A Credible Global warming Scientist!

[charlz]

So what motives would you ascribe to folks who fight against environmental issues?

Maybe that people have a right to exist and use resources? Out West here we constantly fight against environmental groups trying to 'save nature' by getting any public land declared Wilderness. Once land is declared Wilderness you can walk there and that is about it, not even bicycles are allowed. Even if they can't get it declared Wilderness they push 'roadless' initiatives to close the forest roads so even if you get to the forest you can't really do anything except along the periphery. Their goal is to 'restore' the 'wilderness' and keep it healthy by limiting human use of it, ideally to zero.

 

[bstrom]

The cost of fossil fuel energy, once demand begins to exceed supply will drive the switch to efficient use and switch to cleaner technologies. It's already happening. The costs associated with oil drilling and production in politically and geologically difficult areas are and will be passed on to consumers and that's what will make people change. Doesn't matter if you believe we are causing global warming or what your political affiliations are. The change is coming whether you like it or not.

 

[brin]

The cost of fossil fuel energy, once demand begins to exceed supply will drive the switch to efficient use and switch to cleaner technologies. It's already happening. The costs associated with oil drilling and production in politically and geologically difficult areas are and will be passed on to consumers and that's what will make people change. Doesn't matter if you believe we are causing global warming or what your political affiliations are. The change is coming whether you like it or not.

If you do some research you will discover that we have vast oil deposits right here in the US - both on shore and off shore but the government and environmentalists block every attempt to drill. Oil could be had here so cheap that the cost of gasoline at the refinery would be about 25 cents a gallon. I do not have the time to post all the links here but the information is available to you if you care to search for it.

 

[bstrom]

If you do some research you will discover that we have vast oil deposits right here in the US - both on shore and off shore but the government and environmentalists block every attempt to drill. Oil could be had here so cheap that the cost of gasoline at the refinery would be about 25 cents a gallon. I do not have the time to post all the links here but the information is available to you if you care to search for it.

The government is blocking it? Seen the news lately? We are basically finding out that the government regulatory agency has been in bed with the oil companies in the Gulf for years with serious lapses in safety regulations and inspections. I'm supposed to ignore that information?

Anyway you can find just as much evidence out there to contradict what you are saying about oil. I think we are seeing the costs of extracting oil from deep water offshore wells right now. But again people can just believe what they want to believe, what ever works for them.

 

[dcyrilc]

Maybe that people have a right to exist and use resources? Out West here we constantly fight against environmental groups trying to 'save nature' by getting any public land declared Wilderness. Once land is declared Wilderness you can walk there and that is about it, not even bicycles are allowed. Even if they can't get it declared Wilderness they push 'roadless' initiatives to close the forest roads so even if you get to the forest you can't really do anything except along the periphery. Their goal is to 'restore' the 'wilderness' and keep it healthy by limiting human use of it, ideally to zero.

The other thing we fight here in Washington, is having our land declared as Wetlands and being made to where you cannot use it for any purpose. Years back, when I had to hire a wetlands biologist to fight this, the biologist told me that by legal definition, 95% of Western Washington qualified as wetlands. When we tried to put a house on our 17acre farm, the county told us that we could only put a house on it if we tore out the farm and put 16.5acres in Native Growth Protection, never to be touched, and could use 1/2acre for a house. To me, this seems quite excessive. If they had asked for a half acre or acre, I could have lived with that, but 16.5 was not acceptable.

One of the neighbors wanted to put up an $8K prefab storage shelter for his boat and the county requirements would have taken 1/2 of his back yard and cost him an extra $35K in changes to his property. Needless to say, he never put in the structure.

 

[brin]

dcyrilc ---That is Government gone mad ! It is out of control. So the government reallly owns our property and we just pay rent in the form of property ---?

 

[dcyrilc]

The cost of fossil fuel energy, once demand begins to exceed supply will drive the switch to efficient use and switch to cleaner technologies. It's already happening. The costs associated with oil drilling and production in politically and geologically difficult areas are and will be passed on to consumers and that's what will make people change. Doesn't matter if you believe we are causing global warming or what your political affiliations are. The change is coming whether you like it or not.

Well put. I look forward to the days of clean energy, but am concerned about the cost. Here, utilities (water, power, etc.) are manditory. Without them your house will be condemned as uninhabitable. New forms of energy which are so expensive that peoples houses are condemned because they can't afford to keep the lights on is not acceptable either.

