Nov 28
I don’t recycle and I don’t feel bad about it either. Here are some of the reasons.
TruthMission
Search for truth and discuss difficult issues in a safe place
Follow me
I don’t recycle and I don’t feel bad about it either. Here are some of the reasons.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
It’s true that landfills may be more economical than recycling. Relative to landfills, recycling is in its infancy and it costs municipals a large investment to start a program. As recycling programs mature they become more efficient and can compete with the costs to operate a landfill. That has been demonstrated already.
Why are landfills bad? They cause air/water pollution and harm our natural resources.
If you ever step foot in a Whole Foods, Trader Joe’s, Fresh Market, or even a regular supermarket, you’ll notice there are a wide variety of products made with recycled materials. Recycling has created a new market for working with these materials, and its beneficial for the environment. Recycling paper, for example, means that we won’t have to cut as many of our forests and alter their ecosystems.
I didn’t watch all 26 minutes, so let me know if I need to go on…
I know that one big complaint is that recycling takes time. That’s partially due to poorly designed materials. My company recently took a stab at redesigning an infographic that is supposed to tell you what you can/can’t recycle. Check out what we did here: http://prezi.com/rkikqfae3o-r/
In summary, recycle–and while you’re at it, compost.
November 29th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Cool design. I also like the way you can zoom in a look around.
One of her points was when the cost of the raw materials exceeds the cost of recycling then you will get paid for your trash. We are not at that point.
“Why are landfills bad? They cause air/water pollution and harm our natural resources.”
According to the speaker: “To recycle waste is to use twice the energy and to create twice the pollution from factories, trucks and byproducts.
Recycled newspapers must be de-inked, often with chemicals, creating sludge. Even if the sludge is harmless, it too must be disposed of. Second, recycling more newspapers will not necessarily preserve trees, because many trees are grown specifically to be made into paper. The amount of new growth that occurs each year in forests exceeds by a factor of twenty the amount of wood and paper that is consumed by the world each year. Wherever private property rights to forests are well-defined and enforced, forests are either stable or growing.”
She also talks about government subsidies that fund these programs. We are paying for this inefficient programs with our tax dollars.
It does take time and resources to separate either by the individual or the disposal place. These many hours are better spent doing something else.
She also mentions the landfills can be used to create energy and if you take away the compost element in the landfills then getting energy from them is either impossible or very difficult (I forget exactly).
November 30th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Thanks! The other big problem (other than knowing what to recycle) we were trying to solve was that people don’t have a good solution for inside the home.
Yes, but we can get to that point by refining the recycling process. I would argue that it is our responsibility to the Earth that we get to that point. I am willing to pay extra to help the environment. I buy products made of post-consumer material that cost more, buy used items, and limit my spending on non-recyclable materials.
I think there is a lot of disinformation on both sides. Based on my research, the amount of energy depends on the product you are recycling. For example, there does seem to be consensus that recycled aluminum is much cheaper than the raw materials. The EPA says it saves 95% of the energy because the aluminum needs to be extracted from bauxite. Recycled cans can be back on the shelf in 60 days.
I am not sure about other materials. I have heard glass is more efficient to recycle, since it only usually needs to be cleaned before being re-used… A funny story though: There is a local dairy that sells milk in Whole Foods in glass bottles. Last night, one apparently had a crack in it and exploded in our cart
Plastic is probably the least beneficial to recycle and also the worst for our health and the environment.
Yes, the sludge is a problem. There is a large movement to use only soy ink, which is easier to remove from paper.
There has been research that indicates the sludge (aka PDS: paper deinking sludge) could be used as a nutrient in soils (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1644364) and there is research that shows it could be used in fiberboard (http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=15362850).
I am at the point where I can look at something and instinctively put it in the right place. It doesn’t take me any time as an individual. Consumers don’t have to separate what they put in a bin or cart for curbside pickup. Curbside pickup saves energy because then individuals don’t have to drive separately to the recycling center. In towns where curbside pickup is not available, the recycling center is usually part of the waste management center.
Most recycling facilities are private and are paid more if they are outputting more materials. Therefore, they have an incentive to create more efficient processes. They are getting more efficient every day.
December 5th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
I am sure there is disinformation on both sides. I trust my sources and you trust yours.
