Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Early Native Americans Contributed to Global Warming? » Post A Reply

Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon: Icon 1     Icon 2     Icon 3     Icon 4     Icon 5     Icon 6     Icon 7    
Icon 8     Icon 9     Icon 10     Icon 11     Icon 12     Icon 13     Icon 14    
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

 

Instant Graemlins Instant UBB Code™
Smile   Frown   Embarrassed   Big Grin   Wink   Razz  
Cool   Roll Eyes   Mad   Eek!   Confused   BadOne  
Good Luck   More Crap   Wall Bang   Were Up   Were Down    
Insert URL Hyperlink - UBB Code™   Insert Email Address - UBB Code™
Bold - UBB Code™   Italics - UBB Code™
Quote - UBB Code™   Code Tag - UBB Code™
List Start - UBB Code™   List Item - UBB Code™
List End - UBB Code™   Image - UBB Code™

What is UBB Code™?
Options


Disable Graemlins in this post.


 


T O P I C     R E V I E W
NaturalResources  - posted
"Stalagmite reveals carbon footprint of early Native Americans"

quote:
A new study led by Ohio University scientists suggests that early Native Americans left a bigger carbon footprint than previously thought, providing more evidence that humans impacted global climate long before the modern industrial era.

Chemical analysis of a stalagmite found in the mountainous Buckeye Creek basin of West Virginia suggests that native people contributed a significant level of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere through land use practices. The early Native Americans burned trees to actively manage the forests to yield the nuts and fruit that were a large part of their diets.

Full Text At:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/42342
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by NaturalResources:
"Stalagmite reveals carbon footprint of early Native Americans"

quote:
A new study led by Ohio University scientists suggests that early Native Americans left a bigger carbon footprint than previously thought, providing more evidence that humans impacted global climate long before the modern industrial era.

Chemical analysis of a stalagmite found in the mountainous Buckeye Creek basin of West Virginia suggests that native people contributed a significant level of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere through land use practices. The early Native Americans burned trees to actively manage the forests to yield the nuts and fruit that were a large part of their diets.

Full Text At:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/yournews/42342

What is funny about the current state of crap in the atmosphere is this volcano in Iceland. Nobody can blame the Bush administraiton for it going off, and the massive amounts of pollutants in the air cant be taxed or linked to some company to smear.
 
glassman  - posted
Bush did it cash, i dunno how, but he did [Big Grin]
 
SeekingFreedom  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Bush did it cash, i dunno how, but he did [Big Grin]

And we need a carbon tax on the rich to offset it.

[BadOne]
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Bush did it cash, i dunno how, but he did [Big Grin]

And we need a carbon tax on the rich to offset it.

[BadOne]

Volcanos produce more pollution than any manmade product. Some say Volcanos cause global cooling. This will make Al Gore have a heart attack, how can he sell more books and give more speeches? Ah yes...the famous swap of global warming to climate change!
 
glassman  - posted
i don't think you guys really have looked into how cap and trade works.


forget al gore. he's a jerk.

if we drill everywhere in the US we can still only get enough oil to provide half of what we currently use.

we need to get off oil and cap and trade is one way to make that work. It's the best way to do it without draconian laws and rationing.

think of it this way. if you were put into "suspended animation" for fifty years and were woken up to hang out with your great grandkids.

you will find it hard to 'splain to them how gasoline was so cheap back in the day. I think you'd find it difficult to explain to them how we could afford to jump in our motorhomes that get 5-10 MPG and drive 2000 miles.

Oil is a finite resource and if you put off doing what you have to do until it is convenient? You'll never get it done. Like having kids? Plenty of people wait and wait and then they have money, but they have to spend it just to get pregnant. Half of our trade deficit is oil dollars.


unless we change? i can garnatee you that in 50 years our grandkids and their kids will be cursing us.
 
NaturalResources  - posted
Cash, you shouldn't give Al Gore such a hard time about his "famous swap of global warming to climate change". The truth is, climate change is the primary issue humans face, not "Global Warming". The term "Global Warming" only describes a trend of the current climate change we seem to be experiencing today.

