Community Newsletter: Q&A: Environmental impact concerns of consumer electronics
- 1/30/08 12:54 AM
Maybe, at the present rate
by wbowblis - 2/4/08 8:27 AM In reply to: Get the facts not the rhetoric by eler.jamesWe can't assume that the rise will continue at the present rate. I'm sure ocean levels rose a lot faster as the continental ice sheets melted around 11,000 years ago. There are really only 2 remaining ice sheets that could raise the oceans: Antarctica and Greenland. Until recently, both were cold enough to maintain their ice. Melting has accelerated recently. We can sit back and assume that this is just a cycle and will reverse itself. It might. Glaciers in Greenland haven't only been melting... they're also moving faster. Much of the ice on Antarctica may behave as an immense glacier. Sure, it would take centuries to melt, but if it gets moving, we could be in deep water in less than a year. If this were to happen, all we can do is watch since we don't have the power to stop it and we can't relocate the people who will be underwater.
30 meters????
by jbelcherpc - 1/28/08 4:35 PM In reply to: Nature may not be frasgile, but human society is by rbsjrxI have seen the estimates (lotsa disagreement there), and none of them are even close to 30m. The models are worse than questionable--the effect of water vapor is on the order of 1000 times the impact of CO2.
The REAL problems are:
1. To stretch fossil fuel long enough to find alternatives. Nuke power is viable, but not in this country. Seems like the French have superior technology and can deal with the horrifying dangers of nuke power plants (even though coal is far deadlier in terms of deaths per unit of power).
2. Reduce the emission of fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, noxious gases, etc.
3. Replace hysteria with reason. Lotsa luck on that one.
JB
Are you Kidding me?
by aschulz90(1) - 1/25/08 8:10 PM In reply to: Environment impact of consumer electronics by jakejr7Hi, I was recently reading the Cnet question of the week and I came across your response. It was really troubling to me you believe preservation of our environment is a scam. Is it that hard to believe that our superfluous usage of energy is resulting in detrimental effects on our environment? I think those who wish to protect our home and ensure its survival for generations to come, are not the crazy ones, but the people saying its something stupid or fake are. Even if your sense of reality was accurate, which I would like to remind you its not, what would be the harm in increasing efficiency and reducing waste? I would like to thank the first response to your insulting and rather inane post as s/he seems to have responded quite appropriately.
Might want to re-read that...
by clokverkorange - 1/25/08 11:34 PM In reply to: Are you Kidding me? by aschulz90(1)I think what he meant by that post is that the planet in general will still be here no matter what people do to it. We could fill the water with sludge of the most toxic nature, erode the ozone to nothing, and nuke ourselves into oblivion. The Earth, for all our efforts, would still be here after we were all dead and gone. Until we come up with a method of destroying an entire planet at once - Star Destroyers, thankfully, are still Sci-Fi - the planet itself is safe from us.
His point, more or less, was that the things we do affect us and us only - the way WE interact with nature, not the way nature interacts with us.
Not quite!
by btljooz - 1/26/08 12:13 PM In reply to: Might want to re-read that... by clokverkorange>"His point, more or less, was that the things we do affect us and us only"<
Yes the things we do affect us, but _not_ *ONLY* us!!! It affects nature as well. Are you old enough to remember when the first frogs with more or less than the NORMAL four limbs were discovered and WHY they were malformed in that manner????? Do you recall when Dioxin was *discovered* to be the culprit in the thinning of the eggshells of the Condor resulting in the bird winding up on the Endangered Species list and the use of Dioxin banned here in the USA?????
OOOOOH! _YES_, what WE _do_, as a Species, does __in deed__ affect ALL of the rest of the Species of life...both plant, as well as animal...that reside on Mother Earth!!!!!!!!!!
Karl Marx would be so proud.....
by jer1041 - 1/26/08 9:46 AM In reply to: Are you Kidding me? by aschulz90(1)Global warming is a hoax, designed to scare little children and basically seperate you from your money. It's the new religion of the left. the elite on the left will benefit greatly at the expense of the (idiot) masses who fall for this CLAPTRAP. The High-priest of the environMENTAL movement is ElGore himself, his pockets are being lined by you and I. It's all about CONTROL.
WAKE UP.