Aluminum cans may be an exception. The speaker actually refers to them as being an exception because you get paid for them but Jess mentioned well you actually paid for that with your deposit.
Anyway I don’t think it is a good idea for our tax dollars to be spent on programs that are inefficient and that may or may not help our environment.
“Curbside pickup saves energy because then individuals don’t have to drive separately to the recycling center.” But it would put more pollution in the air and cost the town more to have separate trucks driving around (assumed). The speaker mentioned the increased cost over regular pickup but I forget. Maybe 30 or 50 percent more.
“I have heard glass is more efficient to recycle, since it only usually needs to be cleaned before being re-used” It’s cheaper to get it from sand and that is really abundant. Also when you put the bottle in the machine it smashes it so they don’t just clean it unless it’s a local farm or something.
I don’t have a problem with reduce and reuse but I don’t like recycle.
I personally hate owning anything I don’t utilize and often give away a lot of stuff to people who can use them.
December 6th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
I think a key point is that government is again forcing policy that does not make sense, either economically OR environmentally.
It’s great when we can each choose which products to buy or which stores to shop at, and how we want to handle our garbage. I live in a rural area and burn all my clean combustibles. Since I have 2 collies that like to get into stuff, I don’t compost my own non-burnables, but the compostable portion will compost at the landfill anyway, and as the speaker mentions, the metal cans can one day be mined, if and when future generations need it.
Yet again, government politicians force inefficiency and do more damage than if they would just stay out of things. Same with ethanol: the amount of water and other resources used to produce the stuff is not economically viable, let alone the fact ethanol and rubber automobile parts don’t play well together. And, as a fuel, it is less efficient and much more difficult to transport (because it tends to separate in pipelines.)
The free market works. Government forcing behavior doesn’t. This is just another variation of the same sorry story, played over and over again.
December 6th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Wow, please STOP doing that. That is absolutely horrible for the environment. I can’t stress that enough.
I’ll reply to other thoughts later, but I just needed to say that as soon as possible. Please, please, please re-consider your actions.
December 7th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Ten pounds of clean combustibles a day??????? I’m talking about a little junk mail and an occasional pizza box. You can measure the amount of paper I burn each day by the ounces.
Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about my wood-burning fireplaces (I have two that I use?)
December 7th, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Ok, phew… just as long as you aren’t burning plastic bottles.
That depends on if you’re using an EPA-certified fireplace insert or not. Anyway, I think you’re probably doing more damage to your health than the environment. But, I do know there are movements targeting pollution caused by wood burning. I personally think there are a lot bigger problems to solve first (like, uh, the importance of recycling), but spreading good wood burning tips won’t hurt.
The EPA has some tips for better wood burning:
http://www.epa.gov/air/community/guide/wood_stoves_oo_sheet.pdf [PDF]
December 7th, 2009 at 4:33 pm
@Dave @Martin
Ok, finally… back to recycling.
True, the deposit was intended to encourage recycling. For example, I buy milk from a local farm and there is a bottle deposit of $1.50. Because the deposit is so much, we always bring back our bottles to have them recycled.
As more people recycle, the entire program becomes cheaper.
Here are some statistics on how much cheaper recycled materials are:
My point was that having recycling pickup can be more efficient (for dense residential areas) than requiring individuals to recycle individually. Now, the pollution of landfills & incinerators vs. recycling programs is another issue. Landfills are a major source of pollution. Here are some statistics for you:
Please check out that page at Harvard, and also have a look at this one:
http://www.askmen.com/entertainment/special_feature_300/319_5-things-you-didnt-know-garbage.html
December 7th, 2009 at 7:33 pm
“Landfills are responsible for 36% of all methane emissions in the U.S., one of the most potent causes of global warming.”
I don’t believe in global warming caused by humans and methane is natural- It is the principal component of natural gas.
“About 2/3 of operating landfills do not have liners to protect groundwater and drinking water sources.”
Article:
“4- Landfill garbage pollutes the air worse than carbon dioxide
Here’s a sensible tip: Don’t ever live near a landfill. You would be better off camping out around Chernobyl and eating the soil. Landfills have a tendency to emit a host of toxic gases into the air, and by toxic gases we actually mean cytotoxic or carcinogenic gases, like benzene and vinyl chloride. They also leak into the surrounding soils and water sources.
