or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Global Warming (Sorry Couldn't Help Myself)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Global Warming (Sorry Couldn't Help Myself) - Page 3

post #61 of 75
Boy! We sure can rewrite history to fit our agenda! Cause of WWII was WWI and the Versailles treaty.
Trey- My old 83 Chevy passed DEQ last year and will this year. I still have the papers with hte read outs. DEQ sniffed my exhaust pipe. Dang thing passes even today's standards. Hmm... the cat is still working! Still uses less than a quart of oil per 3k miles. Clean machine! But then I often drive behind cars and trucks that cloud my view of the road with blue smoke. how do they get to stay on the road? I don't know.

There have been so many times in the past when large chunks of ice melted. Where one melts, somewhere in the world another is freezing, but we aren't told about that. We conveniently forget about that ship recently that got caught in the ice which had to be rescued down south!

how about the quick freezing and melting of Lake Mizzoola (sp) many thousands of years ago? It happened many times. The resulting floods caused the erossion of a weak point in the Cascade mts.a thousand miles away. This punched a hole in the Cascades which later became a passage way for the Columbia River through the gorge. I.E. It happened before and it will happen again, this rapid warming and cooling. That's Ma Nature for ya! The only thing constant is change itself. We don't like change. When it happens, we whine and want to quickly find a cause. We don't like lingering, open-ended questions. It's human nature. When we can't readily find an answer, we often invent one to satisfy our inquisitivness. This begets old wives' tales, superstitions, urban legends, and quantum leaps of logic to questionable conclusions. But then, few reads these words. We doggedly hang on to the beliefs from those who 'sound' like they are knowledgable. The same ones who said we were headed for a cooling period, or a drought period. They were wrong in the 70's, the 80's, now they changed their tune. And we're supposed to believe them now?

I found the article I refered to recently, but I'll post that another time, in part.
post #62 of 75
I think you may have mis-read Matteo's post. I think he meant this:

Originally posted by M@tteo:
Oil was the cause. As it was the cause of WWII being fought on the Lybia/Egypt sands, Axis forces were trying to reach the Saudi and Iraqui oil fields...And Egypt was in the way.
When I first read his post I thought it said...

Oil was the cause. As it was the cause of WWII.

post #63 of 75
I agree about the Mexicans. I don't normally drink American wine, I prefer Cote du Rhone!
Well, I'd pay extra for electricity if it was generated by renewable resources (wind/waves/sun) rather than nuclear or fossil fuels.
I'd pay for energy efficiencies for travel.
I'd pay extra for recycleable goods, rather than building up waste.
I won't pay for governments to claim to be concerned about the environment, but to be more concerned about the money they get from non-renewable energy companies.
And I won't pay for people to say "you all hate us, so we won't play"

post #64 of 75
I just re-read the review on Bjon Lomborg's book. He points out more lies told to us. 2/3 of the world's forests have disappeared. The true figue is 20%. Environmentalists have poured over his book, trying to find errors and facts to refute. They haven't been successful.

This is just a small excerpt from that review. Here I am, relatively concervative, in agreement with a left-winger! Global warming is a reality, and inevitable. But maybe not a bad thing. Some adjusting will be neccessary. And it's the right thing to do to clean things up. I held this belief before I ever heard of Lomborg.

Measuring the Real State Of the World
By Bjorn Lomborg
Cambridge Univ. 515 pp. $69.95; paperback, $27.95
In 1997, Lomborg -- a self-described left-winger and former Greenpeace member -- came across an article in Wired magazine about Julian Simon, a University of Maryland economist. Simon claimed that the "litany" of the Green movement -- its fears about overpopulation, animal species dying by the hour, deforestation -- was hysterical nonsense, and that the quality of life on the planet was radically improving. Lomborg was shocked by this, and he returned to Denmark to set about doing the research that would refute Simon.
In every one of his claims, Simon was correct.[] The factual foundation on which the environmental doomsayers stood was deeply flawed: exaggeration, prevarications, white lies and even convenient typographical errors had been absorbed unchallenged into the folklore of environmental disaster scenarios. Lomborg still feels at one with the basic sentiments that underlie the Green movement: that we should strive toward a cleaner, healthier world for everyone, including animals.

