Philips calls for a simple switch to reduce energy consumption

> IMO the GW activists are a con promoted by big business which hopes to profit
> from this GW scare.

While they are using that pointer in one hand, going all over the globe,
pointing out the 'clues' to further this stupid agenda, watch closely where the
other hand is. Usually, it's in your pocket.

'Why if we throw money at it, it'll go away!'

Then we'll end up with mercury reclamation programs because people won't pay to
throw them away. When you toss an incandescent, it get's ground up into sand and
a bit of aluminum. Toss one of these green bulbs and mercury is released that
can get into the water.

Bill,
You responded as if Ted was attacking greenies. Unless Exxon has joined the
green movement your interpretation of his post is incorrect.

Art


"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> "philthy" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>i was talking to a customer of mine friday and he works for exxon and we
>>>got talking global warming and how much crap is made from oil and one
>>>thing we agreed on in our talk was how no one is doing anything about
>>>asphalt usage and what it does to air temp. and ground water
>>>he tells me the exxon threw in some temp figures in a study they did on
>>>global warming in relation to asphalt verses concrete! concrete met
>>>ambient air temp 1.10 hours after sunset were asphalt did not for 4.4
>>>hours after sunset
>>>directly resulting in higher inner city temps by10 degrees on the average
>>>but it's funny u never hear of this in global warming propaganda
>>>
>>
>>
>> Um, note that the higher 10 degrees is also present in the winter. The
>> city also has buildings which reduce the cooling effect of high winds.
>> All of this helps reduce energy usage in people's furnaces in the winter.
>> Your people at Exxon didn't plug ALL of the side effects in to the model,
>> if they had done so they would have found that while the higher summer
>> temps might increase fuel usage for cooling they were offset by the
>> savings
>> in the winter.
>>
>> In addition, all the sun's energy would still be hitting the ground
>> whether
>> asphalt or concrete was present. That energy has to go somewhere. Since
>> concrete is lighter than asphalt more of the energy is reflected, that is
>> why concrete runs cooler. However, it's reflected as long waves to the
>> atmosphere
>> which are absorbed and so heats up the atmosphere. In other words net
>> energy input is still the same.
>>
>> Ted
>
> People don't like to hear that kind of stuff, Ted, because it doesn't add
> to the warming hysteria.
>
> What the greenies also ignore is that for every death on a given
> temperature increase from heat exposure, there is a net greater decrease
> in death from cold exposure (planetwide). But people only like to divulge
> information that supports their cause or the latest hysteria and
> ignore/hide facts that balance it out or even overwhelm it.
>
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')

As far as cow farts are concerned, I believe that the issue is that they
consist mostly of methane which contributes much more to global warming than
carbon dioxide.

The part of global warming that concerns me is the amount of vegetation
under the ice caps. Millions of years of dead vegetation has been kept
refrigerated by the ice caps. Once that begins to thaw and decompose
producing carbon dioxide, slowing down the natural production of carbon
dioxide will be pretty much impossible.


"Ted Mittelstaedt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "who" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >,
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I suspect the basic "global warming" thing is a cyclical situation for
>> > the planet.
>> Of course it is.
>> The Northern Hemisphere has been on a warming trend for over 10,000
>> yrs., with ups and downs. About 1,000 yrs ago NE Canada was warmer than
>> it is now. The Vikings knew that.
>> About 20,000 yrs ago Canada was almost totally covered with ice, which
>> extended down into the northern USA.
>> About 8,000 yrs ago Churchill. Ma emerged from the ice sheet. The land
>> at Churchill is rising in relation to the rising ocean about 1 meter per
>> 100 years, based on boat cleats in the shore rock from the 1770s.
>> The Canadian permafrost line still is far south of Churchill.
>>
>> Canada's Baffin Island in the far north had the climate of the Carolinas
>> not that long ago geologically; based on the remains of swamp cyprus
>> found there.
>>
>> >How much of what they're now charting is directly
>> > attributable to mankind is still debateable--to me.
>> That's the big question, but our ever increasing population of energy
>> users will have a impact. IMO we should minimize our impact.
>>
>> >Of course, we
>> > exhale "greenhouse gases" as a normal situation, not to forget about
>> > "methane" expulsion, too.
>> Cows are much worse than us.
>> Swamps are very bad. At some swamps you can see the methane bubbling up
>> to the surface. There is low delta land near my house where you can
>> smell the methane on a still summer night.
>> Swamps we need, but cows and people should be reduced to reduce
>> pollution. <
>>
>
> Swamps make methane from rotting plant material. Plants grow very
> well in swamps when lots of pollution comes into the swamp, carrying
> high mineral and chemical content.
>
> Keep in mind though you can almost completely dismiss all biological
> sources of carbon emissions. Where do cows get the carbon they emit
> in farts? From plants. Where do plants get it? From carbon dioxide in
> the air. It's a nice little cycle that doesen't put any more carbon into
> the atmosphere than what it takes out.
>
> The only real sources of carbon that we need to care about are
> those from oil and coal and natural gas. Because, what happened is
> that the carbon in those materials was put into them millions of
> years ago when the plants took it out of the atmosphere.
>
> What people who cite the existence of things like "ancient swamp
> cypress" as proof that the earth was warmer a long time ago don't
> seem to understand is that they are merely solidifying the proof of
> the global warming hypothesis, even then they think they are
> detracting from it. The reason is that the carbon we are worrying
> about putting into the atmosphere now from fossil fuels and such
> had to come from somewhere. Since those fuels came from plants
> the plants had to get it from somewhere. So they got it from the
> ancient atmospheres. What this proves is that if the earth was warmer
> in the past, as the detractors claim it was, then since all that extra
> carbon was present then, it is likely that it did in fact make the ancient
> earth warmer. As plant growth accellerated in the warmer periods it
> pulled that carbon out of the atmosphere, allowing the earth to cool
> to current temperatures. As carbon levels went down plant growth
> had less carbon dioxide and the earth got cooler and plant growth
> was then retarded.
>
> Ted
>
>