Furthermore, landfills produce methane — rather, microbes produce it as they devour anything they can and emit methane as a waste product. Being lighter than air, methane works its way out of the air and into the soils or the atmosphere. Methane has a very high global warming potential (GWP), about 12 times as high as carbon dioxide.”
Good points I will email the speaker about these.
December 7th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Just a little logic here…
So, humans fill landfills. Landfills emit methane, which is a greenhouse gas (yes, it’s natural). Greenhouse gases contribute to the Greenhouse effect, which heats up the Earth.
Humans also use a lot of power, and we increased our energy usage dramatically in the 20th century. We know that there is a correlation between population and CO2 emissions. We have measured CO2 levels in the 20th century and they have been soaring… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Do you see where I’m going here?
December 8th, 2009 at 12:29 am
Andrew, when I was referring to burning CLEAN combustibles I was talking about paper and wood, not plastics and tires. And yes, I have Kozy Heat inserts in my fireplaces to maximize the heat they give off, with air circulating and warming under and behind the firebox, then coming out above. No smoke is released into my home. Since I either cut my own wood or buy it from the neighbor kid, it’s in my best interest to be efficient with it.
As far as where you’re going with your last post, yes, it sounds like people are the problem, in your view.
Your greenhouse gas concern is a THEORY that is not only disputed; it’s in the process of being completely discredited. Instead of seeing problems in human activity (like trying to keep myself alive through another Minnesota winter,) wouldn’t it be more productive to accept the fact we need a lot of energy to live and prosper? We could then discuss the best energy alternatives that are available, practical, and cost-effective.
We haven’t built a nuclear power plant in decades, clean coal (which is far cleaner than 30-40 years ago) is under attack by this administration, massive oil reserves in Alaska and off our coasts are off limits (but we can buy it from other countries, creating massive trade deficits.) Ethanol production uses more resources than it’s worth (especially water, which ultimately may be a resource more valuable than oil.)
Wind and solar simply are not cost-effective. Our local power companies are warning us about electricity rates tripling and quadrupling once these mandates for wind and solar power are fully implemented. Many people cannot afford that.
I was in L.A. in the mid-late 1980s and then again recently, and the air is quite noticable cleaner now. They used to have smog alerts 3 or 4 days a week, now it’s rare. Coal is clean, so is nuclear and natural gas. Heating oil and wood perhaps a little less so, but still, the air is probably a lot cleaner now than 40 years ago, and we continue to make innovations in that area. Things are getting better, not worse.
Unless you want to take your message to the leaders in China and India, that is.
Bottom line: There is no crisis (other than that artificially caused by excessive government regulation), and therefore there is no reason to spend a lot of time fretting over the condition of the planet. We all live here, so sure, let’s use common sense and not pour arsenic into lakes and rivers, but just trying to live isn’t hurting anything.
And man-made global warming is an absolute myth/lie. Mankind has far more legitimate concerns about when the next ice age will set in.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:17 am
“So, humans fill landfills. Landfills emit methane, which is a greenhouse gas (yes, it’s natural). Greenhouse gases contribute to the Greenhouse effect, which heats up the Earth.
Humans also use a lot of power, and we increased our energy usage dramatically in the 20th century. We know that there is a correlation between population and CO2 emissions. We have measured CO2 levels in the 20th century and they have been soaring… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png”
Your chart shows levels consistently going up since 1960. In 1970 people were all worried about global cooling. How can what you say be true? Would we not see consistent warming since 1960 if it was?
“There has been a measured global rise in temperature of 0.6186C over the last century, but there is a problem. Most of this temperature rise occurred prior to 1940, and there was a period of global cooling during the 1970s, which led to a global cooling scare. Then followed a further temperature rise to 1998, then cooling again. In the meantime carbon dioxide concentrations continued to rise, remember. The observed carbon dioxide rise and the temperature variations do not correlate very well at all.” – http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=5277396&fSectionId=561&fSetId=662
December 8th, 2009 at 10:34 am
@Mark Yes, I skipped over the word “clean” when I read your post initially. I apologize. I just didn’t see it. Sounds like you are set up appropriately.
