Printable View
well, as a highly trained scientist, would one rather work at a government job paying ~80k/yr, or an industrial job paying 100+k/year? I think that also suggests that perhaps the best trained scientists are not really on the project? :icon_razz:Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
Really? I have seen many NOAA listings for highly trained scientists and such in excess of 100K. Plus their benefits like health, dental, matching 401K contribution, vacation time, etc.. are really tough to beat.Quote:
Originally Posted by randerizer
But hey, who am I to argue with a highly trained scientist. Especially one who finds the time to post 15 posts a day. Your job must not be very challenging?
Perhaps if you spent as much time actually reading and researching what other highly trained scientists have found regarding this subject....
I believe Randy is "at work" more than most of us on the board (at least twice as much as some of us), but has some down time to post.Quote:
Originally Posted by altadawg
No kidding. I'm at the office running experiments, etc. for 90-100 hrs a week. But there are hands off moments when I'm free to post, as there is not quite enough experimental workspace to keep me away from my computer all day.Quote:
Originally Posted by Guisslapp
LOOK OVER THE DESCRIPTIONS OF THE FOLLOWING TWO HOUSES AND SEE IF YOU CAN TELL WHICH BELONGS TO AN ENVIRONMENTALIST.
HOUSE # 1:
A 20-room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a
pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house all heated by gas. In ONE
MONTH ALONE this mansion consumes more energy than the average American
household in an ENTIRE YEAR. The average bill for electricity and natural gas
runs over $2,400.00 per month. In natural gas alone (which last time we checked
was a fossil fuel), this property consumes more than 20 times the national
average for an American home. This house is not in a northern or Midwestern
"snow belt," either. It's in the South.
HOUSE # 2:
Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university, this
house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide.
The house contains only 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on arid
high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds
geothermal heat pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the
ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in winter and cools
it in summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas, and
it consumes 25% of the electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling
system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon
underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into
underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then
irrigates the land surrounding the house. Flowers and shrubs native to the area
blend the property into the surrounding rural landscape.
HOUSE # 1 (20 room energy guzzling mansion) is outside of Nashville, Tennessee.
It is the abode of that renowned environmentalist (and filmmaker) Al Gore.
HOUSE # 2 (model eco-friendly house) is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas. Also
known as "the Texas White House," it is the private residence of the President
of the United States, George W. Bush.
So whose house is gentler on the environment? Yet another story you WON'T hear
on CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, MSNBC or read about in the New York Times or the
Washington Post. Indeed, for Mr. Gore, it's truly "an inconvenient truth."
So the purpose of the movie was to raise money to pay for his utility bill?
Of course Gore wouldn't take personal responsiblity, blame the corporations!Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
April 2, 2007
Justices Rule Against White House on Emissions
By DAVID STOUT
WASHINGTON, April 2 — The Supreme Court ruled today, in what amounts to a rebuke of the Bush administration, that the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate carbon dioxide from automobile emissions, and that it has shirked its duty in not doing so.
In a 5-to-4 decision, the court found that the Clean Air Act expressly authorizes the E.P.A. to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, contrary to the E.P.A.’s contention, and that if the agency still insists that it does not want to regulate those emissions, it must give better reasons than the “laundry list” of invalid considerations it has offered so far.
Today’s decision is surely not the last word in the continuing debate over the effects of global warming and what can, or should, be done about it. But it was still highly significant in at least two respects.
First, the majority brushed aside the Bush administration’s assertion that the Clean Air Act does not treat carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases as “pollutants,” and thus does not give the E.P.A. the authority to regulate them.
Secondly, the five justices declared that contrary to the administration, Massachusetts and the 11 other states and various other plaintiffs that sued the E.P.A. do indeed have legal standing to pursue their suit. In order to establish standing, a federal court plaintiff must show that there is an injury that can be traced to the defendant’s behavior, and that the injury will be relieved by the action the lawsuit seeks.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/02/wa...gewanted=print
“It’s an historic moment when the Supreme Court has to step in to protect the environment from the Bush administration.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken_Horndawgs
I agree, Al should tear down that 20 room mansion and build a very energy efficient 20 room mansion. :icon_roll:
I wonder where GWB got on that money to build his super-duper Crawford Ranch "House"?:icon_wink:
I've said it, DD has sait it. If you want people to change, you have to lead by example. The most outspoken prophets (or is that profits) for global climate change prevention are only good examples of hypocrisy. That means something to me. If your only defense is that Al Gore already has the house and George W. has enough money to build an energy efficient house, then your argument is self-defeating. George W. used to live in a much larger house and Al Gore can afford a more energy efficient one.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
duckbill, your reasoning is faulty. Al Gore is just one person, a very rich politician. Most environmentists who support global warming try to reduce their emissions of CO2. I know I do. I live in a passive solar house and drive cars that get good mpg.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
So saying that because one very rich person (environmentalist?) who spends a lot of money on energy somehow makes the message of global warming invalid or the people who support it hypocrites is not valid.
It's like saying GWB is an environmentalist because his ranch is energy efficient. and nothing could be further from the truth!!
You miss everything here.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
a) Al Gore is not "(environmentalist?)" he is the most outspoken (or at least most heard) environmentalist in the country. Hands down. No question about it.
b) Al Gore does not lead by example when it comes to global warming. In fact, he is so irresponsible that the person most associated with environmental irresponsibility is more personally responsible than he is.
c) Did I claim that all environmentalists are hypocrits? No. There are hippies living in trees right now that would put most environmentalists to shame.
My point in the last couple of posts had nothing to do with global warming the issue or your average environmentalist. Reread the posts and you will see that I am saying that if you are going to have a successful movement for change in this country, you have to have a good leader. Al Gore is not. Hillary Clinton is not. If you want the average American to be responsible with energy usage and stop driving their SUVs and polluting the earth, then those putting that policy into place can't have enormous mansions and drive huge SUVs. It sounds to much like Stalinist Russia. I drive low mpg vehicles and I *know* global warming is *partially* caused by human produced greenhouse gases. But let me make this absolutely clear. I am against any policy where rich people can be irresponsible with emissions and poor people bear all the responsibility. Al Gore says that it is ok to pollute if you *buy* carbon offsets??? What about poor people who can't afford offsets? They have to walk now? And he calls himself a Democrat...
Until you get a responsible leader for the cause, policy change for the correction of global warming is dead in the water.
Don't know where in the world you got the idea that Al Gore and Hillary Clinton are the leaders of the environment protection movement. They're not. Not by a long short. The leaders are in the individual groups dedicated to protectiong the environment, like the Sierra Club, Nature Conservatory, the Environment Defense Fund, etc and those State AG's who are sueing the Federal EPA over its failure to enforce the law of the land.Quote:
Originally Posted by duckbillplatty
Al Gore, who invented the internet, is a leader of the environmentalists? You are making me laugh. He is just staying in the limelight with his global warming movie and lecture circuit.
BTW, since when are the wing-nuts concerned about how much energy a person uses???????????
They're not...they just don't like to be told they're wasting energy by someone who uses ten times the energy of the average American.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg
Al Gore had nothing to do with this legal action. It was done by the AG's of 12 States. The bottom line is our EPA is representing the pollutors and not the People. And the person responsible for that is George W. Bush.Quote:
Originally Posted by saltydawg