I just saw Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth the other day. Anyone else see it? If so, thoughts?

On the whole, I think it was pretty well done. A large amount of the screen time involved dispensing data. Of course, it's up to you to interpret that data and the conclusions made from it. Granted, there are those that aren't convinced simply because the worldwide scientific community has come to a consensus on the issue. But the show also includes some corresponding data from unlikely sources, such as insurance companies and even the US Navy.

The Navy? Wha wha whaaat? Apparently naval submarines can only surface through sheets of ice that are less than 3.5' thick. So, the Navy has been taking measurements to map out all the areas in natural ice sheets that they can surface through. Guess what? The data further supports the shrinking of the ice caps.

The big question isn't that the Earth is warming up. That's obvious. The real question is: to what degree are humans responsible for global climate change? The best argrument for human-induced climate change is the rate at which change is occuring. It's not just that the ice caps are melting; it's the rate at which these changes are taking place that is the real problem. Ice ages come and go over relatively large periods of time; now we have a huge spike in overall temperature increase that corresponds with huge spike in C02 and it's all happening in a geologic "blink of the eye."

The movie mentioned, though I read about it in my local newspaper a while back, that deep core samples in the poles can give us an idea of what the content of the atmosphere was tens of thousands of years back into the present. This is because air pockets get frozen into the ice. And guess what...C02 levels have sharply increased since the industrial revolution.

Critics point out that climate changes are difficult to predict. This is true of any complex system. But to me that uncertainty is itself good reason to limit our impact on the Earth’s environment. Because to me, the big worry comes from all the unseen consequences of altering the environment at such a rate. Many of these changes actually accelerate warming. For example, as the total area of ice on the surface of the earth declines, the overall albedo decreases. Albedo is the propensity of a planet to reflect light. Ice reflects about 90% of what hits it. So as the ice melts, the Earth absorbs more heat...causing the rate of melting to increase. Or here's another one: as the permafrost regions melt, it’s not just the buildings and forests collapsing on formely solid ground that is cause for concern; methane and carbon that's otherwise locked up in the frozen ground is released as it melts, further accelerating climate change.

I guess my attitude is that there is plenty of evidence to suggest human impact on global climate change; more and more data is discovered all the time. I realize that the possible results of such change are sweeping and difficult to predict. But my thought is that we should always strive to have the smallest ecological footprint possible. What amount of material gain today could be worth making the Earth less habitable for our children in the future? Again, the fact that climate change is so unpredictable in and of itself makes me lean toward the side of caution.

Anyway, though the movie was trying to tackle some serious issues, it still was relatively entertaining and tried to remain positive and hopeful. I always did like Al...

Very interesting post, locally pwned

I haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth so apologies in advance if my two pennyworth has been covered in the movie.

Wholeheartedly agree with you.

Even if the level of human impact is totally negligible and the warming can largely be attributed to periodic climate change, we humans must still strive to show responsibility towards the future of our little planet. We cannot take the chance. No matter how small the contribution a person is able to make towards reducing waste of all descriptions and/or the destruction of natural resources it can only be positive.

Trouble is that individual responsibility pales into insignificance in comparison with some large businesses whose sole motivation appears to the pursuit of obscene profits no matter what the cost in human/ecological terms.

And this is where the cynic in me emerges. Our government is enacting so-called Green laws (actually translates as revenue making) and the spin they place on them is that we should all play our part to prevent global warming. One law they have introduced is to penalise gas guzzling cars and yet planes leave/arrive at Heathrow airport every 30 seconds often half empty. Duh... Whilst I'm not suggesting that people don't fly surely, for the sake of the planet, it is an area that could make a huge contribution if greater controls were introduced. Instead we are building more airports and the number of cheap flight companies is on the increase.

Just as an aside and a trivial example of waste for waste's sake - why oh why are vegetables wrapped in plastic? Because the consumer wants it or because it's less mess for the supermarket or because supermarket veggies don't come from the soil? Plastic is nasty stuff and does the planet no good at all. Also, why are the things you buy shrink wrapped, then boxed and then sealed with a plastic wrapper? I need a course in 'the easy opening of things I've bought'. Like I said, this might be comparatively trivial but aren't we complicit or being complacent by allowing it to happen?

I will never be an eco-warrior but I will play as big a part in the protection of the world as I am able.

I too haven't seen the Al Gore program, but do wish I had.

I honestly think your points are very well made, locally pwned - in fact, I think we are making even more of an impact on our earth/environment that realized - scary.

Am afraid you have a right to be a cynic when it comes to the reality of what is and what is not being done to help things, drivingmecrazy . I know our politicians also say that "people want plastic wrap on everything" - really? Did they ever ask "the people"? And if so, I'd like to see the results of that referendum/poll made public.