Preaching religion is not answering the question
by TreknologyNet - 1/26/08 10:36 AM In reply to: Karl Marx would be so proud..... by jer1041There are numerous ways we are destroying the environment, energy being only one of them.
Rebecca asked about saving energy (even if her guilt is manufactured like that of any other religion). Do you realize that in a mere forty years of "the Pill", we have dumped so much oestrogen into the environment that certain breeds of fish are totally confused as to what sex they are supposed to be?
How does one save energy? The most common answers have been:
1. Turn the damn thing off,
2. Invest in something that pretends to turn itself off, or
3. Migrate to a more energy-efficient platform (e.g., laptop).
and remember that for the sake of the bearings, you're better off leaving hard drives to run for your entire session until you shut the machine down.
Yes, some of us technocrats require that a machine remain accessible 24/7 (and people wonder why my server is also a laptop), but for people like Rebecca who just want to surf the web occasionally, send an email, maybe type up a letter and print it out, one of those three answers will help out.
I'm not about to start bashing for or against greenISM, but while our true carbon emission ratio remains below 1% of that which the Earth generates naturally, it cannot be denied that we have been grossly irresponsible in scattering other toxic materials all over the planet.
New Religion?
by Britti79 - 1/26/08 2:39 PM In reply to: Karl Marx would be so proud..... by jer1041I fail to see how exactly global warming is trying to separate us from our money and lining Al Gore's pockets. I would say that, if anything, buying into the theory would SAVE you money; you know, buying an inexpensive little Toyota instead of a hiphop star's SUV with wheels the height of a horse, not driving one block away in said SUV when you could ride a bicycle, smaller bills through conserving electricity... how is all this making Al Gore rich? What about the thousands of scientists worldwide who back up what he shows in the documentary film - has he personally paid them all off so they would back up his 'amazing money-making scheme'?!
It does make me laugh how some people choose to believe certain scientific facts but not others, depending on what's convenient and suits them... maybe that's where Gore's film got its name. Just so you guys know (I see this is pretty much US-based), many of us here in Europe 'believe' in this new religion, too, it isn't just Gore preaching some cult!
Oh, all the "scientists"
by mbm30075 - 1/27/08 7:56 AM In reply to: New Religion? by Britti79First, let's all take a little walk down the road of our basic educations. Let's remember what the scientific method is all about.
Does popular opinion matter to science? No. Remember, the popular opinion of all scientists used to dictate that when someone got sick, we bled them to cure them. Or that the earth was flat. Or that everything was composed of 4 basic elements. And so forth.
Does a "consensus" mean anything to science? No. See above, but to further elucidate this point, remember that "opinion" and "science" are NOT synonyms. Also, a consensus is when absolutely everyone agrees about something. The fact that so many people (yes, even scientists) disagree about Global Warming (at least its human cause) should give away the lie on this point.
Remember, science is to be unbiased. Since there aren't many "Global Warming is natural" federal grants, is it any wonder that this basic tenet of science has been abandoned?
Anyway, do a little research and find out exactly who these "scientists" are, and you will see that many of them only tangentially have any training in climate issues, many of them have NO training in climate issues, and one of the so-called "scientists" is, in fact, a plastic surgeon! So much for the integrity of Al Gore's mission.
Here's how it is personally helping Al Gore. He wrote a book, produced a "documentary", and has even converted this mis-information into a High School level curriculum that he is attempting to foist upon our young and easily-influenced minds. Do you really think that he's not getting rich on selling his lies?
Also, he's getting "rich" in a way that isn't directly tied to money. Maybe it's better to say that he's getting what he wants, not just rich with money.
Al Gore is a part of the liberal left in America that wants to blame America for pretty much all of the world's wrongs. They are also a group that would like to see more international governance. By blaming America as the chief culprit in man-made Global Warming, and by advocating "solutions" like the Kyoto Protocol, Al Gore and other like-minded thinkers are able to kill two birds with one stone.
By the way, think on this:
Let's say I came out with an idea that was not universally supported, yet I claimed that it was. Then I also said that anyone who doesn't agree with me is on par with a Holocaust denier. Then the media unquestioningly backed my claims (without actually doing any research). How many of you would cry "conspiracy"?
Follow the money trail. Look how many of the Global Warming supporters get paid for their position, be it through research grants, higher positions (say, Heidi Cullen at The Weather Channel), or donations from the unsuspecting (a la the Sierra Club). Then, look at how many of the skeptics are actually paid for their position. Maybe some of them are, but quite a few either: 1) have no financial stake in the game, or 2) are putting themselves at risk by being skeptical.