@Mark @Dave
Skeptics of global warming don’t seem to understand the scientific use of “theory”. I’ve said it before here, and I’ll say it again. Evolution is a theory. Gravity is a theory. The Greenhouse Effect is a theory. The word THEORY has a different meaning in the scientific community. I don’t know how many times I need to repeat that. Please go here:
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
I agree, we have a major problem in government (with climate change). I am personally not happy with the way the Obama administration is dealing with climate issues… but it definitely is a step up from Bush (who ignored the issue completely). Yes, fossil fuels cost less. That’s a huge problem, since they also contribute the most pollution. We need to invest in nuclear power. Our administration isn’t attacking it. In fact, it looks like they may embrace it. Wind and solar would also be nice, but yes they are currently very expensive. We need to be able to accept paying more for energy if the environment will benefit.
Our government’s current solution is allow companies to buy carbon credits. This will not reduce pollution at all, since it will drive the cost of fossil fuels down even further. So, clean coal looks like a reasonable short-term solution.
It’s my belief (and note: this goes against the current scientific consensus that says we will be ok if there is some change) that it is impossible to do enough. We need very significant change in policy and the big guns (US, China, India, etc.) are not going to make dramatic changes. Essentially, we are doomed to climate change. But, I also believe we’ll find ways to adapt to it and keep the planet habitable.
Regarding “Global cooling”, the scare was caused by a public misunderstanding of how ice age cycles work (i.e. it wouldn’t be rapid). “Global cooling” did not have significant scientific support in the 70s. Climate Change has very significant scientific support. The minority of scientists were wrong (which really shouldn’t come as a surprise).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
December 8th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
Dave: EXACTLY. The man-made global warming proponents are more interested in their “solution” (exerting control over people) than they are about the “problem”, which, inconveniently for them, does not exist.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
@Mark
(I replied this morning with a more complete comment, which appear above your latest comment. Please look for that once Dave approves it. It’s awaiting “moderation”).
There are a couple camps of “man-made global warming proponents”. Please note that both contain the majority of the world’s scientists and all scientific bodies.
The problem has already been identified by the scientific community. Skeptics argue against the science and sometimes used flawed science. For example, zoning in specific years and arguing that there have been fluctuations in temperatures (e.g. some years have been cooler) ignores the larger body of evidence that shows a strong warming trend. You can’t say that just because one year is cooler than the previous that global warming doesn’t exist. You need to look at long-term graphs. Of course there will be fluctuations. Everything fluctuates. We don’t have constant amounts of natural disasters. We have more in certain years, and in different locations.
Since scientists have agreed on the problem, the solution is the interesting part. And, as you’ll see in my previous comment, I don’t really agree with what they’re trying to do in Copenhagen. It’s too little too late, and not addressing the root problem that fossil fuels are cheaper than alternative sources of energy.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
All right, now I’m confused. You are saying that the climate fluctuates. Yes, we all know this. We’ve had ice ages and mini ice ages not that far back in history. I live on a lake in east-central Minnesota that was dug out by a glacier about 10,000 years ago. So… why, exactly, is climate change (which is inevitable and has always been occurring) now somehow deemed “bad” and “a problem?” And, most curious, “man-made?”
Saying you have more scientists than the debunkers isn’t really much of an argument, is it? Galileo was out-numbered by a far greater margin. And, if you haven’t seen the news lately, a lot of global warming proponents have been cooking the books, so to speak.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:17 pm
Scientific models indicate that natural factors alone do not account for the warming trend. There is an extremely strong correlation between the amount of greenhouse gases emitted and temperature increase.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Climate_Change_Attribution.png
Galileo was persecuted by the church for differing beliefs and sparked modern science. He wasn’t outnumbered by other scientists. He was outnumbered by the Roman Inquisition.
The news of scientists blocking journal articles with differing opinions was certainly upsetting. Political action and science shouldn’t interfere. However, note that there was research on both sides of the spectrum that was being blocked from publication. It wasn’t just all research that attempted to reject global warming; it was also research that demonstrated the problem is much bigger than we think.
As a reviewer for scientific conferences (human-computer interaction to be specific, not climatology), I know that it is hard to separate out your own biases. If one has research to the contrary, one is more likely to be more critical.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:14 am
@Andrew
Hey Andrew,
Here is the response I got from the speaker:
I know that the EPA acknowledges that original landfills had such problems. How recent was Andrew’s basis? I’ll be happy to read it.
