The Environment: Is it really that bad?

original source for (steward quote obove is BBC.CNN)and the free press

 

BBC cites the Herald report?

Where?

 

its no secret ,turn on the tube for 10 minutes.I dont feel like spoon feeding data.

 

Can't find the full text anywhere online. Apparently the Calgary Herald, from which the quote was taken, does not have an online archive. A public library microfiche catalog might be a source.

During the search, I turned this up:

http://www.worldthreats.com/general_information/Agenda of the Activists.htm

Trying to assert that environmentalist's motives are always pure and that they would never lie about the science to get their way is like saying that the 'National Security' nut cases never lie either. I think It's a turning point in your own political maturity when you realize that the party/group/philosophy that you personally prefer is just as full of lies and deception as the opposition. It's sad but true.

Jimbo

 

jimbo ,there are extremist in everything,,but we should all be enviornmentalist, without it what else is there? what is there to lie about?whaling and commercialfishing are real issiues,,so is pollution of our seas and land ,,I dont fancy meyself as an enviornmentalist ,,or steward of the land,,I try to do my part,,when I was a fisherman ,,I killed many tonnes of fish ,,,,to feed people . but always left stock for later.today we are depleting the last stocks of fish in the world at cost rica and tailand and se asia,,, really dont know were your coming from or if you have a boat or are into boats ,,,but from your post man,,Im not seeing it,,,longliner

 

There is no source on that quote because it's a fabrication

You cited some "fun facts" on co2.
Perhaps you could help me out.

This whole carbon cycle thing...

Could you tell me what the net gain of atmospheric co2 is in the absence of human activity? Say pre 1000 ad. Also, what is the net gain now? Is the increase measurable? Could you say put a % gain on the human activity caused co2 in the atmosphere?
Aren't there some other things which cause energy absorption in the atmosphere??
Steamfreak mentioned cfc's:
"We've banned substances like CFCs and Halon because they damage the ozone... well that's a nice thought and all but your avg volcano puffing the ole cigar spits out more CFCs than every can ever made"

Funny how I thought cfc's were synthetic... Volcano's? Aren't cfc's concidered to hold energy in the atmosphere as well?

I know there is so much disinformation put out by the conspiracy. Hard to tell who to believe isn't it?

 

jimbo and bntii,,,,,once again I ziged when I sholuld have zaged,,,,I thought you two were basically calling me a liar,,,,,,about the Icelandic whaling,,,which infact you were engaged with someone else!please exept my apoloy,,,longliner

 

As half Norwegian and half Icelandic i am of course "pro whaling" as long as it's not any danger of extinction. That goes for moose, deer, seal, panda, elephant and gorillas too.

It's typical Norwegian to think that we should hunt the moose but Africans should let the elephants ruin their crops and basically keep all of Africa as a natural park. I disagree

 

no harm done longliner

I saw the lay of the land

 

kinda funny you should mention CFCs... a simple 5 sec search and read yields this article http://www.c3.org/chlorine_knowledge_center/bbc7.html

I'm still reading through all of it but as I keep telling everybody else, the information is there... Find something to show this might be wrong.. or if it goes unanswered, then we'll accept it as fact. Its that simple.

And there's another 742,000 returns to read...

from Google..

 

In addition to my above... I've found these hits on the quote by the Minister of the Environment of Canada placing her comments sometime in 1997-1998
Just search "Christine" on any of these pages

http://tvnewslies.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3504&sid=4afe97b612e3f3a8d60015bdf439e9de
http://uk.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=484929&page=3
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/lav2006forWeb.pdf

This page places her comments on Dec 14, 1998 in the Calgary Herald
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/international-politics/47566-global-warming-debate-over.html

Here's another page citing the same day
http://www.abd.org.uk/blair.htm

Who can find a copy of this day's Calgary Herald and lay this quote to rest? You have a specific day and no other proposed days show up in my searches, which have taken me 17 mins.... that should be good enough.

 

bntii:

Most, if not all of your questions are answered in a post to another thread. To keep from re-posting it, I refer you to the post here:

http://www.boatdesign.net/forums/showpost.php?p=110611&postcount=172

On the CFC thing, this comment about volcanos and CFC seems to be a half-literate attempt at explaining the disparities in the observed halogen gases in the atmosphere compared with known releases. It is true that CFC's are 100% synthetic in origin. But one must remember that CFC's are not harmful to the ozone layer or anything else. No one ever said they were. What is harmful if free halogen gases. For a long time it was believed that CFC's were so stable that they NEVER degraded once released into the atmosphere, thus releasing their constituent halogen gases. Now that is not believe to be the case. Now it is believed (and there is still some controversy here) that bombardment with high energy solar radiation (just which component thereof another controversy, UV the likely culprit)such as occurs only at very high altitudes, causes these otherwise very stable molecules to break down and release those nasty halogens.

But even this now widely accepted scientific dogma has its detractors who point out its flaws (my hero Lomborg agrees with the majority on this one ). First, the whole thing is kind of a solution looking for a problem, if you know what I mean. Scientists figured out that halogens could rejoin monatomic oxygen (ozone) back into it's more usual form, the diatomic O2 molecule. This then fell to earth depleting the ozone layer. No one really knew if this had been happening for years, decades, centuries or eons. Nobody knew. It was known that humans had been producing CFC's since the 1940's. But nobody could figure out if or how they were breaking down as they are so stable. Of course the industries producing the CFC's said emphatically "They Are Safe", but that was pretty predictable. So some scientists working on experiments in a lab to attempt to get certain CFC's to break down into their constituents by bombarding them with different radiative energies, supposedly mimicing high-altitude solar radiation. Lo and behold, yes! CFC's can break down under certain conditions!

But at this point in the research and for many years later, it was assumed that there were no natural sources of halogen gases that could account for the amounts of these gases observed though atmospheric monitoring and extrapolation. So the assumption was that human activity MUST be the culprit. The lab work simply 'proves' it! Despite the niggling little problems (like more halogens present than could possibly be accounted for by tabulating known releases), this has become the accepted explanation.

Then along comes those pesky volcanologists, studying those darn volcanos, now saying that volcanos release thousands of tons when they blow ther stacks! Nevermind, the CFC/ozone depletion explanation is accepted, the legislatures have spoken, anyway we like the old science better than the new

Jimbo

 

raggi

I totally respect your opinion,, here in Ohio were I live we have a similar problem with deer,,,,too many ,,more people are getting killed from deer with auto accidents,,,,now there is more deer than when the Adeana Indians walked the earth.,,Its all a matter of prospective...I just think it will take more time to bring the whales back to thier normal population,,which in return should help equal a healthier fish population ,,,,,,but I dont know all the facts about whale populations thanks for your reply,,,,,,,longliner

 

Boats boats boats......

been really busy

"not serious about anything and has nothing to offer"

Ha! Someone is having a bad day

 

raggi is there really that much demand for whales? and what are they used for?