EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Air pollution is reducing mountain snowfall
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Air pollution is reducing mountain snowfall - Page 2

post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHyak
Its no soapbox, I just like a good discussion....no big deal.
Well sorry to dissapoint, but its not really a good discussion when someone refuses to look at the evidence, discounts people who disagree with him as "wackos", and has a sixth grade conception of science -- e.g. low overall concentrations = no big deal, no appreciation for critical thresholds in dynamic systems, incredible comments like "MAN can't change the environment" , and a general point of view that whoever talks loudest and with the least amount of respect for other points of view wins. IOTW, the Rush Limbaugh school of atmospheric studies, LOL.
post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodro
Well sorry to dissapoint, but its not really a good discussion when someone refuses to look at the evidence, discounts people who disagree with him as "wackos", and has a sixth grade conception of science -- e.g. low overall concentrations = no big deal, no appreciation for critical thresholds in dynamic systems, incredible comments like "MAN can't change the environment" , and a general point of view that whoever talks loudest and with the least amount of respect for other points of view wins. IOTW, the Rush Limbaugh school of atmospheric studies, LOL.
Because I don't agree with you I refuse to discuss? So, either I agree with you or I am intolerant? I look at evidence and I even produced some but YOU refuse to look at what I have said or produced...... I also explained very clearly who I consider a wacko and I would not change my mind about that either..... I have not once said anything about Limbaugh, though you are sure quick to jump to judgement. This discussion is going nowhere and most likely boring most readers here...I'd rather be boarding!
post #33 of 47
Mr Hyak
No one wants to sacrifice a human to save a cow, and no one wants to ban all automobiles. As several people in here have clearly pointed out, there is no arguing the fact that science has shown that mankind is having a detrimental effect on the atmosphere. As noted, while it is difficult to separate the damage caused by man from the natural cycle of atmospheric change, the degree to which man does cause that damage is a legitimate question. Discounting any debate on the subject as enviro-wacko political posturing is dishonest and unreasonable.
post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colossus178
Mr Hyak
No one wants to sacrifice a human to save a cow, and no one wants to ban all automobiles. As several people in here have clearly pointed out, there is no arguing the fact that science has shown that mankind is having a detrimental effect on the atmosphere. As noted, while it is difficult to separate the damage caused by man from the natural cycle of atmospheric change, the degree to which man does cause that damage is a legitimate question. Discounting any debate on the subject as enviro-wacko political posturing is dishonest and unreasonable.
But there is evidence to argue the fact....this is from the CATO institute...

-------
Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Whatever record is used, the largest portion of the warming of the second half of this century has mainly been confined to winter in the very coldest continental air masses of Siberia and northwestern North America, as predicted by basic greenhouse effect physics. The unpredictability of seasonal and annual temperatures has declined significantly. There has been no change in precipitation variability. In the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased.

Moreover, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below that of most climate-change scenarios because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation. The second most important human greenhouse enhancer -- methane -- is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years. And perhaps most important, the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated. Even global warming alarmists in the scientific establishment now say that the Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible impact on global climate.
-----------

The science that supports this 'global warming caused by man' stuff comes from the NPR types and the scientists who work for the left side of the fence and there are just as many scientists that will dispute thier claims. To have a true discussion you should actually read some of what I have put on the board and not just call me a Limbaugh robot....
post #35 of 47

Cigarette Science

Frankly there isn't much of debate in the scientific community about the presence of global warming, and the impact that human activity has had on globabl climate. The few who still persist in questioning whether global warming exists are as marginalized as the cigarette scientists who persisted in maintaining (largely at the behest of the tobacco companies) that smoking had no impact upon human health.

There is still debate regarding the extent and timetable for globabl climate change, and the effects that this change will have upon human (and other) populations. Will the impact be catastrophic or just darned unpleasant? Will we begin to see major impacts in 15 years or in 50? Those tend to be the matters still up for discussion.

Organizations (like the Cato Institute, or the American Enterprise Institute) that have a knee-jerk free enterprise, non-interventionist, economic agenda are scarcely disinterested parties in this debate. Neither are the strong environmentalist organizations like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. Scientific personnel who work for governments (of a wide variety of ideological stripes), or segments of the economy who specialize in evaluating long term consequences and risks like the insurance industry are less likely to be swayed by ideological preconceptions, and these are the organizations that accept global warming as a fact and suggest that we should start doing something about it PDQ.