Now I ask you. What does this say to you?
very GOOD
by jer1041 - 1/31/08 10:23 AM In reply to: Oh, all the "scientists" by mbm30075I just wish our politicians, on both sides of the isle, would stop cow-towwing to the environmentalist wacko's. This is costing us our tax money, and our freedoms. We are going to be paying much more for our gas and electricity. In the end, it WILL be a control issue. I believe that IS the bottom line. Just look at what ethanol has done to the price of food, the cost of natural gas, and the loss of ground water, not to mention the cost of the fuel in our vehicles, and the efficiency of that fuel. We desperately need a movement of our own to combat this lunacy, before it's too late. (But how do we accomplish this without support from the masses, who are continuously bombarded with the global warming HOAX?)
definition of consensus
by bradykp - 2/1/08 12:31 PM In reply to: Oh, all the "scientists" by mbm30075from two sources:
wiki:
Consensus has two common meanings. One is a general agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action. The other is as a theory and practice of getting such agreements (for information on the practice of achieving formal consensus, see Consensus decision-making).
Merriam-Webster
1 a: general agreement : unanimity <the consensus of their opinion, based on reports…from the border — John Hersey> b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned <the consensus was to go ahead>2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief
"liberal left"
by bradykp - 2/1/08 12:37 PM In reply to: Oh, all the "scientists" by mbm30075"Al Gore is a part of the liberal left in America that wants to blame America for pretty much all of the world's wrongs. They are also a group that would like to see more international governance. By blaming America as the chief culprit in man-made Global Warming, and by advocating "solutions" like the Kyoto Protocol, Al Gore and other like-minded thinkers are able to kill two birds with one stone.
By the way, think on this:
Let's say I came out with an idea that was not universally supported, yet I claimed that it was. Then I also said that anyone who doesn't agree with me is on par with a Holocaust denier. Then the media unquestioningly backed my claims (without actually doing any research). How many of you would cry "conspiracy"?
Follow the money trail. Look how many of the Global Warming supporters get paid for their position, be it through research grants, higher positions (say, Heidi Cullen at The Weather Channel), or donations from the unsuspecting (a la the Sierra Club). Then, look at how many of the skeptics are actually paid for their position. Maybe some of them are, but quite a few either: 1) have no financial stake in the game, or 2) are putting themselves at risk by being skeptical."
why do people have such a hatred for people who have liberal beliefs? al gore does not blame america for all the world's wrongs. al gore served his country as a politician for many years. Like politicians from any side of the spectrum, he has done good things and bad things. he's had the global warming presentation for quite some time (i think it dates back to the 70s or 80s), so this is nothing new to him. the kyoto protocal is not more international governance, it's more like an agreement between gentlemen anyways. regardless, i don't really think the kyoto protocol accomplishes anything.
as far as saying the skeptics have no financial stake, most of the skeptics are part of the groups of people that are profiting while polluting (auto industry, oil industry, etc) so they certainly have financial stake in the matter. what happens to exxon if a carbon tax is enforced? their record profits plummet, and some of the other, more eco-friendly big-oil companies stand to compete more with them.
Blah Blah Blah
by tlh523 - 2/1/08 3:13 PM In reply to: "liberal left" by bradykpSame old tired story
Follow the money
by wbowblis - 2/4/08 7:58 AM In reply to: Karl Marx would be so proud..... by jer1041I fail to see how "the elite left" stands to profit from the global warming "hoax". I do see how the energy industries and the auto industries will profit from assuming it is a hoax (Hummer, anyone?). Follow the money and it leads right to those denying that global warming is happening or denying that we have anything to do with it. The numbers don't lie, the Earth is getting warmer. CO2 levels have been rising for more than a century. Population is expanding into areas formerly uninhabited, or virtually so. Are they related? We don't actually know for sure, but the evidence is compelling. We have nothing to lose by conserving other than our excesses. If the U.S. cut it's hunger for oil in half, do you think oil would stay at $80-$100 a barrel?