But, I guess I'm wrong.
post #65 of 75
Originally posted by M@tteo:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jyarddog:
Trey said it well! Balance.
Saddam invaded Kuwait. We stopped him. Added benefit was oil. What's wrong with that? There are always those who will find or invent something wrong in any noble act.
jyarddog, I disagree with you.
Oil was not an "Added benefit"
Oil was the cause. As it was the cause of WWII
being fought on the Lybia/Egypt sands, Axis forces were trying to reach the Saudi and Iraq[]i oil fields...And Egypt was in the way.
Because of OIL Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Because of OIL we (yes, Italy did send our 8 Tornadoes 8...)had to stop it.
Human rights were an "added benefits"
Environment was the loser of that war.
</font>[/quote]Sorry M@tteo, I have to disagree with you about the Axis invasion of Africa. The Italians invaded Africa for land and only to a small degree the potential for oil access. These territorial wars had been part of European history for generations. The Italians were not militarily competent to take the land they wanted, and Il Duce was forced to beg Adolph to come to his rescue. Adolph did send some troops to Africa, but his heart was not in this invasion. Why? He did not believe he needed oil as much as the German people need Leibschrung or living space. The living space they needed was to the East, Russia. The Adolph never dedicated sufficient troops to Africa and foolishly invaded Russia directly through the Easter Front. The winning strategy was to invade Africa and take the lands to the East through Egypt, Palestine, Iraq, and into the Russian Caucasus Mountains. The Russians had no effective way of defending this area from the North. Once taken the Russians would have lost their oil regions and within a few months would have been petrol starved and ready for invasion. Yes, the Germans wanted the Caucasus for oil but they wanted it as much to deny the Russians oil. Remember the Germans had the Ploesti oil fields in Rumania.

Oil was not THE reason for invasion, although it was A reason for invasion, albeit a less significant reason, same with the Gulf war. The US was not primarily interested in oil in the Gulf war. If we were, we would have been better off supporting Saddam. By doing so we could have continued our longstanding and good relationship with Iraq. Iraq would have been somewhat impoverished by the war and the loot stolen would not have compensated for the costs. The US could have continued to buy oil for preferential rates. But now that oil would come from Iraqi and Kuwaiti supplies.

No, The US chose to attack Iraq because the invasion destabilized an already unstable part of the world. Our failure to intervene could have resulted in a long drawn out war between many or all parties in the region. Such a war would have likely curtailed or eliminated oil exports from some of the suppliers for extended periods of time. This was an outcome the world did not need, and which could have been economically devastating for years or decades. This kind of cataclysm and economic collapse is hard to imagine but still remains a possibility.

So, while oil was a reason for invasion and removal of Iraq from Kuwait, it was not the direct reason. It seems like splitting hairs but the distinctions are critical.

I don’t understand how the environment was the looser of that war. Was this because Saddam released oil into the Gulf and burned the oil wells, or for some other reason?

Below I requote myself (like all lawyers I love to hear myself talk). We are apparently ending about 10,000 years of extraordinary climatic stability. Is it really a surprise that such unprecedented stability would end? Or that human action would have some role in the overall environment? But, to jump to the conclusion that humans caused the environmental changes is beyond the pale. Also, the idea that we can somehow change what is happening is a fantasy. There is no science anywhere that indicates such change is possible. We know so little about climatic change that taking action now is like placing Neanderthal man in a car zooming down a street and expecting him to take appropriate action to stop the car and prevent a collision. It is more likely he will do something that will cause a greater injury than lesser.

Lets take the time to figure out what is happening, evaluate human involvement in what is happening, and, if available, apply reasonable corrections to what is happening. It seem better to act reasonably and responsibly rather than just blindly letting a bunch of Neanderthals stomp on the gas and spin the wheel turning the car into the school bus full of children (remember the experts don’t know what they are doing so whatever it is they are doing is a wing and a prayer). Lets take the time to understand the problem. A few years or even decades, if necessary, won’t cause melt down after all and taking action for actions sake seems to always result in the wrong action.

Originally posted by Maddog1959:
For the past 10,000 years we have been in one of the most climatically stable periods in all of history. Temperatures have fluctuated only a few degrees during the past 10,000 years. Prior to that time the global temps fluctuated by many degrees sometimes within just a few hundred years. See, http://unfccc.int/resource/iuckit/fact08.html

There is no doubt that humans have returned massive amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, but there is no real way to determine whether this carbon is the cause of the currently perceived warming. It could be a return to the more normal fluctuating cycles the Earth experienced prior to the last ice age. Or, maybe not... This is a great scientific puzzle, but I question whether it is yet ready for primetime debate regarding the human causes of the “problem”.
post #66 of 75
The Dog yields to Maddog. Well stated! Many times mankind has tried to erradicate a pest by introducing a new preditor to control that pest only to end up with a new pest. Ref: Hawaii; Austrailia, and elsewhere I presume. What we try to do with global warming might turn out the same way. I am hoping that our efforts will only give us cleaner air, which is fine with me. But we cannot and should not go overboard. Example: It was suggested to recycle old toothbrushes which could be made into furniture insteadof using wood. However these would be sent, the US post office would have to handle them somewhere along the line. Think of the cost, the polution caused in fabricating furniture, et al from plastic toothbrushes.

