eamarquardt wrote:"Lies, damn lies, and statistics" Sam
The number of trees is simply not an effective measure of what we're doing to the planet. Been to Chernobyl lately. There are plenty of Love Canals around the world. Burning coal w/o scrubbers releases a lot of mercury into the air (it ha been said that forest fires release more mercury but in fact the Mercury released from the Forest Fires is Mercury the forest has picked up from soot from the coal burning generating plants).
It's a theory, at least. Mercury naturally exists in various levels around the planet. You cannot spot test after the fact and then assert that a higher occurrence of something is evidence of anything.
Which relates directly to this...
We've seen a LOT of these reports here in PA, where natural gas fracking has become a major issue.
I've spoken with a number of individuals who belong to various enviro-activisim groups.. desperately opposed to fracking. In fact, a number of them belong to my church. They maintain the same thing.
Ask them to quantify the assertion, however, and you get some interesting responses.
Never mind the fact that there are, last I heard, no reported cases here in the U.S. of chemicals in the ground water being above hazardous levels. In those areas where the chemical levels are above "normal," if you ask them what the levels were in those areas before fracking, they'll tell you that they have no clue.
In short, if you press them hard enough you'll quickly come to the conclusion that there's absolutely no evidence to support their theory that fracking, done properly, is hazardous to water or the environment. And, I've had more than one admit that.
I might actually believe this. Although, I'd be curious how much of that comes from the U.S. vs. what comes from Mexico.
Although I agree the current global warming trend may or may not be part of a natural cycle of the sun's output, we're really screwing up this planet in ways other than by burning coal and petroleum.
Well, to date, there has never been a climate change model that's been accurate beyond about 5 years out.
In contrast, compare the temperature changes of the planet with the solar cycles and they line up almost exactly.
As an aside, the planet, as a whole, isn't warming. It hasn't been for about 15 years.
We implemented satellite temperature monitoring decades ago. They chose to ignore those readings when it became apparent that the warming trend was going to be short lived.
They reverted back to the earth based monitors, then promptly reduced the number of active monitors from several hundred to about 50.
Any guesses on where the ones they eliminated were?
I don't think I'm a Chicken Little but I do think there are more than a few Ostriches out there.
By the way, #1 son is a petroleum engineer on the central California coast and #2 son is finishing with CC (after "visiting" Iraq at considerable government expense) and has applied to 3 engineering schools with programs in petroleum engineering and one mech eng school.
Sounds like a couple of hard working boys you have there.
Good job.
by Big Dan » Tue Jan 31, 2012 1:03 am 
