some more of my other posts, (please)...
Cheers,
Last edited by gpsman1; 02-25-2008 at 03:27 PM.
#15
02-25-2008, 03:26 PM
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: All over the Central U.S.
Posts: 3,616
Re: Lutz: always entertaining
Well I must applaud since that was the only correct response!
( there's a trace of humor alive after all )
You have averted a war of the words.
Since you took my comments none too seriously, I shall return the favor.
No harm no foul?
-J
( there's a trace of humor alive after all )
You have averted a war of the words.
Since you took my comments none too seriously, I shall return the favor.
No harm no foul?
-J
#16
02-25-2008, 03:33 PM
Re: Lutz: always entertaining
Im afraid my kids will pay 10 times more than 1.4 million to fight the consequences of not doing something while we still can.
#17
02-25-2008, 04:17 PM
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: All over the Central U.S.
Posts: 3,616
Re: Lutz: always entertaining
Let me know if I'm talking to a brick wall and I will stop.
We have lots of evidence, I would even say "proof" that the planet is warming.
Show me proof, or even evidence that this is bad for humankind?
More people on earth, 14 times as many in fact, freeze to death as "sweat to death".
It is irrelevent what happens to Polar Bears.
It is only relevant what happens to humanity.
Should humans intentionally harm polar bears? No. That is immoral.
Should humans intentionally preserve polar bears? No. Equally immoral.
If you don't understand the question, answer this:
Should humans "bring back" through technology, the Wooly Mammoth?
Is the planet worse without Wooly Mammoths?
Would the planet be better with Wooly Mammoths?
I say NO! The planet would be "different" with Wooly Mammoths.
Not better, not worse, just different.
The world will be different without polar bears, if it comes to that.
The world will not be worse.
Now, would all African childern be better off with clean drinking water?
Would all African children be worse off with less clean drinking water?
Or would the African children just be "different" without drinking water?
I'm saying we have much larger problems to fix BEFORE global warming.
I'm saying we have problems that could easily be fixed with 99% success rate, if the time, energy, and money spent towards reducing the planet 1 degree were applied.
The sick child with no clean water is not going to benefit from cooling the planet 1 degree. It's unlikely your child will gain anything from it either.
After we cure hunger and heath issuse, should we not then try to adjust climate? I think the planet can be "cleaned up" and warmed up at the same time to humaniy's benefit.
IMHO people with nothing other than GW on the brain have priorities way out of whack. After we cure the sick and feed the hungry, I'm all in favor of spending surplus money on global cooling.
Peace, Love, Happiness!
We have lots of evidence, I would even say "proof" that the planet is warming.
Show me proof, or even evidence that this is bad for humankind?
More people on earth, 14 times as many in fact, freeze to death as "sweat to death".
It is irrelevent what happens to Polar Bears.
It is only relevant what happens to humanity.
Should humans intentionally harm polar bears? No. That is immoral.
Should humans intentionally preserve polar bears? No. Equally immoral.
If you don't understand the question, answer this:
Should humans "bring back" through technology, the Wooly Mammoth?
Is the planet worse without Wooly Mammoths?
Would the planet be better with Wooly Mammoths?
I say NO! The planet would be "different" with Wooly Mammoths.
Not better, not worse, just different.
The world will be different without polar bears, if it comes to that.
The world will not be worse.
Now, would all African childern be better off with clean drinking water?
Would all African children be worse off with less clean drinking water?
Or would the African children just be "different" without drinking water?
I'm saying we have much larger problems to fix BEFORE global warming.
I'm saying we have problems that could easily be fixed with 99% success rate, if the time, energy, and money spent towards reducing the planet 1 degree were applied.
The sick child with no clean water is not going to benefit from cooling the planet 1 degree. It's unlikely your child will gain anything from it either.
After we cure hunger and heath issuse, should we not then try to adjust climate? I think the planet can be "cleaned up" and warmed up at the same time to humaniy's benefit.
IMHO people with nothing other than GW on the brain have priorities way out of whack. After we cure the sick and feed the hungry, I'm all in favor of spending surplus money on global cooling.
Peace, Love, Happiness!
#18
02-25-2008, 04:53 PM
Re: Lutz: always entertaining
You need to look at the BIG picture.
Fighting global warming will cost Trillions of dollars.
That equals higher government taxes.
You WILL pay thou$ands more each year.
Fighting global warming will raise fuel prices.
It already has. There are over 130 different formulas of gasoline used in the U.S. alone. So instead of getting a "bulk price" on gas at $1.50, you ( and I ) are paying upwards of $3.00 a gallon for "custom made" fuel for just your city. All in the name of cutting carbon emissions.