Climate change is real, human caused or not, and we really should be asking what we are going to do when it happens.
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
Al Goreleoni
 
jordanreed  - posted
name calling is an uninformed way of communicating ...
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
Oh get over it jordan, and you are one to talk.
 
jordanreed  - posted
yes I am..thank you
 
SeekingFreedom  - posted
quote:
i don't think you guys really have looked into how cap and trade works.
Glass, according to everything I've read about it, the only concrete thing that Cap and Trade is going to accomplish it that it will increase the price of EVERYTHING. All manufacturing will have to pay for the 'right' to produce emissions. If you happen to be in a higher emitting industry, you will have to add more to your product price to survive.

The most ideal goal of this is to drive companies to develop more planet friendly technologies. While that may be the eventual outcome...decades down the road...it will kill us right now. Take electric\hybrid cars for example. They aren't in large demand not because the technology doesn't exist...it's because it isn't cost effective. Most people literally can't afford to go 'green.' The government should be helping bring the cost of new technologies down...not artificially drive the cost of current\old technologies up.
 
glassman  - posted
pay for the right to produce emissions OVER and ABOVE the caps set by the Govt. that's does not mean it will make the cost of everything go up.

where do you guys hear this stuff? i hear it at FOX, but there's plenty of other sources for data.


of course the implementation of all laws and rules and regs tends to be FUBAR. The govt doesn't hold the patent on FUBAR tho, private industry regualrly goes FUBAR we call it a bubble these days, sounds inoccuous, but we know it ain't.

cap and trade is literally a trading exchange where a co. that has a good new idea on how to reduce emissions can get cash fast.

say i come up with an idea on how to cut carbon emissions from a coal fired elctric power plant by 1%. Normally it would be ignored because it doesn't pay to do it. In a cap and trade system? The cola company MIGHT be able to implement it and then SELL the 1% to someone else. As time goes on those carbon credits will be slowly eliminated making their value go up over time.

say i start a biz planting trees, i can go to the cap and trade exchange to get financing to start my business.

Cap and trade is stimulative to business.

the alternatives to cap and trade are NONfreemarket policy rules and regs. Cap and Treade is a freemarket philosophy solution to the problem we face. The choice is not that hard.


however i have to repeat that of course the implementation of all laws and rules and regs tends to be FUBAR.
 
glassman  - posted
do not confuse cap and trade with carbon taxes. they are two completely different animals. i think this is anothe disservice that the Conservative movement is doin' to itself.
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
I think a lot of oil companies are for it anyway because they can then negotiate opening up new places to drill (a good thing).
 
SeekingFreedom  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
do not confuse cap and trade with carbon taxes. they are two completely different animals. i think this is anothe disservice that the Conservative movement is doin' to itself.

I do know the difference, Glass. But Cap and Trade is no more objective and even less 'non-FUBARable'. The Cap is set by politicians and generally scaled down over time regardless of the lack of new technologies making the decrease feasable (see CAFE standards). It is intentionally designed to provide a 'stick' incentive for companies to become more in line with the lowering standards.

I'll look for the link when I get home but within the last few months the EU posted a report of how their Cap and Trade variant was being scammed for multiple billions of dollars. The entire idea of 'green' companies selling their 'green-ness' to emitting companies is no more than a feel good money shuffle.
 
glassman  - posted
that's like saying we shouldn't have a stock market because of the bubbles.

of [Roll Eyes] course there's crooks. there's crooks in every facet of humanity
 
CashCowMoo  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
that's like saying we shouldn't have a stock market because of the bubbles.

of [Roll Eyes] course there's crooks. there's crooks in every facet of humanity

Even in the glass business?
 
SeekingFreedom  - posted
The differnce is so huge that I can barely make the connection, Glass.

In the case of the Stock Markets, the entire system is designed to draw private money into the marketplace. This allows the companies to use the funds to develop new technologies and expand. While, yes, the are those that abuse the system for personal gain, the underlying premise holds true.

