's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

Should daylight savings time move the calender back a month?(44 posts)

Should daylight savings time move the calender back a month?Mike P
Dec 15, 2001 10:18 AM
What's up with the weather??? I went on a ride this morning. When I left the house it was sunny and the temp was 55 or so. It's over 60 now.

Isn't it December 15th???

I'm not complaining, it's just a bit strange. I hope all you folks are experiencing the same lack of winter we are here in the SE.

thank SUV owners for this warming trend!slomo
Dec 15, 2001 1:49 PM
You're Welcome!!ACE-
Dec 15, 2001 3:12 PM
There are more SUV's in my town than you can shake a stick at. It's still COLD!! Maybe Santa will give you the gift of logic for Christmas (One can always hope).
Get realcyclaholic
Dec 15, 2001 7:08 PM
There is absolutely no question that our planet is in the midst of a serious temperature rise. While it would be absolutely impossible to prove that human activities have anything to do with it even if it were a direct cause, you cannot help but make the link between our incredibly heavy and mostly wasteful burning of hydrocarbon fuels and the warming of the climate.

My azaleas are blooming in the middle of December.

You guys can go ahead and keep sticking your head in the sand about the problems we're causing. You can continue to talk about how you love your country yet sanction the rape of our beautiful land due largely to a love affair with large polluting vehicles.

You can thump your chests and get bellicose and full of yourselves, but intelligent people know that the score is.
Get realSTEELYeyed
Dec 15, 2001 8:06 PM
I wish those people would have run those SUVs more last winter,it was one of the coldest I can remember,this year we are getting a nice repreive,I'm still racking up more miles on the road bike.......and less on the SUV.
Get realACE-
Dec 15, 2001 11:40 PM
You say it's impossible to prove but intelligent people know it's true. Hmm. You are way too smart for me.
Get realchops
Dec 16, 2001 7:38 AM
"sticking your heads in the sand..." you need to pull your head out of your ass. Is it possible that your whining could sound any more generic? You are not a unique little snowflake.
I am concerned about the azzaleas...vanzutas
Dec 16, 2001 8:30 AM
Have you taken any measures to protect your plants now that they are budding? once the real cold hits the plant could really be damaged if there are budds or flowers on it. This could really hurt the plant in the long term.

Get realSteve H
Dec 16, 2001 8:47 AM
On and on about flowers and hydrocarbons (whatever that is), but no mention of the actual score or even who's playing. What channel is it on?
go hug a tree!merckx56
Dec 16, 2001 9:12 AM
do a bit of research and you will find that cattle produce more methane than do automobiles. also, the volvo website states that the exhaust from their low-emissions vehicles is cleaner than the air it takes in to produce combustion.
put that in your pipe and smoke it. oh, i'm sorry, that might make it warmer. stop bitching and ride your bike. mother earth will get rid of us when she's good and ready!
Go get some relevant data?Kerry Irons
Dec 16, 2001 9:26 AM
Not to get in the middle of a very complicated issue, but it is CO2 from hydrocarbon combustion that is the potential guilty party in global warming, not the hydrocarbons in the exhaust. You can make a very clean burning car (or power plant) but it still produces CO2, a greenhouse gas. Humans produce it too - the byproduct of our digestion of carbohydrates, proteins and fats. You can have a very clean exhaust from any process, but removing CO2 from that process is a much more difficult challenge.