Today the EPA makes some strong claims that would, if accurate, assuage worries. Although much of EPA work is not based upon good science. It is not as though leakage isn’t detectable. Many of the landfills have used non-porous clays, like bentonite, rather than liners, but it is generally effective. The landfills exhibiting methane releases are being shifted into the energy source category like Waste Management has done. Go to http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/landfill-gas-energy-biogas.php.
EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program and its own site is here. http://www.epa.gov/outreach/lmop/index.htm
I have gotten most of my landfill information from EPA’s site. http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/landfill.htm
Andrew’s point 4 is that landfill garbage pollutes the air worse than carbon dioxide. Despite what the EPA managed to say today (Dec 7, 2009) about CO2, I submitted a 20 page comment to the EPA in April that was peer reviewed science that disputes that claim. I attach my Comments to EPA.
CO2 is essential for life. It is not a pollutant. An article of mine on CO2 is here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/floy7.html
As for living near a landfill, it might be all I can afford. Yet, I have no worries about that location, nor living beside the Three Mile Island plant. Chernobyl is not in the US. Soviet plants were poorly designed. Our designs shut our systems down. Very different. Our nuclear engineers have since been helping the Russians with theirs. An article of mine on nuclear is here: http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/floy8.html
Methane does have a greater ability than CO2 to retain heat. That’s why eliminating cows is a green issue. But, more methane is released from all the rice paddies in the world, so those are rarely spoken of since that would be a kill-people-by-famine policy that would be more obvious. Since no science that I have yet to digest informs me of any man-caused catastrophic global warming, (the alarmism comes only from the computer models which are unable to get climate factors correct. And, now we are learning that the raw data has been massaged to result in contrived warming. Search Climategate.) I can hardly get worked up about methane’s GWP. My most recent article on this was http://www.lewrockwell.com/lilley/floy13.1.html.
A web site that stays pretty up to the minute on climate change fraud is just that http://climatechangefraud.com/. Andrew might consider reading some of it. I read a variety of input on the topic and have for over twenty years.
Thanks for sending along your inquiry and blog discussion.
Floy
December 9th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Thanks Dave,
Looks like I have some reading to do
…
The big thing that strikes me right away is the comment “CO2 is essential for life. It is not a pollutant.” Both sentences are true, but they do not mention that too much CO2 in our atmosphere contributes to the Greenhouse Effect. Which, as I mentioned before is a scientific theory (again, just like Gravity).
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
I agree that the EPA has been releasing flawed science recently (by relying on non-scientific personnel), so it is certainly necessary to question their claims.
I have heard about rice paddies releasing methane. It is not being ignored. For example, NASA concluded a 20-year study of methane and the rice paddies and found that recent agricultural changes actually had a large impact on decreasing emissions.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2002/1204paddies.html
Give me a few days to catch up with the other articles… I would also like to learn more about Floy’s background.
December 10th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Just because they call it a theory doesn’t mean it is true. Anyway I thought it was called the law of gravity.
December 11th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
The law of gravity (published by Newton) is part of the general theory of relativity (published by Einstein).
The words theory and law actually mean the same thing. The word “law” has been replaced by “theory” in modern science. Both mean the same thing in the scientific community… if the theory of relativity was published in Newton’s time, then it would be called a law.
To reiterate again, the word theory in science is different. It means after billions of observations, no studies have shown any evidence to the contrary. Popular scientific theories are the law of the gravity, theory of relativity, the greenhouse effect, evolution, and quantum mechanics.
Sure, it doesn’t mean it’s 100% true. But it’s highly, highly unlikely it isn’t true.
http://www.notjustatheory.com/
December 11th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
I am sure you don’t actually mean billions of observations.
Didn’t Darwin say if you don’t find thousands of fossils of intermediate species that his theory if flawed? Meaning for instance an ape like creature slowly turning into a human.
What evidence is there that humans came from something else? I have seen several examples of animals that couldn’t have evolved from random processes.
December 11th, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Yep, I meant billions. Evolution is a science, exactly the same as quantum mechanics and relativity. I don’t know how I can say that any differently.