A few weeks ago, we visited Grand Coulee Dam here in Washington. They claim to produce 15% of all the electricity used in the United States. They provide major flood control, provide irrigation for a vast portion of Eastern Washington crop lands, and produce no toxic polutents. There is large push to have all the dams removed from the rivers for the sake of conservation. The impacts of flooding and loss of cropland would be tremendous. Not to mention the additional polution from the coal or gas fired plants which would need to be built to replace them. Last year, or the year before, Washington tried to pass laws to require electric companies to have somewhere around 15% of their power be from clean/renewable sources. Hydro-electric power was not listed as a clean/renewable source of energy. Probably, because most of the power in Washington is already produced from hydro-electric.

 

[Chuck52]

I support expanding our nuclear power generation. With modern designs, the waste can be minimized and contained. Unfortunately, there are opponents of nuclear power on both sides of the Great Divide.

Chuck

 

[dcyrilc]

I support expanding our nuclear power generation. With modern designs, the waste can be minimized and contained. Unfortunately, there are opponents of nuclear power on both sides of the Great Divide.

Chuck

I've often wondered why the sun could not be used for disposal of nuclear waste. Maybe the quantities are too great?

 

[rekees4300]

Three Mile Island pretty much killed new nuclear plants in this country. Far as I know, the meltdown threat still exists. No one has yet figured out a fail-safe way of stopping it once it starts.

 

[charlz]

Three Mile Island pretty much killed new nuclear plants in this country. Far as I know, the meltdown threat still exists. No one has yet figured out a fail-safe way of stopping it once it starts.

I believe 'Pebble Bed' reactors solve the melt down issue but IIRC the technology is not quite there and is still in development/testing.

Pebble Bed reactors don't solve the problem of what to do with the waste though.

 

[dcyrilc]

I believe 'Pebble Bed' reactors solve the melt down issue but IIRC the technology is not quite there and is still in development/testing.

Pebble Bed reactors don't solve the problem of what to do with the waste though.

OK, I've got to ask...what is IIRC?

 

[charlz]

OK, I've got to ask...what is IIRC?

If I Recall Correctly (IIRC)

 

[dcyrilc]

If I Recall Correctly (IIRC)

Thanks

 

[Patriotic Stabilist]

All I know is my garden is about toast. All those beautiful tomatoes, doesn't matter if they are touching anything they are rotting.

It's been in the 90's for a month, then in the 70's at night, death to tomatoes and 100 degrees again today, everything is dying out there.

I may get a picking of beans yet, a few onions to pull and hope there are some potatoes under those 5 hills, some carrots a few bell peppers left. But everything else is going to be tilled up shortly. So sad. I may try to pick the green tomatoes and can them, we like them fried but even they are starting to rot.

Every spring its getting hotter and hotter sooner. Pretty soon I guess I will need to forget a garden, to much work to lose it so soon.

And it appears something is getting my oranges, it was loaded and the peaches aren't ripening.

 

[dcyrilc]

All I know is my garden is about toast. All those beautiful tomatoes, doesn't matter if they are touching anything they are rotting.

It's been in the 90's for a month, then in the 70's at night, death to tomatoes and 100 degrees again today, everything is dying out there.

I may get a picking of beans yet, a few onions to pull and hope there are some potatoes under those 5 hills, some carrots a few bell peppers left. But everything else is going to be tilled up shortly. So sad. I may try to pick the green tomatoes and can them, we like them fried but even they are starting to rot.

Every spring its getting hotter and hotter sooner. Pretty soon I guess I will need to forget a garden, to much work to lose it so soon.

And it appears something is getting my oranges, it was loaded and the peaches aren't ripening.

Don't feel too bad. All our stuff is either freezing or drowning. We had warmer and dryer weather in January & February than we had the whole month of May.:confused2:

 

[charlz]

Don't feel too bad. All our stuff is either freezing or drowning. We had warmer and dryer weather in January & February than we had the whole month of May.:confused2:

Yep, I will be lucky to get a garden at all with this cold and wet. Every time the weather forecast starts to look up they suddenly change a sunny day to a cold rainy one

 

[dave1949]

Maybe that people have a right to exist and use resources? Out West here we constantly fight against environmental groups trying to 'save nature' by getting any public land declared Wilderness. Once land is declared Wilderness you can walk there and that is about it, not even bicycles are allowed. Even if they can't get it declared Wilderness they push 'roadless' initiatives to close the forest roads so even if you get to the forest you can't really do anything except along the periphery. Their goal is to 'restore' the 'wilderness' and keep it healthy by limiting human use of it, ideally to zero.

There is no doubt, the NW has some land use issues. You have lots of public/federal lands. 'Federal' doesn't mean the land is just there to do whatever with. As far as forest land goes, I have noticed that 'good' logging practices, as employed around here, result in zero mature forests - the timber may be market mature, but the forest is still ecologically young. I am not sure I disagree with effectively limiting access to walking. Never having lived in that area, I freely admit I don't have much insight into the issues.

