Does Earth Hour actually help the environment? Fri, March 25, 2011
Do you plan on sitting in the dark this Saturday night?
Around the world, people will make the symbolic gesture of showing they support a cleaner world and lower-carbon lifestyle by raising their carbon output.
Earth Hour, started in 2007, encourages people to show their support for the planet by turning their lights off and enjoying the world by candlelight. The problem, of course, is for most Canadians that means turning off a low-carbon energy source and burning pure fossil fuels.
The absurdity is likely lost on most professional environmentalists.
Scientists try to predict what wil happen based on the facts they have. So if we warm or if we cool or if we just move the north pole to mexico it doesn't matter.
We do know we are making it very unhealthy for humans to live here. We do know that if we use something all up it's all gone. So enviromental abuse is a fact. Economy won't matter if we are all sick and dying. So why not improve the enviroment and start pushing sustainable solutions that can also help the economy.
Penny, 2009-04-03 06:43:20
Sheesh, here is something for the vegans and PETA to consider when they complain about eating tasty animals...
"Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas. Since 1750, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by more than 150%. The primary sources for the additional methane added to the atmosphere (in order of importance) are: rice cultivation; domestic grazing animals; termites; landfills; coal mining; and, oil and gas extraction."
So, Big Mac=bad, Rice=worse.
Citation: Pidwirny, M. (2006). "Atmospheric Composition". Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
So, when the witless Twitless drives that big block V8 to Vernon to eat a Big Mac we can only hope IT is not eating RICE the rest of the week. Also, Twitless, turning off your lights for an hour does not provide you with enough carbon credits to go tooling around including 4X4ing in a big block V8. Twitless=putting the "mental" in environmental.
Not_the_Daddy, 2009-04-03 00:53:53
So sad
uplink has said many times he could care less about the polar bears dieing due to global warming.
So what is his point?
Just trying to spread more hated.Thats all
EH?
tweetypie, 2009-04-02 21:29:13
Atmoshere shrinking. Lowest sun activity since 1913. NASA. They will do anything to keep from saying cooling.I am against lies nothing else. When was the last time you heated something and it contracted morrons?Arrogance is not facts Ignorance is not proof
Kurt, 2009-04-02 18:53:43
Uplink
Re: "while we're sharing links..."
Interesting, and I’ll admit it’s given me something to chew on.
That being said, I’ve never relied much on ‘climate models’. My thinking tends to be more linear and focused on cause and effect (the engineer in me I guess). We know that the world is undergoing a warming trend, or at least I haven’t seen anything convincing me that an occasional swing in the other direction invalidates the theory of overall temp increase. We also know that levels of CO2 have risen dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution, and that CO2 causes retention of radiant energy within the atmosphere. How dramatic is it? That’s the debatable point I guess. There are things we (the species) can control, and there are things we can’t control. I know of no (realistic) way to reduce the amount of solar radiation that reaches us from the sun, and I’m pretty sure that heat transfer from the core has been pretty constant throughout history. There are a lot of things beyond our ability to regulate, but we CAN control (hopefully) the human factors in the equation. If those supporting stricter emissions control are wrong, nothing will really have been lost. Reducing atmospheric pollutants can only be a positive in the long run. If they’re right, how long do we wait to act? When will the evidence be sufficient to warrant change? People keep pointing out that human contributions to the carbon cycle are minor, but to throw a balanced system out of kilter doesn’t take much. I don’t think I’m prepared to reverse my beliefs on the ‘carbon bad’ debate, but I will ruefully withdraw my...“I can’t comprehend why people still argue the basics of this issue”...comment. It appears that the addage 'you’re never too old to learn' could be true lol. Thanks Uplink...
Afterthought…
For the record, I don’t think such things as carbon trade-offs or a carbon tax are the answer. They only salve consciences while delaying long-term change.
Maz, 2009-04-02 15:35:47
while we're sharing links...
Here's an interesting read that illustrates how innacurate the climate models relied upon so heavily by the proponents of the Global Warming theories are.
