Loc: Pinellas Park, Florida
Yep! CFLs all around here, AC set at 78 degrees or above for the duration of summer (when we have to heat during our so called winter, it's 68 or less), driving only for essential purposes, reusable shopping bags. If lots of folks do little, simple things, the cumulative effect is large.<br><br>
Speaking of reusable shopping bags I have come up with an ingenious way to keep from forgetting the dang bags in the car. I thought I had this whipped but I still continue to forget them. I convinced my store to put a large flashing sign (LED of course) which says, "Hey Idiot, did you leave your bags in the car?"<br><br>Actually they didn't go with the blinky lights so I am still forgetting my bags but I can see that it might work eventually.<br><br><br><br><br><br>
Ultimately, I have to agree with Sarge. The real problem is overpopulation. And that doesn't just apply to China (where they are doing something about it) or India (where they are not), but here in North America, where politicians are still mouthing the old truism that more people equals more prosperity. Even here in Canada, I believe we are overpopulated. Not, of course if you simply take the area of the country and divide by the number of people. But a vast amount of the place is uninhabitable or not viable for farming, not to mention the huge area that simply doesn't belong to us (it belongs to the aboriginal peoples). We should not be letting third world nations off the hook on this issue simply because we feel guilty about their poverty, nor should we refrain from self-examination in the matter, notwithstanding the bleating of lunatic religious types. Our poor old planet is not built to sustain six or seven billion squirming human parasites.<br><br>[color:blue]Laz, OFI[/i]<br></font color=blue>[color:green]<br>Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.<br>
Wrong!!!!! The system has NEVER EVER been in delicate balance. The earth's climatic changes have been in a state of ups and downs since its creation. We still don't have answers why the earth has gone through so many heating and cooling periods, some of them so dramatic that the landscape and the seas have been permanently changed. Technological mankind is a mere blip on the radar screen. A thousand years ago the earth was much much warmer then it suddenly reversed to a cooling trend. Now we have gone up and starting to go down. Up and down like a yoyo.<br><br>Ma Nature does what she wants and the forces of the universe are beyond our control. Mankind assumes we are some kind of controlling gods. It's the height of conceit that somehow we are more special than the dinosaurs. We will surly die off someday just as they did. It's inevitable that somewhere along the line there will be some catastrophic event that will change the course of earth's history. At best we may contribute to climatic changes by a few thousand years through increased CO2 output. <br><br>My trip to Hawaii changed my outlook on mankind's place in the world forever. Pele knows. Nothing in my 56 years ever effected me so profoundly.<br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr><p>Ma Nature does what she wants and the forces of the universe are beyond our control. Mankind assumes we are some kind of controlling gods. It's the height of conceit that somehow we are more special than the dinosaurs.<p><hr></blockquote><p>That pretty much sums up my thoughts on it. We give ourselves too much credit at being able to affect such drastic climatic swings. Yes we can pollute a lake, or make the skies grey in a small area, or overfish an area, bring a species to extinction, but as far as climate goes to think we can control the enormous force that is Mother Nature is quite conceited. People have no idea of the power if they think so. We've been trying to make it rain for years, and talk of taming Hurricanes is hilarious, people don't realize all the forces at work.<br><br>------>#1 - JD's Trivia game<br><br>------>#2 - MM-MCF Trivia game
Loc: Pinellas Park, Florida
It's the height of conceit that somehow we are more special than the dinosaurs.<br><br>Except there is measurable evidence that the changes have been significantly accelerated since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. We're spewing more crap into the environment than Mother Nature can filter out. <br><br>
There is, after all, a difference between controlling the weather (which we can't do) and sending it out of control (which we are doing). And just because the system fluctuates somewhat does not mean that it is not in balance, just that its normal cycles may be longer or shorter than we can measure. As far as science knows, the disappearing Greenland and Antarctic ice caps are by no means part of any "normal" cycle.<br><br>Laz, OFI[/i][color:green]<br>Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read. — Groucho </font color=green>
There is also evidence that where the dinos seem perfectly happy being on carp's swimsuit, we wouldn't be. By that I mean that we can foresee, dinos couldn't, and that makes a heck of a difference.<br><br>One of the things we can foresee is that the ecological balance is pretty finely tuned, so that what might be a relatively trivial change can have dire consequences. It's like the joke film where the car is hanging over the lip of the ferry boat, and a pelican lands on the car's hood and tips it over into the sea. The planet's like the car, and we're the pelican.<br><br>Now, I mightf agree that the extinction of humans is no more significant than the extinction of dinos. Except that I'm a human, and so is my wife and my son and, if there come to be such things, my grandchildren. On the whole, I'm inordinately attached to the folks who are living and would be to the ones who might be living in the future. I don't want them extinct. Hell, I don't want tigers or polar bears extinct, and am terribly sorry that so many critters are needlessly extinct because of human action. Passenger pigeons come to mind. It'd be neat to see the flocks of pigeons that are described in historical records, but they were just destroyed because humans love to shoot at things. And here we are, setting up circumstances for the extinction of all those creatures along with us.<br><br>[color:red]</font color=red> [color:orange]</font color=orange> [color:yellow]</font color=yellow> [color:green]</font color=green> [color:blue]</font color=blue> [color:purple]</font color=purple>
_________________________ MACTECHubi dolor ibi digitus
You nailed it. "As far as science knows". <br><br>I maintain we know little or nothing. You're going to try and say there has always been ice caps? There has never been melting? or freezing?<br><br>How do you suppose old wooden sailing ships sailed through the Northwest Passage when up until a few years ago it was not passible without specially built ice breakers?<br><br>The less dense an area of ice is, the faster it melts. That's a fact. I'm not all surprised to see an escalation of melting in the Arctic.<br><br>The Antarctic is a whole other story.<br><br>Antarctic wiki<br><br>Satellite Record<br><br>In contrast to work done since the last period where cooling was topical, the 1970's, satellite imagery has not conclusively verified the cryosphere is warming. On the contrary, the slow accumulation of ice around the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station appears indicative, at least for Antarctica, about what is generally occurring. The global satellite record since 1979 shows a constant area of ice until the mid 90's where a slow decline starts until a sharp drop in 2006 and 2007, but then a sharp correction above the average area in late 2007 and 2008. Further examination shows most of this variation is in the Arctic for global ice area and the Antarctic ice area has been trending up slowly since the satellite record starts. This has been confirmed in recent observations of the Earth's rotation speeding up which can only be explained by a growing concentration of mass at the poles.<br>Primarily, what the satellite record shows is Antarctica, given its size and being surrounded by oceans is relatively stable while the Arctic ice area varies wildly. Prior to 1910, anecdotal evidence from ships logs showed the minimum ice pack in the Arctic in 2007 was a more common occurrence. <br><br><br>
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.