I need to deal with a minor land use issue myself. An ATV rider took it upon themselves to go off trail and cruise around in my beaver meadow. No real damage done, but not the place to be riding an ATV. There are only about half a dozen people who use that trail which crosses through our property. I have always told folks they are welcome to pass through, don't leave any messes behind.

So, one uneducated person, probably a youngster, out of six people. What happens when you open forest lands to thousands of ATV riders? 10% to 20% of those riders not following the guidelines is all it would take to cause serious damage.

There is no perfect set of people, meaning there will always be those who think the rules are for the rest of the world. The other 80% to 90% have always been penalized for the actions of a few, starting when you couldn't go out to recess because little Johnny was talking in class.

In general, regarding people's right to exist, or as Kevin put it, 'live the way I want' is a red herring. No one is challenging people's right to exist, they are pushing back on how people use the land and water resources. You are well able to exist without driving around in the forest. Is it more important to be able to drive through the forest than to preserve habitat? Do you feel you have a special right to public land because you live near it?

If what a person wishes to do is damaging, it often is damaging for many. Why should a person be allowed to do something that degrades the environment for all in the name of 'living the way I want'? That makes no sense.
Dave.

 

[dcyrilc]

In general, regarding people's right to exist, or as Kevin put it, 'live the way I want' is a red herring. No one is challenging people's right to exist, they are pushing back on how people use the land and water resources. You are well able to exist without driving around in the forest. Is it more important to be able to drive through the forest than to preserve habitat? Do you feel you have a special right to public land because you live near it?

If what a person wishes to do is damaging, it often is damaging for many. Why should a person be allowed to do something that degrades the environment for all in the name of 'living the way I want'? That makes no sense.
Dave.

My complaint has to do with private land, not public. If they want to preserve the forests, I'll miss going camping, but I can live with that. When they want to preserve my land that I paid for and pay taxes on and forbid me access, that's a whole different story.

Imagine having a detached garage and having storm damage to the garage. Imagine going to get a permit to repair the garage and being told that you will have to tear down your house, have a major portion of your yard converted back to native habitat, and put that portion of your yard into a protected status in order to get the permit. I've seen one example that extreme.:confused2: Today they don't have a garage because they weren't willing to give up their house to repair the garage.

Some of the stuff I've seen around here you will not believe unless you experiance it first hand. It's absolutely rediculess.

 

[charlz]

I am not sure I disagree with effectively limiting access to walking. Never having lived in that area, I freely admit I don't have much insight into the issues.

Well, when you take a few million acres and close off all access except by foot and horse back (which they are also trying to prohibit) you are effectively making it zero access. Who does that benefit?

I need to deal with a minor land use issue myself. An ATV rider took it upon themselves to go off trail and cruise around in my beaver meadow. No real damage done, but not the place to be riding an ATV. There are only about half a dozen people who use that trail which crosses through our property. I have always told folks they are welcome to pass through, don't leave any messes behind.

So, one uneducated person, probably a youngster, out of six people. What happens when you open forest lands to thousands of ATV riders? 10% to 20% of those riders not following the guidelines is all it would take to cause serious damage.

There is no perfect set of people, meaning there will always be those who think the rules are for the rest of the world. The other 80% to 90% have always been penalized for the actions of a few, starting when you couldn't go out to recess because little Johnny was talking in class.

The funny thing is locking up the land and throwing away the key won't stop those people.

In general, regarding people's right to exist, or as Kevin put it, 'live the way I want' is a red herring. No one is challenging people's right to exist, they are pushing back on how people use the land and water resources.

I disagree I think people are challenging peoples right to exist. When a local environmental activist told me the only way to save nature is to "remove man's influence from the land" I read that one way and one way only.

There are also examples of 'some one' setting booby traps etc. on riding trails on public land. People have nearly been decapitated by piano wire, run through by strategically placed lances etc.

You are well able to exist without driving around in the forest.

Not really, I'd be hard pressed to move around in the state without cross some National Forest somewhere. The same Forests they want to designate as wilderness.

Is it more important to be able to drive through the forest than to preserve habitat? Do you feel you have a special right to public land because you live near it?

It is still habitat even if I drive into it and take my kids fishing. The land is not being devalued nor is wildlife being displaced by my presence.

If what a person wishes to do is damaging, it often is damaging for many. Why should a person be allowed to do something that degrades the environment for all in the name of 'living the way I want'? That makes no sense.

We are not talking about damaging the land. We are talking about hunting, fishing, camping etc.

Public lands are supposed to be managed FOR the people, not FROM the people. Simply closing land and not allowing access is NOT management.