Instead I think I'll just take my old toothbrush and scrub down a melting iceberg so the oceans will be cleaner. OK... just being silly.
post #67 of 75
Jyarddog wrote:
Boy! We sure can rewrite history to fit our agenda! Cause of WWII was WWI and the Versailles treaty.

Sorry Jyardog, do I rewite history or
do you read my post the way you want?
I DO elaborate with my brain upon every information which is fed to it (namely I've maybe read too many books).
Following Fox post, I do agree, those lines, if not read carefully, cold be misleading (or my English grammar is poor, you choose).
But what you read into my post goe nowhere near what I've written,
I HAVEN'T written that WWII was fought ONLY for oil.
Of course WWII is a direct consequence of WWI, and here too we cold discuss for centuries.
I wrote:
"Oil...As it was the cause of WWII
being fought on the Lybia/Egypt sands, Axis forces were trying to reach the Saudi and Iraqui oil fields...And Egypt was in the way.
Had you read that carefully...you would have understood, like Fox.
Maddog, again:
Lybia was taken from the Turkish Empire in 1911
(by means of war)
It was needed to "avoid" poeple emigrating in places like the U.S.A Canada etc.
A poor Nation, and a too recently formed, like Italy, couldn't fford to compete with world powers like The British Empire, The French etc.
So we had to settle down for what was left of Africa (BTW, Italy tried to conquer Ethiopia before 1936, see 26 January 1887 the Battle of Dogali, our "little big horn", for example).
The Irony of that is that Lybia *is* ripe with oil, but we did not know, or did not care to exploit it!
You disagree with my reading of History? Fine, you're entitled to your idea, like I'm entitled to mine.
Whereas you may be right in that the Italians were merely fighting the WWII desert war like WWI
was fought, the Germans (namely Rommel and his superiors) saw beyond the mere conquer of Egypt, per se. What the Axis needed most was oil, natural resources.

I do not want to hijack this thread on Global Warming with a discussion about History, but I needed to reply to you Jyarddog and Maddog1959, so if you like, we could discuss all this (peacefully) via PM or mail, what do you think?
Otherwise I'll let the matter drop.

About global warming, I know that an episode like a little glacier on the Matterhorn melting down and forming a lake that it's menacing a little village like Macugnaga is insignificant, in the big picture. Hell, to say that there's a trend ongoing, it not enough an individual (like me) lifespan, or even generations but, these are sign that something it's not right.
If I were to tell you that my father and grandfather remember times when (as kids) the snow was falling in November, in our little village, and melting late March-early April, and that now, my kids rarely see snow (mayde a day or two in the whole winter), what would you tell me? Of course my father could tell me stories, I could lie here, right. To what purpouse?
The earth *is* warming.
Wherther this is part of a natural cycle or caused by us, is to be seen. Again, since I'm entitled to my own idea, I think that it is partly our fault (not totally) and partly natural.

Out, Matteo.

[ July 05, 2002, 05:09 AM: Message edited by: M@tteo ]
post #68 of 75
Maddog1959 wrote:
I don’t understand how the environment was the looser of that war. Was this because Saddam released oil into the Gulf and burned the oil wells, or for some other reason?

Yes, that's what I meant. Of course I was not referring to Global nvironment, only to the Gulf local environment. But don't you think that that is enough?
post #69 of 75
Originally posted by M@tteo:
//..Today while driving to work I heard on the radio
that the glacier above Macugnaga is melting, and has formed a lake , whose waters are menacing to flood the village.
I've never heard of a glacier melting so fast and
in such a way to form a lake, just because of the heat!
Sorry to hear that, if it's true.
I grew up in Canada, not too far from Glacier National Park. The park has not been able to open all year because of the massive amounts of snow from this season. Last week, they were finally able to cut through enough snow to open the roads and the park - it's latest opening ever.
Within the last five years, Alyeska, Alaska; Thomsen's Pass, Chugach; Timberline, Oregon; Kirkwood, California; and Mt. Baker, Wash; have all had over 1,000 inches of annual snowfall - some of these areas broke all-time records.
This miniscule, geologically insignificant pinpoint of time we are currently calling a "global warming" has produced some very epic skiing in locations that have been personally very rewarding to me.
No complaints here. [img]smile.gif[/img]
post #70 of 75
M@tteo- I did read your post, perhaps too quickly. Thank you for the correction. I erroneously jumped to conclusions that this was just another rant that the US enters wars or engages its foreign policy for the sole purpose or main purpose to gain or protect oil reserves. I stand as corrected. Thank you.