Buses too emit huge amounts of emission into our atmosphere, yet little has been done to combat this. And the fines imposed on large factories dumping poisons into our streams, etc, are often cheaper than the amount these factories would have to pay to have up-dated emission controls installed.

On a personal level, while I haven't done it yet, I have a lovely friend that carrys on of those tiny little craft 'cutters' with her - and when in the grocery store, she slices off the plastic wrap from carrots, celery, lettuce, etc before placing the items in her grocery cart. I've been some odd looks on the faces of the store's staff but not once has anyone said anything to her about doing it - hoot! Seems like a little thing but as she says, if we'd all do it for only one week, the stores and politicians were surely 'catch on'. Guess I'll have to invest in one of those tiny wee things myself - gentle smile.

Well I did not see this. It must have been on a cable channel.

Your engines put out heat. You heat your home and generators put out heat. People never used to heat there home and never died of the cold. Now if a heater goes out people think they are going to freeze.

We have to have our houses cool in the summer. Going outside is to hot so we play video games all day using even more power.

Everything that uses gas or electricity causes pollution.

Some people use solar and wind power to make there own.

People are getting smarter though.

The big thing is oil companies dont want to be put out of buisness!

Look at china for the cause of pollution.

There cars are like the worst polluters around. People have to wear gas masks in towns.

They dont want to change the cars. See the cars are what fuels like 90% of china's economy or a lot of it. It would cost millions to change the parts and systems to make them run cleaner.

New systems are coming out to make power out of natural resources.

Like new wave machines and improved solar panels.

The thing is we could already power america with solar,wind and wave energy sources. We have the money to do it. If they would cut the war off in iraq for one month they could buy enough solar panels to probably power half the nation!

We have the technology. But if everybody made there own power the government could not get paid so much anymore.

Like 38 cents on every south carolina gas gallon is taxes. With electric cars there is no tax. Not that taxes are bad. We need them to pave new roads.

The thing is the government is wastefull. They recently built a new enterchange ramp onto a freeway in my state. Its like 1/4 a mile and just a mound of dirt and some pavement onto a freeway. It took millions. I looked at it and said if I had 60 million I could build the thing in a month or less.

It took them months of piddling with 10 men and all those millions. We need to organize our governments spending and that will help too.

Solar panels if mass produced could be dirt cheap. There basically just silicon and such that come in computers.

People are also to blame. Gas guzzlin suv's people drive now days.

V10 engines in some trucks so they sound "nice"...

People are wastefull and dont see or care what happenes to the enviroment as they drive around in there gas guzzlin suv's.

As long as they can afford to drive they will.

I drive a honda civic ex. I get 37mpg around my house. Its got all the power you need more pep than any suv has. It can get 5 people around.

Sure its harder to get in and out. Anyone want to walk?

If people want to stop the warming they are going to have to change bad habits and stop pointing fingers.

Less suv's unless they get good fuel mileage. And stop throwing away so much trash.

Jeep has a new suv called the compass that gets 30mpg on the freeway. Its a small 5 passenger suv but it sits up high like people like.

There are several big issues that are worth discussing here, way more than would ever fit in a single post, so I figured I would start with just one issue: Scientific consensus.

As locally pwned mentioned there is a lot of talk about the scientific consensus behind global warming. This is a bad sign. The only time anybody starts talking about scientific consensus is when the scientific evidence isn't there.

Lets take a short trip through history of scientific consensus.

In the past the biggest killer of women was puerperal fever (fever following childbirth). In 1795, Alexander Gordon suggested it was caused by infection and was curable. The scientific consensus said No. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes presented evidence that it was contagious, but the scientific consensus said No. Now we come to a interesting character: Semmelweiss. The guy of usually used in an example of the hypothetic-deductive method. He noticed that puerperal fever was much more common in one wing of his hospital than in the other so he made up bunch of hypotheses and set out to test them. Turns out proper hygiene, like sterilizing your hands by washing them in chlorinated water, would virtually eliminate puerperal fever in hospitals. The scientific consensus said No, that he was a Jew. He died in a mental hospitals from blood fever because a surgeon who conducted a surgery on him didn't properly wash his hands. It wasn't until the 20th century that the scientific community finally saw the light. It took over a hundred years and the lives of countless women before the scientific consensus came to its senses.

