OU812, AerospaceFan, and all the other righties who think it's impossible.
Personally I take the whole thing with a grain of salt. Mind you it's easier to say that when you are living @ 1100' MSL as opposed to 68' MSL. But hey.. at least I didn't move to a mountaintop in the Rckies!!
UH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 1226 times:
Well the US Military has been on the forefront of "think green" probably more so than any other US Gov't agency.
- Whether it is energy conservation at every DoD facility. (Electricity conservation, heat/air conditioner efficiency, etc..)
- Land & natural habitat management on military installations. Protection of species, promoting the protection of the land, etc..
-And lately the DoD is building more energy-friendly buildings. Solar panels, double pain windows, heat/air that decreases when it senses the room is vacant, water conservation, etc...
Unfortunately the military use to have a reputation of being very harmful to the natural environment. And sometime around the late-80s/early 90s, that began to change. Hopefully we will still manage to do what we do best: lead!
TAZA From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1149 times:
Let's see, thirty years ago the same people who are screaming about global warming were predicting that the next ice age was about upon us. The average global temperature has risen 0.74 of a degree over the last hundred years so that must mean that we are all about to die from hypothermia. Fortunately my will is up to date.
Searpqx From Netherlands, joined Jun 2000, 4346 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 1141 times:
Quoting TAZA (Reply 5): Let's see, thirty years ago the same people who are screaming about global warming were predicting that the next ice age was about upon us.
I am so tired of this argument. So, because a theory was put forward in the past, and turned out to be wrong, all current and future theories are bunk? Hmm, by that logic we should be walking and riding everywhere we go, not flying, and the furthest we should have gotten above the earth is the distance a wood fired hot air balloon could go.
If you want to argue the concept on its scientific merits fine, but falling back on this old saw is pointless.
"The two most common elements in the universe are Hydrogen and stupidity"
FriendlySkies From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 4130 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 1127 times:
Here's the thing I don't understand about those against the whole global warming thing.
Let's just say for the sake of argument that there is no global warming (true or not). Is it a bad thing to clean up our act? Would it HURT? Why the hell is anyone against being green? Even if it's not warming the earth, the pollution still hurts the environment and the health of people.
Cfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (8 years 3 months 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 1117 times:
Quoting FriendlySkies (Reply 7): Let's just say for the sake of argument that there is no global warming (true or not). Is it a bad thing to clean up our act? Would it HURT? Why the hell is anyone against being green? Even if it's not warming the earth, the pollution still hurts the environment and the health of people.
You are right, of course. Regardless of how much humanity is responsible for global warming, there are plenty of reasons to reduce our energy consumption, not the least of which is to reduce the amount of money we hand over to OPEC countries who then spend it to give us a hard time.
What offends us is the exagguration. The enviro-nazis try to convince people that Global Warming is all our fault, and that we have the power to change it. By all rational accounts, we don't. If we reduced our man-made CO2 emissions by 50% (which would require a miraculous improvement in technology or the summary execution of 3 billion people), it would only make a 2% difference in annual CO2 production. Big whoopty-doo.
Again, I am all for strong action to reduce emmisions, including mandatory 30-35 mpg for any private vehicle sold in the US, a "manhatten project" to research fusion power, tax breaks for homes which use solar panels to assist in the power load, etc. But don't insult my intelligence by saying that it's going to make any significant difference in global warming.
Good points. I also agree that anyone who says global warming is all our fault and we can stop it is insane. However, I do still believe we are making an impact and anyone who says we aren't is ignorant. I guess I'm kind of in the middle. Honestly, right now I'm more worried about our dependence on foreign sources for our energy than about global warming, but that's for another thread...