It may not be a bad thing to swing this toward history and away from this global warming thing. Global warming may be occurring. Human or the natural order of things is the question. I lean toward the latter. Nevertheless, I also contend that it surely doesn't hurt for us to clean up our room in the meantime.

I love history. it teaches us who we were, who we are now, and trends as to who we may become. Two items which I think are not clearly taught very well are: 1) the transition period after Cleopatra's Egypt to the present, and 2) transition period from the fall of the Roman Empire to the formation of Italy. Those are two whopping big chucks of time, true, but interesting study in the transformation or development of nations. BTW- Slatz is due in town in about 9 minutes. We may be able to do some runs later, next week. I'll say hi to him for you. My skis are hungry. I need to feed them some snow.
post #71 of 75
Cold: You lucky... !
The world is round, better snow seasonds will come back here too (at least I hope)

Jyarddog, please beleive me, I never meant to rant at the US, nor to scold anyone.
There are times where things need to be done, and hard decisions to be taken.

I do love history too, and exactely for the same reasons you list!
I hope we can discuss it more, in the future!
Say hello to SLATZ, from me and A.!
Hey! Do a couple of runs for us too!
I hope you'll feed your skis well!
Enjoy, Matteo.
post #72 of 75
We can all agree on one thing at least: we need to be at these places!!!

Within the last five years, Alyeska, Alaska; Thomsen's Pass, Chugach; Timberline, Oregon; Kirkwood, California; and Mt. Baker, Wash; have all had over 1,000 inches of annual snowfall -
post #73 of 75
Slatz got in Friday AM. They are starting work already! He'll get up with me in about a week when they have a break. The first day or two in the AM they will start off with some free skiing. But it's not really free... He's still working with them kids.

Now... if I can just keep my mind off of history I won't crash and burn in the bumps! But, alas, not a whole heck of a lot of bumps at T-line. i need to work on them.

You got that right, Trey!

How did this all get started? Well, according to JYD, there was this really loud noise and everything flew all over the place. Then the Earth formed and cooled and little guys called aomeba and such started crawling around. Then came the dinosaurs; but the got too big, fat, and lazy and died off. Along came Man. he decided it was pretty cool to go beat the snot out of himself and others. Then they figured out how to join together into groups. They called these groups 'nations'. (Love these spur of the moment names!) [Forget city states... suburbanite nations]. Soon they invented better tools to beat each other up with. Thomas E. invented something with which man could go around and see wat the heck he was doing to himself. ..... Didn't help. Along came Albert who said, "Everything is relative, my son!" And he invented, or helped to devise the theory of something that could really make a loud noise (not as loud as the first one long time ago, but loud nonetheless). Man used it to beat the snot out of himself again. Alex B. and E. (?) Marconi fixed up some things with which man could talk things over before he beat himself up, but no one listened. Orvill and Wilbur made this contraption which could flap around in the sky like the birds, but man again.... oh well, you know.

I wonder if someone will try to make a weapon out of a ski. Maybe not. We already beat ourselves up with those. I heard about a $100k was spent testing Frisbees as a weapon... and failed. But then, that could be just an urban legend.

And that's history, folks!

Finally figured it out... Global warming is caused by a secret group who hate skiers; so they are warming up the Earth to melt all the snow. Maybe they just hate snow... because they can't drive in it.
post #74 of 75
Nice summary of "A Brief History of Time"
Two names to add to your list is Robert Oppenhiemer.
And a lady called Enola Gay, whose grandson was a pilot.

Skis as weapons? Well, if you've watched some of the Bond movies, you'll know from TSWLM that you can fire bullets from your ski poles, and in OHMSS and FYEO a ski swung correctly can be a very effective weapon.

post #75 of 75
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 › Global Warming (Sorry Couldn't Help Myself)