Sure, and we’ve had the evidence for a long time. The “nonexistence” of transitional fossils is one of the largest fallacies of creationism. You want a list of human evolutionary fossils? There are thousands. Here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils
I think this is paragraph should answer your question:
There are billions of observations of transitional fossils with other species. Just because one (or several) species does not have a transitional fossil does not disprove evolution. Instead, it could mean that the particular fossils simply don’t exist (fossilization never took place) or they haven’t been found yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
December 11th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
By the way, for any interested in “Climategate”, Factcheck.org did some investigations and found that there is only evidence for scientists talking “frankly” among themselves. There wasn’t any evidence-tampering. There are a couple investigations in progress, so maybe something else will turn up.
But, basically, “Climategate” doesn’t change the scientific consensus that climate change has been heavily influenced by the actions of man.
http://factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
December 13th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
I would like to preface this by saying I am not in this field of research (and I don’t think anyone that posts here is). I am obviously outnumbered on this blog regarding many of my beliefs. Personally, I am actually kind of confused why the scientific consensus does not hold any weight here. But, I guess that is understandable since there is a heavy media bias toward global warming skeptics.
Regardless, I just hope we all understand that we only have one planet. One chance.
—————-
Ok, back to recycling… I am going to be replying to Floy’s comments that Dave posted a few comments up.
I tracked down the reference for the “two-thirds of operating landfills don’t have liners” statistic. It is 13 years old, and I do understand all new dump liners are heavily regulated and we are replacing some of the old liners.
“Plastic Dump Liners Have Been Slow in Coming,” Wall Street Journal, November 14, 1996 at p. A4.
Regarding methane emissions from landfills, my source is the EPA, which I do acknowledge has some non-scientific personnel and has made mistakes (Note: Most of the global warming skeptics are entirely non-scientific).
http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html
The Global Warming Potential (GWP) number is from the IPCC, so if you don’t trust our world’s scientists, then this statistic probably doesn’t mean anything
Note that the IPCC does not do any of its own research. It is simply a panel that summarizes research that has been conducted all over the world, and then promotes actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_potential
As you can see, the GWP of methane is very high compared to other gases.
The energy creation projects derived from methane emissions from landfills is great–I didn’t know about that. Still, the article says that only 425 landfills are doing this, and only 60 sites will be added by 2012 (not sure how many landfills are in a “site”). The article also says a total of 1000 landfills could be doing this. That’s about 30% of our 3500+ landfills with the potential to do this. And, (doing the math) only about 12% of landfills currently have a methane-to-energy project. So, it’s a rather small number, but it’s a great program. Thanks to Floy for bringing it to my attention.
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/landfill-gas-energy-biogas.php
——–
Moving on to Floy’s articles…
I definitely notice a tone of distrust and even animosity toward the Obama administration. I am going to try to separate the facts from the filler…
First article:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/floy7.html
The cap and trade policies are not the answer, and I agree that it’s the wrong direction. The answer is for a tax on gases with high global warming potential (GWP).
The article goes on to talk about 5 people and a group called the SPII that don’t agree with the scientific consensus of man-made global warming. The SPII is sketchy at best, and doesn’t release their funding sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute
Now, the people, in order… note, all of these people are in the minority of the scientific community.
Freeman Dyson acknowledges that greenhouse gases cause global warming. He thinks we are better off spending our money elsewhere and is strongly criticized for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_Dyson
Antonino Zichichi is retired. Apparently a lot of other global warming deniers are retired:
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-retired-46011008
By the way, Floy’s article spelled his name wrong.
Richard Lindzen thrives on the attention from agreeing with the majority of scientists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen#Contrarianism
Ian Plimer has been challenged by the scientific community and he his science hasn’t held up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer#Climate_change_scepticism
A US Navy Physicist… he’s James A. Marusek. He’s retired.
These are the people that we should listen to? Really?
I’m going to continue replying in another comment…
December 13th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
2nd article:
http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/floy8.html
I’m kind of confused why I just read that.
This article talks about how we should be embracing nuclear power. I agree. I am in favor of it. Not sure why you guys think I’m against it. I have a feeling I am being stereotyped, but I’ll forgive and forget
Now, I should mention I don’t think we should give up on wind and solar. It is more expensive right now, but cost will only go down as the technology advances.