The (artificially constructed) Cap and Trade market, on the other hand, offers nothing of value except reprieve from government imposed penalties. Even at its most ideal, the purpose (reduction in emissions) is not achieved by the system itself. All it does is add costs the economic system as a whole as those companies producing has to spend money just to keep up.
 
glassman  - posted
All it does is add costs the economic system as a whole as those companies producing has to spend money just to keep up.

what cost does it add? that was my point it is just another trading exchange.

i already gave you two simple examples of what it is designed to do.

now i am a realist and understand that it will not achieve it's goals perfectly because nothing ever does.


as to the underlying premise of the markets? i've been around long enough to know that the markets exist to make the brokers and brokerages wealthy IF, and that's a big IF, a company actually succeeds and becomes "better" (i can show you that for the most part the BEST co's stay private. think Bayer and Johnson and Johnson for starters) it is only because those co's are well run anyway and don't NEED to go public to raise funds

fact is? the people that take co's public do it for themselves, they are "cashing out" and most public offerings are not that that good. only a few are good.
 
glassman  - posted
i think you'd be shocked and dismayed to learn the truth about how little moeny that enters the markets actually goes to "build" businesses. most of it goes to the best traders and of course the brokers/brokerages. I fhtye reduced margin rate limits to 1 for 1? a lot more of the actual money would go to businesses but keep in mind that the market is leveraged 7 to 1 in bad times... that's money that doesn't ever exist. The size of the world stock market was estimated at about $36.6 trillion US at the beginning of October 2008. Only 1/5 of that is actual money

Major U.S. banks and securities firms are on pace to pay their people about $145 billion for 2009, a record sum that indicates how compensation is climbing despite fury over Wall Street's pay culture.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704281204575003351773983136.html
 
glassman  - posted
another big private:

Cargill, Incorporated is a privately held, multinational corporation, and is based in the state of Minnesota in the United States. It was founded in 1865, and has grown into the country's largest privately held corporation (in terms of revenue).[1] Were it a publicly held company, it would rank in the top 10 companies in the Fortune 500.


In 2008, the 441 largest private companies in the USA accounted for $1.8 trillion in revenues and employed 6.2 million people, according to Forbes. In 2005, the 339 companies on Forbes' survey of closely held U.S. businesses sold a trillion dollars' worth of goods and services and employed 4 million people. In 2004, the Forbes' count of privately held U.S. businesses with at least $1 billion in revenue was 305.

 
Lockman  - posted
The biggest problem with cap and trade is that our government will be the ones running the program.

Won't be long before the program builds up a surplus and the surplus is spent on entitlement programs that have nothing to do with energy.

We need to change our congresses way of doing business before any program will have the desired outcome.
 
NaturalResources  - posted
Did Climate Change Drive Human Evolution?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124906102

History suggests that humans, (and most other life on this planet), have been more or less forced to adapt to climate change, regardless of the cause of such change.

Often times, these changes resulted in large casualties to any form of life not well suited for whatever climate change had occured. This will probably end up being the case with humans and the latest "global warming", though our intelligence and technology might be able to save us, if we are prepared.

You guys can argue "cap and trade" and reducing our "carbon footprint" all you want, but the truth is that even if we reduced human pollution to zero, we would still be helpless in the face of what Earth's climate has in store for us. It's not a matter of if, it's only a matter of when. The question is, are we going to do anything about it?

A year without a summer anyone*?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_Without_a_Summer

*Note under the section titled "Comparable events"

quote:
An eruption of Laki, in Iceland, caused major fatalities in Europe, 1783–84.

 
glassman  - posted
Did Climate Change Drive Human Evolution? LOL.

which scientists do you want to listen to?


this isn't even really news. there's a good book that came out a long time ago called Guns Germs and Steel written by a scientist that covered this topic, including the native American burning "habits". It's been attributed to the extinction of the very large mammals here in north america for along time.
 
raybond  - posted
This might be a little off what you people are talking about. Humans cause waste and pollution evan at a primative levle. The native american Indians at on point were like anybody else,if they stayed in one spot to long the area became unlivable and the moved a very simple remedy.
 
glassman  - posted
quote:
Originally posted by raybond:
This might be a little off what you people are talking about. Humans cause waste and pollution evan at a primative levle. The native american Indians at on point were like anybody else,if they stayed in one spot to long the area became unlivable and the moved a very simple remedy.

way true. but "There is no more new frontier, we have got to make it here".
 
raybond  - posted
very true there is so many of us anymore no one can live like that as a matter of fact imho we have got to live a life that is very different than we live now.

After all we only have one shot at the earth.
 



Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share