If you believe that CO2 is a/the cause of global warming, then energy efficiency in all aspects of human endeavor is required to deal with it. This takes all forms, including eating less meat (it is less energy efficient for us to eat meat than grains to get our energy), more efficient transportation (ride a bike?), more efficient electricity production and use, etc.
Go get some relevant data?duh
Dec 16, 2001 4:51 PM
So if we all stop eating meat and eat plants, which I believe consume CO2, won't we just be adding to the problem?!?
Good call Kerry...Leisure
Dec 17, 2001 2:34 AM
Being envirnmentally responsible is inevitable. The Earth's surface temperature is up what, three degrees over the last ten years? Seems perfectly tolerable, right? Some speculate that most of that can be attributed to combustion gases from 50-70 years ago (that have had the time to diffuse high enough into the upper atmosphere to make a difference). It's therefore possible that these warming trends could continue for the next half-century even if we stopped all fossil-fuel consumption tomorrow. The numbers may overestimate (which I do honestly hope), but the theory is sound. That's what I think isn't properly emphasized with global warming; the negative effects will not manifest until long after the gases have already entered the atmosphere, but will continue long after it ceases. The concept doesn't jive with first-world immediate gratification. And of course, there are the masses that continue to take the Reaganite "Gravity's only a theory" stance. there's a crackpot idea if ever there was one.
see previous postsee previous post
Dec 17, 2001 7:07 AM
i'm still waiting for my hug!

Love, Mr. Tree
Here you go and, I love you too.Leisure
Dec 18, 2001 12:13 AM
thanks!mr. red wood
Dec 19, 2001 6:54 AM
you, i will let breath!
The whole things a scam...........RaiderMike
Dec 16, 2001 10:05 PM
thought up by some Dope smoking enviromentalist, who was trying to justify his government job, so he wouldn't have to work for a living in the real world. Then the Media who is in the back pocket on enviromental groups jumps on the bandwagon, and tries to get the world whipped into a frenzy. Which they did a decent job of until the real intelligent people ( anyone smart enough to realize that it isnt getting any warmer )realized it was all bullsh!t. In the mean time the same hypocritical enviromentalists are sitting in their plush Old Growth Redwood sided houses, with a couple of SUV's in the driveway trying to figure out the next enviromental scam so they can continue to be a leach on the a$$ of society.
Can't argue with that kind of detailed factual analysismickey-mac
Dec 17, 2001 6:01 AM
However, just for my own information can you identify the names of some of these "dope smoking environmentalists" who fabricated global warming, "the media who is in the back pocket of the environmental groups" and ran with the fabricated story, and the "real intelligent people" who realized it was all BS?
yes as a matter of fact I can!RaiderMike
Dec 17, 2001 9:18 AM
1. There are hundreds of enviromental groups funded by taxpayers money doing research on Global warming, have any of them found any proof that it actually exists, heck no! But they have to keep that grant money rolling in so they fudge a little here and there, and what do you know we have an enviromental crisis on our hands.
2. CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX take your pick, they will cover anything to get more viewers, and what better way to get more viewers than to use scare tactics like "we are all going to burn up from Global warming if we keep driving cars" to scare people into watching
3. The intelligent people are the ones smart enough not to bite hook line and sinker on everything the media or even worse a group that is doing research on Global warming funded by a Government Grant that knows if they dont produce or make up some evidence that Global warming exists they will lose their precious grant therefore they will no longer eat out of the public trough, and will have to get real jobs ie. Mcdonalds. Let me give you an example, I am sitting in my living room right now looking out the window at one of the worst winters I have seen in years here on the Northern California Coast, and it has rained 21 days in a row, and the snow level is down to 2000 feet all around me? Now I dont claim to be the smartest person in the world but I do have a little bit of common sense that tells me that it is just as cold as it was 5 years ago. Its not rocket science it is common sense a quality that some people as smart as they may be are lacking.
Oh, I seemickey-mac
Dec 17, 2001 9:58 AM
I was looking for specific facts to support your claim that global warming is a fabrication. Instead you provide the following information: 1) there are many environmental groups; 2) a list of television news providers; and 3) a weather report from your house. I don't have a strong position on global warming because I don't have the facts. You have a strong position on global warming, but you don't seem to have the facts either.
Let me break out the crayons & explain it to you real slowRaiderMike
Dec 17, 2001 11:49 AM
What I stated is my opinion, if you dont like it tough sh1t. I am probably not what anyone would call an expert on the subject. All that I know is what I have observed, and I have given my opinion based on those observations. What I am trying to point out is dont believe something just because some enviromentalist, or scientist says its so, and for the love of God dont believe everything the media tells you. Now do you see?
Yeah -- now we see.Galibier
Dec 17, 2001 12:25 PM
You play with crayons.
Only when explaining to idiots! (nm)RaiderMike
Dec 17, 2001 6:06 PM
Right, I need crayonsmickey-mac
Dec 17, 2001 1:06 PM
Even if it is just an opinion (it wasn't expressed that way), most reasonable people have facts to support their opinions. The only "fact" you have cited is the perceived decrease in temperature