Next article:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lilley/floy13.1.html
By now, we’ve all heard that 2009 is the 5th hottest year on record:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/climate-2009-hottest-year-record/story?id=9283733
So much for that global cooling, eh?
Floy’s article talks about gaffes made by the United Nations Climate Change Science Compendium and a university.
The first gaffe was the UNCCSC using a graph from Wikipedia. The original graph in Wikipedia used the peer-reviewed research. There was embarrassment for citing Wikipedia, but the real issue was surrounding the research that created the hockey-stick graph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
The hockey stick nature of the graph (the large spike) is what was disputed. Scientists found the original research to create that graph was flawed. The reconstructed temperature graph was not as large of a spike, but still a spike.
The 2nd gaffe was committed in the 80s by the University of East Anglia… they essentially deleted original data to save disk space after adjusting the original data based on different variables.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece
Of course, they should have kept the original data. Back in the 80s though, nobody could have imagined how valuable that original data would be now. The original data, however, could be derived if we knew how the adjustments were made. I can’t find any discussion related to doing that…
However, the data, if it is incorrect, is not the only evidence for global temperature increase. As I mentioned before, the Greenhouse Effect is not disputed (it’s a scientific theory – http://www.notjustatheory.com), and we have been measuring the amount of greenhouse gases we release into the atmosphere.
Lastly, I was given a link to http://www.climatechangefraud.com/ but I can’t find any information about the authors of the site. They also don’t use references for their data. So, I can’t take that seriously. I did look at a couple of their introductory materials, and found they were sourcing a *surprise* retired NASA scientist.
December 13th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
I let Foly know you responded but I am not going to keep relaying messages back and forth.
I don’t want to add too much as to clutter the conversation.
I do believe that people should have the right to clean air. In other words what right does one person/company have to pollute their neighbors air?
I guess I am referring to toxins coming from factories etc. I don’t believe in global warming but I am very much against toxic chemicals. I guess I would be open to a fine or tax on toxic chemicals emitted.
I think we are in much greater danger of poisoning ourselves vs global warming.
December 13th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
That’s fine. We spin our tires quite a bit on this blog. At the very least, I can better comprehend some other viewpoints. Though, in a lot of cases, there seems to be a strange divergence from scientific consensus.
On an individual level, the dangers of chemicals and recent dietary transformations should be a greater concern. Cancer rates have skyrocketed and correlate with these changes. A lot of the changes needed to combat climat change need to made at the federal level. Some of the changes necessary on the individual level make financial sense (e.g. High-efficient windows).
December 17th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Andrew,
Just curious, suppose the theory was that man’s activities were causing global cooling… Would there be any difference in your stance?
I ask this because that was what I was assurred was happening when I was in my early teens.
December 18th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Hi Mark,
It depends if there was a scientific consensus or not. From what I’ve read, global cooling in the 70s never had significant scientific support. Therefore, I wouldn’t have believed it (if I was alive in the 70s), unless I was naive enough to believe the media.
December 24th, 2009 at 10:10 am
@Andrew
Andrew: “but it will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms.”
Well perhaps we can look at something other then fossils.
How, for example, would a giraffe evolve given the info they share in this short audio clip: http://cdn.answersingenesis.com/audio/answers-daily/volume-063/38.mp3
December 25th, 2009 at 8:40 am
First, Merry Christmas!
Second, the argument presented by Ken Ham is entirely non-scientific. He states that “it’s so obvious that the very first giraffes had to have these special features right from the beginning.”
The assumption here (again, non-scientific) assumes that the “special features” could not have evolved. Well, the features aren’t so special, since they are far from unique to giraffes. In addition, it’s not fair to assume that features evolve independently of one another. Multiple features can change at the same time via random mutations. Selective advantage ensures that the best random mutations are favored.
Back to the fossil record, I see that there are many creationists claiming that there are no fossils that show a mutation between a short neck and a long neck. That’s false.
December 27th, 2009 at 8:52 am
@Andrew
I know it is non-scientific. He does however make a logical argument.
So for this to work from an evolutionary standpoint the giraffe would have to develop all of these other special functions in order to not die when he goes for a drink. And all of these features just happen to evolve at the same time and just happen to compensate each other? How could this happen from random processes. How could evolution compensate for a future need?
The fact that this is not unique to giraffes, to me, just points to a common creator.