As for us skiers, take a look at some of the medium and long term projections for the viability of resorts in places like the Alps. In the grand scheme of things, whether the season is shortened by six or eight weeks may not be as major a consequence of global warming as the numerous other impacts we are likely to see, but it does hit fairly close to our hearts. And if we delay taking action on this issue, the cost in personal inconvenience and lifestyle is likely to increase. I picture mother nature in the modern equivalent of the fram oil filter commercial saying: "You can pay me now, or pay me later!"
post #36 of 47
Its frankly austonding to me that there is still this much ignorance out there. And yea, I can blame Rush Limbaugh and his thoughtless minions as otherwise why do I hear the _exact same_ hackeyed put-downs and ridiculous arguments from folks on the right? Yea, ..ahem.. all those "NPR types" at Business Week and the Wall Street Journal not to mention every major group of scientists who actually study these effects on our side and you've got a think-tank funded by big industry and big-oil which actually disputes your argument in any case -- even they say that man has had an effect on the environment which you dispute, citing no evidence. So which is it? (BTW, you can tell that that article is total polemics from this one statement: "even global warming alarmists in the scientific establishment now say that the Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible impact on global climate." There was never a claim that the initial Kyoto enforcement would have such an impact in the first place! What you are reading isn't science, its a cynically worded policy position paper paid for in full by interested parties.)

You got to think for yourself, and it might have to start with turning off the radio, or at least the AM side of it.
post #37 of 47

Cato Institute -Libertarian Public Policy org

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHyak
But there is evidence to argue the fact....this is from the CATO institute...

-------
Observed global warming remains far below the amount predicted by computer models that served as the basis for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Whatever record is used, the largest portion of the warming of the second half of this century has mainly been confined to winter in the very coldest continental air masses of Siberia and northwestern North America, as predicted by basic greenhouse effect physics. The unpredictability of seasonal and annual temperatures has declined significantly. There has been no change in precipitation variability. In the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased.

Moreover, carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below that of most climate-change scenarios because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation. The second most important human greenhouse enhancer -- methane -- is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years. And perhaps most important, the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated. Even global warming alarmists in the scientific establishment now say that the Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible impact on global climate.
-----------

The science that supports this 'global warming caused by man' stuff comes from the NPR types and the scientists who work for the left side of the fence and there are just as many scientists that will dispute thier claims. To have a true discussion you should actually read some of what I have put on the board and not just call me a Limbaugh robot....
Amazing. The Cato Institute is a Libertarian public policy organization....NOT a scientific group. They are highly biased and politicized. The discussion was not about the merits of the Kyoto Treaty which is well intended but bs.

Why does everything today seem to come back to an argument centered on politics instead of considerate debate about something other than political ideology?

Try to express your own common sense thoughts and don't insult the rest of the forum by quoting such a ridiculous source trying to find "evidence" to support their ideology.

Also, scientists reflect all the political shades...not just republican and democrat. That is a fact. Political parties should be taking their policy direction from good science, not from some standard ideological bs. If the evidence shows that everything is OK....then that is the end of it. But it shows the opposite. I will remain open minded as new data supports revised projections.
post #38 of 47
Yeah, keep your crack pot ideas to yourself. This forum is about skiing. Don't worry, global warming and pollution could never effect the enviroment or ski conditions.
post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsimeral
Amazing. The Cato Institute is a Libertarian public policy organization....NOT a scientific group. They are highly biased and politicized. The discussion was not about the merits of the Kyoto Treaty which is well intended but bs.

Why does everything today seem to come back to an argument centered on politics instead of considerate debate about something other than political ideology?

Try to express your own common sense thoughts and don't insult the rest of the forum by quoting such a ridiculous source trying to find "evidence" to support their ideology.