"What I am trying to point out is dont believe something just because some enviromentalist, or scientist says its so, and for the love of God dont believe everything the media tells you." Do you then choose the oppposite extreme and discount everything environmentalists, scientists, and the media tell you? I applaud healthy skepticism when it comes to the media, but rejecting out of hand everything you hear is probably not healthy.
I think David St. Hubbins said it best...gtx
Dec 17, 2001 1:43 PM
“I believe virtually everything I read, and I think that is what makes me more of a selective human, than someone who doesn't believe anything.”
Would you expect anything lessmickey-mac
Dec 17, 2001 2:12 PM
from a man who listens to the collected works of Louis Carroll Stevenson as read by McLean Stevenson?
for the 4th timeRaiderMike
Dec 17, 2001 6:18 PM
I didnt say dont believe anything, I said dont believe everything, that is where the common sense part comes in It is up to you sort through what is BS and what isnt. I am sure I could use my search engine, and find thousands of facts supporting, or opposing my opinion, but that is unnecessary if you're so worried about facts look them up yourself.
Thanks for being patient with the less intelligentmickey-mac
Dec 17, 2001 7:12 PM
and don't let those pesky facts get in the way of your strongly held opinions. Onward and upward!
Blind Men and the ElephantDog
Dec 17, 2001 6:08 AM
A number of disciples went to the Buddha and said, "Sir, there are living here in Savatthi many wandering hermits and scholars who indulge in constant dispute, some saying that the world is infinite and eternal and others that it is finite and not eternal, some saying that the soul dies with the body and others that it lives on forever, and so forth. What, Sir, would you say concerning them?"

The Buddha answered, "Once upon a time there was a certain raja who called to his servant and said, 'Come, good fellow, go and gather together in one place all the men of Savatthi who were born blind... and show them an elephant.' 'Very good, sire,' replied the servant, and he did as he was told. He said to the blind men assembled there, 'Here is an elephant,' and to one man he presented the head of the elephant, to another its ears, to another a tusk, to another the trunk, the foot, back, tail, and tuft of the tail, saying to each one that that was the elephant.

"When the blind men had felt the elephant, the raja went to each of them and said to each, 'Well, blind man, have you seen the elephant? Tell me, what sort of thing is an elephant?'

"Thereupon the men who were presented with the head answered, 'Sire, an elephant is like a pot.' And the men who had observed the ear replied, 'An elephant is like a winnowing basket.' Those who had been presented with a tusk said it was a ploughshare. Those who knew only the trunk said it was a plough; others said the body was a grainery; the foot, a pillar; the back, a mortar; the tail, a pestle, the tuft of the tail, a brush.

"Then they began to quarrel, shouting, 'Yes it is!' 'No, it is not!' 'An elephant is not that!' 'Yes, it's like that!' and so on, till they came to blows over the matter.

"Brethren, the raja was delighted with the scene.

"Just so are these preachers and scholars holding various views blind and unseeing.... In their ignorance they are by nature quarrelsome, wrangling, and disputatious, each maintaining reality is thus and thus."

Then the Exalted One rendered this meaning by uttering this verse of uplift,

O how they cling and wrangle, some who claim
For preacher and monk the honored name!
For, quarreling, each to his view they cling.
Such folk see only one side of a thing.