Double the price of gas costs every person thou$ands more each year.
I've tried compact flourescent bulbs many times, and in many applications.
They are a poor choice IMHO. The quaility of light they give off is poor ( only a few wavelength, not a full spectrum of colors ) and they are expensive, and I have never ever, not once, had one last "10x longer than incandescent". Usually they cost 5x more, and last 2x longer. Some contain mercury. All contain posionous gas.
Okay, less dramatic, but this is costing the nation's people tremendous cash as a whole. CFB's cost each person up to hundred$ per year.
Smaller cars save you cash this week at the pump, but they may not save you money in the long-term... if you have to rent something large for vacations, or for deliveries, or heck, in general, smaller engines wear out sooner ( 10 years is good enough for most people, but larger engines last 20 or 25 years... ). Plus the companies that make steel and plastic will sell less of it. This means wage cuts, or job layoffs for you and me. This costs thou$sands of dollars per person. I know, it gets "complicated".
Research that goes into pie in the sky methods to combat global warming costs Billion$ each year! Wouldn't that money be better spent on health care, feeding the poor, or building more water reservoirs for our every growing cities? Should we really spend billions and trillions of dollars to try and change the weather that may, or more likely, may not work? Or should we put that money to use buliding infrastructure? ( that will for sure work )
You are paying much more than you think to fight a futile battle.
A young person now will need to donate $1.4 million of his/her income spread out over a lifetime to reduce the planet by 1 degree F.
What is the best use of that money?
What will help the most people, in the most dramatic way?
Lowering the weather 1 degree? Or curing AIDS and Cancer?
Building water reservoirs in dry areas? The list goes on and on.
The best minds in the world recently met and came up with 200 humane priorites, all more urgent than fighting global warming, and all at a fraction of the cost. I'll post the link... when I find it....
Peace,
-John
P.S. We all need to conserve our resources. We need to conserve for the RIGHT reasons. I don't care why you conserve, as long as you do. Now, when it comes to using cash out of pocket, there are hundereds of other more urgent, and more easily met human needs that can be met right now, other than Global Warming. I do not deny GW is real, just question its importance. You would be better off doing the same. I care about the environment as much, or probably more than most people. I am only trying to open people's eyes to areas not often discussed in the media.
Fighting global warming will cost Trillions of dollars.
That equals higher government taxes.
You WILL pay thou$ands more each year.
Fighting global warming will raise fuel prices.
It already has. There are over 130 different formulas of gasoline used in the U.S. alone. So instead of getting a "bulk price" on gas at $1.50, you ( and I ) are paying upwards of $3.00 a gallon for "custom made" fuel for just your city. All in the name of cutting carbon emissions.
Double the price of gas costs every person thou$ands more each year.
I've tried compact flourescent bulbs many times, and in many applications.
They are a poor choice IMHO. The quaility of light they give off is poor ( only a few wavelength, not a full spectrum of colors ) and they are expensive, and I have never ever, not once, had one last "10x longer than incandescent". Usually they cost 5x more, and last 2x longer. Some contain mercury. All contain posionous gas.
Okay, less dramatic, but this is costing the nation's people tremendous cash as a whole. CFB's cost each person up to hundred$ per year.
Smaller cars save you cash this week at the pump, but they may not save you money in the long-term... if you have to rent something large for vacations, or for deliveries, or heck, in general, smaller engines wear out sooner ( 10 years is good enough for most people, but larger engines last 20 or 25 years... ). Plus the companies that make steel and plastic will sell less of it. This means wage cuts, or job layoffs for you and me. This costs thou$sands of dollars per person. I know, it gets "complicated".
Research that goes into pie in the sky methods to combat global warming costs Billion$ each year! Wouldn't that money be better spent on health care, feeding the poor, or building more water reservoirs for our every growing cities? Should we really spend billions and trillions of dollars to try and change the weather that may, or more likely, may not work? Or should we put that money to use buliding infrastructure? ( that will for sure work )
You are paying much more than you think to fight a futile battle.
A young person now will need to donate $1.4 million of his/her income spread out over a lifetime to reduce the planet by 1 degree F.
What is the best use of that money?
What will help the most people, in the most dramatic way?
Lowering the weather 1 degree? Or curing AIDS and Cancer?
Building water reservoirs in dry areas? The list goes on and on.
The best minds in the world recently met and came up with 200 humane priorites, all more urgent than fighting global warming, and all at a fraction of the cost. I'll post the link... when I find it....