Also, scientists reflect all the political shades...not just republican and democrat. That is a fact. Political parties should be taking their policy direction from good science, not from some standard ideological bs. If the evidence shows that everything is OK....then that is the end of it. But it shows the opposite. I will remain open minded as new data supports revised projections.
Its interesting how you call CATO political, but Greenpeace and Sierra Club (two very skier unfriendly groups) are fair and balanced. I think both you and hyak have good points, but I would sure not base anything on the extreme views of Greenpeace. I don't care much for the Sierra Club because of their anti-skier movements in the ski areas I frequent and they are very political.
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricT
Its interesting how you call CATO political, but Greenpeace and Sierra Club (two very skier unfriendly groups) are fair and balanced.
Hmmm...where did anyone say that? Did I miss it? In fact didn't someone just say the opposite?
post #41 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by gnjantzie
Organizations (like the Cato Institute, or the American Enterprise Institute) that have a knee-jerk free enterprise, non-interventionist, economic agenda are scarcely disinterested parties in this debate. Neither are the strong environmentalist organizations like the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. Scientific personnel who work for governments (of a wide variety of ideological stripes), or segments of the economy who specialize in evaluating long term consequences and risks like the insurance industry are less likely to be swayed by ideological preconceptions, and these are the organizations that accept global warming as a fact and suggest that we should start doing something about it PDQ.
I think his reply was aimed at this guy, not you Lodro. I don't put much stock in Green Peace myself, but Sierra Club I guess I don't know enough about them to make a decision.
post #42 of 47

Sierra Club vs Greenpeace

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHyak
I think his reply was aimed at this guy, not you Lodro. I don't put much stock in Green Peace myself, but Sierra Club I guess I don't know enough about them to make a decision.
Both are environmental organizations but the Sierra Club is mainstream and very responsible. There was a big battle this year by a more militant group to take it over but they lost the elections fortunately. The SC is not run by unreasonable people and is very respectable.

Greenpeace is much more radical and while some of their issues are good some are very extreme even for environmentalists like myself I would not associate myself with them and they deserve criticism for some of the extreme and violent tactics they have used.

2 other responsible ones are The Nature Conservancy and The Wilderness Society.
post #43 of 47

All organizations are political

Quote:
Originally Posted by EricT
Its interesting how you call CATO political, but Greenpeace and Sierra Club (two very skier unfriendly groups) are fair and balanced. I think both you and hyak have good points, but I would sure not base anything on the extreme views of Greenpeace. I don't care much for the Sierra Club because of their anti-skier movements in the ski areas I frequent and they are very political.
Forget Greenpeace...see my earlier post.

I am somewhat conflicted on The Sierra Club when it comes to skiing but they are not against it. They do make it difficult to build a new area or expand though. Right now there are enough ski areas...a lot of the oppostion comes from the uncontrolled development around them. I skied Vail when it first opened....look at Vail Valley now.

Even as an avid skier there has to be a balance.
post #44 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrHyak
I think his reply was aimed at this guy, not you Lodro. I don't put much stock in Green Peace myself, but Sierra Club I guess I don't know enough about them to make a decision.
Thanks, got that. btw, I don't mean that people have to agree with me, just to look at a lot of different sources in a neutral way and then maybe form an opinion. Personally I have read the kind of stuff you mention and a lot from the very few serious climate-change naysayers that are left -- because honestly I'd feel more comfortable if it wasn't true. Selfishly, I'd like my children and grand-children to be able to enjoy the same mountains I have. But if things keep going on the course set by the present administration (and frankly, perhaps even if they don't) that probably won't happen..
post #45 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsimeral
Greenpeace is much more radical and while some of their issues are good some are very extreme even for environmentalists like myself I would not associate myself with them and they deserve criticism for some of the extreme and violent tactics they have used.
I would agree that they were radical and a bit extreme, but not violent as far as I know.. Are you thinking of EarthFirst?
post #46 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsimeral
Right now there are enough ski areas...a lot of the oppostion comes from the uncontrolled development around them. I skied Vail when it first opened....look at Vail Valley now.

Even as an avid skier there has to be a balance.
Agreed. I don't want to get too far off topic here, but the interests of most of the Ski companies (with exceptions) are not aligned with the interests of skiers, especially serious skiers, as we've discussed here before. Typically they want to sell condos and slopeside mansions, and they have less of an interest in just skiing for its own sake. In that context environmental advocacy can have a very postive effect on people who ski for the pure enjoyment of it. Personally, I think the role of groups like "Save our Canyons" in protecting Big and Little Cottonwood has been by far a net benefit to skiers.
post #47 of 47

Greenpeace has a history of violence

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lodro
I would agree that they were radical and a bit extreme, but not violent as far as I know.. Are you thinking of EarthFirst?
Greenpeace has a history of some dangerous (maybe violent was the wrong word) confrontations on the high seas and elsewhere. Don't remember the specifics right now but a google search would find them.

Their intent is good but they go over the line even for an old environmentalist. There has to be a balance in everything.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Air pollution is reducing mountain snowfall