Jainism and Buddhism. Udana 68-69:
Parable of the Blind Men and the Elephant
Dec 17, 2001 6:12 AM
obviously too deep for youDog
Dec 17, 2001 6:37 AM
The point, mr. nm, is that you cannot describe, or refute, "global warming" by looking out the window, nor by looking at fluctuations over a few years. The Earth's geologic history fluctuates over thousands of years, and micro-changes occur that do not necessarily reflect a trend, especially a trend "caused" by man. Did man cause the last ice age or the warming trend after?

Reducing pollutants is a decent goal in itself. No need to resort to pseudo-science scare-mongering to promote that goal, IMO.

If you really want to reduce pollutants, by the way, get rid of all automobiles over 5 years old; get rid of stop and go traffic in cities; and develop practical, workable high speed electic passenger trains powered by nuclear energy. As far as I know, nuclear produces no CO2.

It would be wonderful, maybe even idyllic, if we all could ride bikes everywhere. Might be tough for me to get me, my assistant, and 14 boxes of documents to the courthouse on my bike, or for a mother to cart 10 bags of groceries and 2 children home on a bike. But, we can dream, can't we?

more drivel!nm
Dec 17, 2001 8:19 AM
14 boxes...mmmkay, what else? How many kids?Ahimsa
Dec 17, 2001 4:46 PM
Yep, that is a refrigerator. There are plenty of HPV's and trailers that dissipate any excuse. Just thought I'd mention it.


you winDog
Dec 17, 2001 5:07 PM
Well, I'm out done. Can't argue with that (except to say I'd be a sweaty, smelly pig by the time I got there!).

Eh...not out to "win".Ahimsa
Dec 17, 2001 5:19 PM
That's why I do not race. Just wanted to poke fun at ya. ( :

I've left this thread alone. Galibier summed it up for me save mentioning that the problem I have is with wastefulnees that promotes the suffering of others. Western habits tend to f*ck the world without a kiss first, y know?

SUVS suck because they are unnecessary and silly and wasteful. Simple really.

Trees and hugs? Meh. Nature will happily rejuvinate herself after we wipe ourselves out. The ecosystem works in geologic time and is accustomed to waiting.

BTW I dug the elephant rap. After all, the name is Ahimsa.


Voodoo sciencemr_spin
Dec 17, 2001 8:19 AM
Unless you have data on the warming and cooling patterns of earth for millions of years, you can't know if this is normal or the result of mankind's neglect. I agree that SUVs are very wasteful, but let's stop propagating uneducated guesses about our climate. Just because chicken little puts on a suit and does the morning shows doesn't make it true. Pulling all the SUVs off the road (which I personally would enjoy!) won't have any effect either.
sound like a post for theNON-CYCLING DISCUSSION
Dec 17, 2001 7:17 AM
Arrogant foolsGalibier
Dec 17, 2001 8:51 AM
Hundreds of scientists internationally have studied this issue for decades and, as a group, have uniformly concluded (1) the climate is rapidly warming and (2) the warming trend has at least been contributed to by human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuel. Arrogant fools may argue that each of these hundreds of scientists has a hidden agenda in favor of environmental responsibility, but the scientific community in general is not known to be particularly liberal. And what of the consequences of being wrong? If those who agree with the hundreds of scientists are wrong, the consequence is we have reduced the emission of pollutants. If the arrogant fools who disagree with the scientists are wrong, then they have contributed to a global environmental disaster. By the way, what exactly is the objection to attempting to address global warming? That it will cost our economy? This puerile and indefensible attitude overlooks the fact the environmental technologies add value to the economy. In fact, I challenge anyone to name any effort at reducing the emission of pollutants that has resulted in a net loss to the economy. Doubtless, none of this will persuade the arrogant fools who fervently believe they, as humans, have the right, in their greed and ignorance, to use and abuse the planet and its resources as they see fit.
not only arrogant but radically reckless..dotkaye
Dec 17, 2001 10:03 AM
environment, n: "the complex of physical, chemical, and biotic factors (as climate,
soil, and living things) that act upon an organism or an ecological
community and ultimately determine its form and survival"