Spring is here...........the leafs are out:)
Tiny PEI, 2009-04-02 08:05:13
Kurt...
Found something on upper atmospher cooling. Check out http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0406.html
Maz, 2009-04-01 16:19:33
I find it interesting that Tweetypie makes the assertion that people with conservative views are skeptical to the Global Warming Conspiracy. It must be that the left/Liberals/enviros let emotions dictate themselves whereas with the right/conservatives, logic and common sense rule the day.
Big W, 2009-04-01 15:36:23
Does Earth Hour actually help the environment? 
Maz, 2009-04-03 10:43:47
We do know we are making it very unhealthy for humans to live here. We do know that if we use something all up it's all gone. So enviromental abuse is a fact. Economy won't matter if we are all sick and dying. So why not improve the enviroment and start pushing sustainable solutions that can also help the economy.
Penny, 2009-04-03 06:43:20
"Methane is a very strong greenhouse gas. Since 1750, methane concentrations in the atmosphere have increased by more than 150%. The primary sources for the additional methane added to the atmosphere (in order of importance) are: rice cultivation; domestic grazing animals; termites; landfills; coal mining; and, oil and gas extraction."
So, Big Mac=bad, Rice=worse.
Citation: Pidwirny, M. (2006). "Atmospheric Composition". Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition. http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
So, when the witless Twitless drives that big block V8 to Vernon to eat a Big Mac we can only hope IT is not eating RICE the rest of the week. Also, Twitless, turning off your lights for an hour does not provide you with enough carbon credits to go tooling around including 4X4ing in a big block V8. Twitless=putting the "mental" in environmental.
Not_the_Daddy, 2009-04-03 00:53:53
uplink has said many times he could care less about the polar bears dieing due to global warming.
So what is his point?
Just trying to spread more hated.Thats all
EH?
tweetypie, 2009-04-02 21:29:13
Kurt, 2009-04-02 18:53:43
Re: "while we're sharing links..."
Interesting, and I’ll admit it’s given me something to chew on.
That being said, I’ve never relied much on ‘climate models’. My thinking tends to be more linear and focused on cause and effect (the engineer in me I guess). We know that the world is undergoing a warming trend, or at least I haven’t seen anything convincing me that an occasional swing in the other direction invalidates the theory of overall temp increase. We also know that levels of CO2 have risen dramatically since the start of the industrial revolution, and that CO2 causes retention of radiant energy within the atmosphere. How dramatic is it? That’s the debatable point I guess. There are things we (the species) can control, and there are things we can’t control. I know of no (realistic) way to reduce the amount of solar radiation that reaches us from the sun, and I’m pretty sure that heat transfer from the core has been pretty constant throughout history. There are a lot of things beyond our ability to regulate, but we CAN control (hopefully) the human factors in the equation. If those supporting stricter emissions control are wrong, nothing will really have been lost. Reducing atmospheric pollutants can only be a positive in the long run. If they’re right, how long do we wait to act? When will the evidence be sufficient to warrant change? People keep pointing out that human contributions to the carbon cycle are minor, but to throw a balanced system out of kilter doesn’t take much. I don’t think I’m prepared to reverse my beliefs on the ‘carbon bad’ debate, but I will ruefully withdraw my...“I can’t comprehend why people still argue the basics of this issue”...comment. It appears that the addage 'you’re never too old to learn' could be true lol. Thanks Uplink...
Afterthought…
For the record, I don’t think such things as carbon trade-offs or a carbon tax are the answer. They only salve consciences while delaying long-term change.
Maz, 2009-04-02 15:35:47
Here's an interesting read that illustrates how innacurate the climate models relied upon so heavily by the proponents of the Global Warming theories are.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/its_the_climate_warming_models.html
uplink, 2009-04-02 11:33:24
Tiny PEI, 2009-04-02 08:05:13
Found something on upper atmospher cooling. Check out http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/prrl/prrl0406.html
Maz, 2009-04-01 16:19:33
Big W, 2009-04-01 15:36:23