Next stop: Early 20th century America. Eugenics. It had a broad scientific consensus backing it. It postulated that the gene pool of humanity was deteriorating. Now, remember that most of these people didn't relly know what a gene was. But something had to be done. So they set up to stop people with undesirable traits from breeding, people like illegal immigrants, Jews, illiterate, blacks and poor people, buy either institutionalizing or sterilizing them. Theodore Roosevelt said that “Society has no business to permit degenerates to reproduce their kind.” Now America who was proud of being at the bleeding edge of science noted that there was another country going even further in their eugenics program of cleaning the gene pool, were they set up houses where people of undesirable traits were led, which were in fact gas chambers. This cause a lot of debate in America that they should also push on in their eugenics program so as to not be left behind by this other country. This other country happened to be Nazi Germany, which later expanded their eugenics program to fully fledged concentration camps. Then this little thing called World War II happened and suddenly imitating the Nazi eugenics program wasn't popular any more in America despite all the scientific consensus it had had.

Now that's an inconvenient truth.

There are lots of other examples but I think this will do as a starter.

I didn't catch the movie in the theatres; it had just come out on DVD and I rented it. If it's unavailable where you are, you can still check out the web page: http://www.climatecrisis.net/



I agree; there is certainly a limit to what any one person can do. If enough people demand change, companies begin to notice; but change via the government and business would be much more sweeping. But still, I think that to solve this problem, all of western culture will have to re-examine itself. Thus far we've looked at the world simply as an endless pile of resources to exploit. In fact, much of the resistance to global warming is in fact based in ideology. To admit that the Earth's resources are finite and our impact on ecology is ever growing is to put limits on human ability. In the end we will all have to change.

More than a century ago when they began to log the pacific northwest, there were vast tracts of evergreen forests. They believed there was no way they could ever cut them all down; an endless source of trees! Well, it didn't work out that way. They also believed they'd never run out of salmon. The loggers would begin to cut down trees ten or more feet up, since the cutting was easier...and let the bottom of the tree go to waste. Canneries used to work until closing time, then just shove piles and piles of fish back into the water to rot. Because after all, trees and fish were limitless!

Today, many people think that our pollution won't add up enough to ever have an effect on global climate. The atmosphere is just too big!

Well, it turns out that everything about the Earth is smaller than we guess...

Again, it's going to take some major changes in how we view this tiny planet of ours. It turns out we can't take what ever we want without consequence; we can't carry on "business as usual" without taking responsibility for our actions.



Even further, why is every box waxed and colorful (that makes it harder if impossible to recycle)? Why do we sell vast amounts of consumer goods in tiny disposable packaging? I think that in general, year after year consumer goods have been pushed for their "convenience." The cost of that "convenience" is a much larger amount of packaging and waste. But I think companies also push product in this way because it increases consumption on our part. Why wash that cleaning rag when you can keep buying disposable wipes and just throw them away? It's so easy!




I have noticed buses around here with biodiesel and ethanol stickers on them. I think that's a step in the right direction. In the States a lot of our transport is via big rig trucks; I would like to see the majority of them convert to biodiesel. That would be a significant chunck of our emissions reduced; plus it would open up the biodiesel market. Imagine that...a fuel with roughly half the emissions of diesel that we can grow ourselves! Talk about a flock of birds with a single stone; just think of how many problems that would solve. I heard a good quote once: "renewable energy is national security."



This is true. Changing the direction of well-established industry is like trying to steer a train. Or, an even better analogy: a couch potato. Take a guy in is 30's that sits on his couch all day, smoking and eating junk food and watching tv. He knows good and well that exercise and veggies are good for him; but the couch is comfy and the chocolate tastes so good! He knows that smoking is terrible for him but all he wants is that fix. After all, he's only 30; why should he worry about health problems 20 years down road?

In the same sense, the oil industry is hooked on its oil profits like a smoker longing for nicotine; lounging on its comfy couch of market share; munching on the Earth like so much warmed over pizza. And they will be damned if anyone threatens their pizza!

There are a few oil companies that claim they are working on becoming more green. But then, there are dedicated couch potatoes that will tell you they "work out," too. DrivingMeCrazy, cynicism is a good thing!

I believe the goal of those "green oil" commercials is to calm us down, so we can go back to consumption as usual. "Ah, good. Ok. I don't have to worry about that, because Exxon Mobil is going to take care of that little environmental problem. Well, time to fill up the 4000 gallon tank on my Ford Excursion."

The movie mentioned Big Oil's resistance to the ever-growing data that supports human-induced climate change. Apparently, the oil companies are using the same insidious tactics that the tobacco industry used to prevent public awareness of the dangers of cigarettes: doubt. Instill doubt in the minds of the public. Make them doubt the evidence; just enough to keep buying oil as per usual.



I know too well what you mean. The NW is SUV country. Well, there are plenty of trucks, SUV's can't take all the blame. That and many SUV's at this point are relatively small. I would have thought that the gas prices alone would have lead to a decline in inefficient cars; but I guess not. Either people care less about gas prices, or companies keep pumping them out hoping to "ride out the storm."