Peace,
-John
P.S. We all need to conserve our resources. We need to conserve for the RIGHT reasons. I don't care why you conserve, as long as you do. Now, when it comes to using cash out of pocket, there are hundereds of other more urgent, and more easily met human needs that can be met right now, other than Global Warming. I do not deny GW is real, just question its importance. You would be better off doing the same. I care about the environment as much, or probably more than most people. I am only trying to open people's eyes to areas not often discussed in the media.
I agree with you on the florescent lights. For 10 years I worked inside a window-less school and it was interesting to see all the teachers run outside at every chance to bathe in sunlight. Otherwise for SoCal and Florida, like that, those lights work ok because we have so much sunlight.
I wonder about your "A young person now will need to donate $1.4 million of his/her income spread out over a lifetime to reduce the planet by 1 degree F."
Just the economics of conservation should result in individual savings.
#19
02-25-2008, 09:59 PM
Hybrid and Ethanol Expert
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: All over the Central U.S.
Posts: 3,616
Re: Lutz: always entertaining
Obvioulsly, not every person would be able to contribute literally more than a million dollars to counteract GW. But that is the real cost, per capita, on average. Obviously large corporations will have to pick up the slack and pay for more, ( taxes, tariffs, fees, etc. ) and pass that cost along to the consumers in increased prices for goods and services. The increased cost of doing business may slow trade at addtional cost to the consumer, and increased prices may deny the poor from receiving some goods and services.
Here is an example, I don't claim it is the best example, just one I found quickly. Taken from "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.
The magazine Environment May, 2000 had an article on how we can buy a recyclable toothbrush to "take a bite out of landfill use". At $17.50 for a 4-pak each comes with a recycling mailer, such that the used toothbrush may be returned and made into outdoor furnature. The important question is: how important will this toothbrush be in reducing landfill?
If every person in the U.S. replaced every toothbrush with this one, it would reduce landfill by by 20,000 tons. Sound significant? In 2000 the U.S. sent 220,000,000 tons to landfill. It is estimated each person generates 4.44 pounds of garbage per day. This toothbrush reduces the average to 4.439 pounds per day.
This does not even consider the added environmental effects of the postal system handling another half a billion packages a year [ or the cost and effects of making half a billion return envelopes ]. The cost is huge, while the benefit seems slight at best.
So you guys on here tell me. What's the real cost/benefit ratio of recycling a toothbrush? You could extend this analogy to countless other items. Before long, you've spent your entire salary, and have little, if any environmental advantage to show for it.
-John
Here is an example, I don't claim it is the best example, just one I found quickly. Taken from "The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.
The magazine Environment May, 2000 had an article on how we can buy a recyclable toothbrush to "take a bite out of landfill use". At $17.50 for a 4-pak each comes with a recycling mailer, such that the used toothbrush may be returned and made into outdoor furnature. The important question is: how important will this toothbrush be in reducing landfill?
If every person in the U.S. replaced every toothbrush with this one, it would reduce landfill by by 20,000 tons. Sound significant? In 2000 the U.S. sent 220,000,000 tons to landfill. It is estimated each person generates 4.44 pounds of garbage per day. This toothbrush reduces the average to 4.439 pounds per day.
This does not even consider the added environmental effects of the postal system handling another half a billion packages a year [ or the cost and effects of making half a billion return envelopes ]. The cost is huge, while the benefit seems slight at best.
So you guys on here tell me. What's the real cost/benefit ratio of recycling a toothbrush? You could extend this analogy to countless other items. Before long, you've spent your entire salary, and have little, if any environmental advantage to show for it.
-John
Last edited by gpsman1; 02-25-2008 at 10:02 PM.
#20
02-26-2008, 04:50 AM
Re: Lutz: always entertaining
No harm, no foul.
I will agree to disagree.
I will continue my end of conservation and recycling. You do your end, anyway u like. It's not as if we don't want similar things, right? Clean air and water is great. Avoiding soiling our house, that's always good. Well, it's all words.
I've several opinions and am always curious how other's form theirs.
Cheers,
Curt
PS No environment, no future. Period. Know and balance with the environment, know a future.
I will agree to disagree.
I will continue my end of conservation and recycling. You do your end, anyway u like. It's not as if we don't want similar things, right? Clean air and water is great. Avoiding soiling our house, that's always good. Well, it's all words.
I've several opinions and am always curious how other's form theirs.
Cheers,
Curt
PS No environment, no future. Period. Know and balance with the environment, know a future.
Last edited by finman; 02-26-2008 at 04:53 AM.