Survival. Damage the environment enough = uninhabitable planet. Considering the consequences, simple self-interest should be enough to motivate taking GW seriously. But I guess it's just the tragedy of the commons again. Whatever happened to conservatism ?
One man's opinionAlex-in-Evanston
Dec 17, 2001 10:18 AM
I don't know what is more maddening - a collective denial that human activity is affecting our climate, or an acceptance of global warming but refusal to face the problem.

Soon, we will all have to decide what level of change we are willing to accept. If we are not willing to make sacrifices, be they in our personal life, our professional life, or with our vote, we will have to live with the consequences. One of those consequences is a much warmer planet.

We do not know how global warming will affect Earth's ecosystems, including those that we have created - our agricultural lands. We do not know how it will affect Earth's biodiversity. We do not know how it will affect us personally. I concede that scientific estimates in all of these areas are divided. What I will not concede is our right to ignore the potential of this problem.

It is unfair to blame SUV drivers. We are all to blame. In this day and age it would be virtually impossible to live a life that does not impact our environment. Our hope in alleviating the problem of global warming lies in examining which human activities affect it, and making those activities more personally expensive. There are plenty of alternative, lower-impact technologies for our major polluters. Unfortunately, they are marginalized by their high cost (a relative concept if there ever was one).

As I said above, we will have to decide if we are willing to pay the price for a stable environment. Personally, I cannot imagine a price to high for that goal.


an opposing viewDog
Dec 17, 2001 10:28 AM

just for discussion, may be worth considering

I can't tell you how much I wish that were true.Alex-in-Evanston
Dec 17, 2001 11:39 AM

You're a level-headed guy. I'm surprised to hear your flat denials of the possibility of global warming. Why are you so tied to this particular line of thought? Personally, I am firm in my opposing convictions because of my confidence in the supporting data - but - as you point out, there is data supporting your point of view as well.

Let me make one more point. I suspect that data denying global warming is generated by organizations with a vested interest. There are powerful industries with vast sums of money invested in existing power generation, transportation, and agricultural technologies. It is also my opinion that to fudge data on this issue to support your livelihood or your industry is tantamount to selling your soul (take this with a grain of salt, I'm not a religious man).

I'm familiar with your political beliefs. I don't know exactly what libertarian ideology is, but I think it wouldn't be a stretch to describe it as the belief that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else. I agree with that idea, but I think you and I differ in how broadly we would define "doesn't hurt anybody else".

I think you know where I'm going with this, so I won't blather on.

Anyway - happy holidays, and I hope you're right.


The motives of the view/site are a bit obvious, though...Leisure
Dec 18, 2001 2:29 AM
...which is inevitable on either side of debate.
The site correctly points out that the Earth's temperature hasn't changed much over the last century, but leaves out that it has increased about three degrees over the last decade (following a period of cooling), which comparatively speaking is 2-3 times more rapid than what we have seen in the past. It also misrepresents data by implying that 98% water versus 2% CO2 equates to water causing 98% of the greenhouse effect that we've seen, which is ridiculous on too many levels to count. There's a lot of stuff in the middle, some responsible, some not. It then goes on to claim economic apocalypse if we do anything to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Any guesses as to which petroleum conglomerate really created the site?
I love reading these threads.STEELYeyed
Dec 18, 2001 7:56 AM
The exchange of information is great,we will probably all be dead before anyone knows the answer to this question.
I try to be as socially,fiscally and environmentally responsible as I can be without being totally anal about it,I have great faith in the next generation to fix any mistakes I may have made,our children will have access to technology and information that we have never dreamed of. Since the death of my Grandfather in 1972,it is a different world,some things are better some things are worse,but we are still here,most of us trying to do the right thing guided by our religion and our world views..........and we struggle on.