I also have noticed that everyone concentrates on carbon emissions. We have been paving over former forest and in poorer parts of the world, destroying, frequently by burning, the very forests that could provide a sink for much of that CO2. The oceans are another major sink, but their capacity is limited. Once saturated, CO2 levels could rise abruptly. Are we close to this? Beats me, but I have no doubt that we're headed in that direction. Do I expect that those who deny that there is a problem will change? I doubt it. Greed always beats common sense.
$$$ is a rabbit trail - how about follow truth, science and
by jspeedo - 2/4/08 12:13 PM In reply to: Follow the money by wbowblisproven fact. First some suggestions on conserving energy:
1. Power consumption by computers and TVs is minimal as compared to Electric Heat (any kind - resistance, heat pump, portables), Dryers, Hot Water Heaters, hair dryers, anything involving heat. Next would be larger motor loads in the home - refrigerators, freezers, and washing machines (but more because of hot water used). Turn down your thermostat – only turn on the lighting you need and efficiently plan your cooking and clothes drying. See post by marsdave on Jan 25 @ 11:08 pm for a longer list
2. Constantly turning off electronic components and light bulbs will shorten their life. Just about every light bulb I’ve replaced blew out when I turned it on - the reason is the stress of energizing the filament.
I have worked in technical fields for 35 years as a technician and engineer, I learned long ago to respect the laws of physics, statistics, and proven fact and refute what is not real science. We all believe that our position is the right one or we would not take sides. But please read on – the theory that global warming is caused by humans is NOT proven. Several very well meaning posts have tried to distinguish between fact and pseudo science. Going way back to MsDoright who defended jakejr7 on 1/26/08 09:11am it is the mixing of politics with science that is resulting in well hyped pseudo science. We hear the ubiquitous term "carbon footprint" often these days. But what does it really mean and what is its real impact? We hear about rising CO2 levels causing a rise in temperature but did you know that the correlation of rising CO2 levels to rising temperatures is not what is commonly perpetuated by global warming theorists? The rising temps came first, not the rising CO2 attributed to usage of fossil fuel. Several scientists recently appeared on 20/20 to state their case and explain why they left the Concerned Scientists group over this very issue. Scientists do not fully understand it all yet. It is scientifically and statistically unsound to apply 100 years of weather data and extrapolate to a planet at least 10,000 years old if not billions. Many of the graphs used to support global warming eliminate data from the 1800’s because it does not support their position. Yes we are in some sort of warming trend that began mid 1800’s, which was preceded by a four-hundred year cold spell. Current computer model predictions vary by 400% on how much warming may occur in the next 100 years – that is proof in itself no one knows for sure. Take some time to do some real research – remember the most vocal scientist or theory proponent is not necessarily the most accurate.
Learn from mistakes when emotion is mixed with science: Will a fairly recent example of science gone bad – when facts are ignored and the opponents are shouted down and ridiculed help us all consider where we go for information and what we accept as fact? Ever hear of Eugenics? It is (was) a theory that is now known to be so embarrassing it is not discussed much. It basically postulated that a crisis in the gene pool would lead to the deterioration of the human race. So in the early 1900’s leading scientists of the day convinced political leaders (Teddy Roosevelt, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Winston Churchill, among others) and other famous people of the day (Alexander Graham Bell, H. G. Wells, Leland Stanford – founder of Stanford) to support studies that were performed at Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton and John Hopkins. The research went on for over 50 years – anyone opposing it was shouted down and called blind to reality, ignorant, and uncaring for the future. Sound familiar? Well this research led directly to conclusions that inferior races were putting the human race at risk – need I tell the conclusion? Just a World War and the near annihilation of a race. After WW II no one was eugenicist anymore and it was no longer taught in the hallowed halls of America’s and Europe’s Universities – but this did happen and it did wreak catastrophe on the Human Race just not in the way as the proponents of this fear mongering and pseudo-science thought it would. Will global warming purists push that far - I doubt it but the point is the majority may rule in politics but the majority is not always right - when we abandon time proven science and scientific methodologies we open ourselves to inaccurate if not horrific results.
So what should we do? Turn down the heat, buy energy efficient appliances, and conserve when and where you can, because of course it’s common sense to be efficient and conserve. I was taught that before Going Green and Global Warming were first spoken and became so popular - heck so were my parents - they had to share the bath water with their siblings when they were kids, found uses for everything on the farm – nothing was wasted. Do not be scared into a belief - believe it because it is proven fact.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