December 28th, 2009 at 11:55 am
The features evolved over at least 30 million years from the point where the a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giraffidae”>Giraffidae family evolved from a common ancestor to the deer. The earliest giraffid is the Climacoceras, which looks very similar to a deer. Today, there are only two giraffids left: the giraffe and the okapi. There are ten other families or giraffids (all extinct now) that thrived 20 million years ago.
Natural selection is the process that guides evolution and guided the creation of the giraffe’s neck from the aforementioned deer-like creature. Why the giraffe needed a neck is still debated among scientists, but the fact it evolved is not. Genetic mutations slowly altered (i.e. over 30 million years) the giraffe’s circulatory system as the length of the neck also was altered. For whatever reason, the giraffes that had the mutations were the fittest to reproduce. This could have been because the giraffes with shorter necks were not favored sexually, or they did not survive as well with respect to changes in their environment or climate.
Random mutations to the giraffe’s heart, rete mirabile, and skin in the lower legs were all favored along with the longer necks. Of course, some giraffes died young or had health issues. Evolution isn’t perfect. Case in point: birth defects in humans. Some random mutations just don’t work out for the best.
Note that all humans also have unique DNA. Children have a unique blend of genes from their parents. Humans have strong immune systems because stronger immune systems were favored in natural selection. Of course, we all have varying levels of immune systems, since evolution is an ongoing process.
I hope that explains why Ken Ham’s “logical argument” just isn’t very logical to me. But, I did learn quite a bit about giraffids through this
December 28th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
Andrew: “Random mutations to the giraffe’s heart, rete mirabile, and skin in the lower legs were all favored along with the longer necks.”
My question is. How could it be possible for all of these random mutations to happen at the same time?
Are not all of these necessary for survival given the example of the giraffe lowering his head and bringing it back up?
Also if they are random then what are the chances that mutations would even cooperate with each other?
To me these functions see much more intentional. I don’t see how random mutations could be this coordinated.
December 28th, 2009 at 5:42 pm
I understand your concern. Understand that it only takes one small random mutation to encourage the other ones. For example, maybe a giraffe with a slightly longer neck came first. The longer neck was favorable, so those genes were passed. But, the giraffes were lightheaded and it wasn’t until another random mutation with the beginnings of the rete mirabile that allowed the giraffe’s heart to work harder. Then, further mutations took place over millions of years.
(Note: that was just a crude example, and I don’t claim to be an expert on evolution and evolution of the giraffe).
Advantageous mutations are rare (and thus advantageous simultaneous mutations even rarer), but odds are greatly increased when there’s a large time frame. I can’t even comprehend how long 30 million years is. Can you? Homo Sapiens have only been around for 250,000 years. That’s 0.25 million years.
December 28th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
But according to the guy talking about the giraffe. They wouldn’t just be lightheaded, they would die. I don’t know for sure but that is what he is claiming.
I don’t see how a random mutation could encourage another one, especially a complimentary one. It just seems too impossible to just happen like this.
I think it is easier to believe in a God that created us. Even a God that has no beginning.
If I looked at things the way you do that would mean all the sophistication and complexity is from the extremely rare positive genetic mutations that just happen to compliment each other.
I don’t have enough faith to believe in that.
December 29th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
That can’t be. Hypertension is one of the most common genetic defects in humans. Some humans are taller than others. Some have shorter necks and some have longer necks.
I agree that it is certainly easier to believe in intelligent design, but it’s just not the case.
It’s a lot easier to believe that the universe is infinite (i.e. it’s always been here and always will be there). Even Einstein favored the belief that the universe is infinite, yet all of his theories favored a big bang and finite universe.
It’s also a lot easier to believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, which was the belief for most of mankind’s existence. The sun and the moon both move across the sky and it seems that they are rotating the Earth.
But, as we know now, it’s obvious that the Sun is the center of the solar system and neither are close to the center of the universe. We also have overwhelming evidence for the Big Bang and other scientific theories such as evolution, gravity, and the greenhouse effect.
January 1st, 2010 at 1:14 pm
Please read this post from Eric Drexler:
http://metamodern.com/2009/12/31/for-darwin%E2%80%99s-sake-reject-%E2%80%9Cdarwin-ism%E2%80%9D-and-other-pernicious-terms/