One thing about the our country, especially in the western half, is that it has a somewhat decentralized structure. In other words, towns and cities are spread out all over the place. Since cars have been the main form of transport around here since...well, horses...we have a situation where a lot of people have to drive a lot of miles. Often people have to get jobs that are a half hour away; sometimes an hour, even more. This is part of the reason the US uses so much fuel compared to the rest of the world. That and we dig large engines.

But again, that's another ideology thing. We, in this country, see a car as a symbol of freedom...freedom to go anywhere you want any time you want to. That'll be hard to curb. I love the open road myself...

But then, the open road can be used and enjoyed if there's biodiesel in the tank...

Oh, another problem is that our infrastructure within many towns and cities wasn't designed to be bicycle or pedestrian friendly. They are working to change that, slowly; adding bike/ped paths and what not. The bicycle is another one of those "many birds with one stone" solutions. Even if you have a long commute to work, you might still be able to hop around town on a bike, which would lower emissions. Plus you'd get some exercise while you do it! “Reduce emissions AND your waistline,” you might say.

I'd venture to say you'd get some fresh air as well, but not until we get a few more folks bicycling with you…





They also have a diesel version of the Liberty...which could therefore be fitted for biodiesel...

My weather plug-in for Firefox warned me just now:



Nice.

A note about ethanol or E85.

It has less power than gas. May burn cleaner I am not sure but I think it does since its just corn and grain fermented.

If you see it like 30 cents cheaper a gallon dont buy it. It has so much less energy that it would take 1 buck a gallon less just to break even!

Also it makes all things with grain go up up and away in price. We own a farm. Between china buying our grains and ethanol our feed prices have hit the roof to where its making it hard to just make ends meet. It always has been on the farm but lately our feed costs have doubled!

So this al gore thing was a movie. Okay now I think I remember seing a preview.

On another note.

High gas prices are good in a way.

If you can pay to drive you dont. You find other ways to get around at the current rate of travel(so you dont have to drive less) and or you come up with new ideas of travel.

Moped sales have went up up up I read and have been told.

Some can get 120 mile per gallon at like 35 miles per hour.

Some motor scooters can go over 80 miles a hour and still get 70-75 miles per gallon. They can even run on the freeway like any other motorcycle.

Coming soon in 2007 a company is making a gas powered front wheel kit for bikes. People already can get a battery operated one but its range is not that far if you dont pedal along. Maybe 50 miles or so.

This new gas one gets over 200 miles per gallon at a max speed of 25? or 20 miles a hour. Now for a short trip to work in the city 200mpg is great. The kit will be like 400-450 and might go down if they can sell a lot.

I think step one should be tougher laws on the way companies and factories put out waste into the air and water.

Then cars should have to have tougher laws on fuel efficiency and emissions. They are going to do this soon. A jeep suv is not going to be made in 2007 its a diesel version because it does not meet the new emission standards for 2007. A few Jeta vehicles are not going to make the cut either. Also diesel cars.

The job thing too is a big problem I agree in america.

We should have jobs no further than 30 mins at the most. And more jobs should be able to be done at home than at a office. If more were done at home there would be less need for expensive office buildings.

I think more jobs at home would be great. Less traffic and less pollution. A laptop running puts out so very little pollution compared to driving a car half a hour to work.

People also seem to think fresh water is unlimited. Have to take a bath every day. It cant be just 5 or 10 mins it has to be 30 mins or more. Then some have to full up this 50 gallon or 100 gallon spa like tub every day and soak.

That is also being worked on. There is this new shower head you can buy now that cuts the water usage by half and still keeps the same amount of pressure. It somehow puts air in the water and slows the water output down. I would like to get one of these.

I think they are only like 40 bucks for a nice silver one.

Lightbulbs are no good for stopping pollution either.

Its a fact that lightbulbs are really just space heaters that give off light as a side effect.

Have you ever felt the heat off a 100 watt bulb? Its outrageous.

We had a easy bake over. Some prob. remember them. I think they still sell them. It took a 100 watt bulb. It could cook a small pan in like 5-10 mins and make a cookie! With a light bulb?

We now use and as our other bulbs burn out replace them with those curly bulbs.


They use like 22 watts to put out the same amount of light a 100 watt would! They even seem brighter! They are so bright my grandparents had a few 100 watt(really only 22 watts) ones in there fan above there table they took them out and got 60 watt type(like 18 watts).

These bulbs put out little heat,dont flicker like there big brother tube style ones do and use hardly no energy. You can get 4 100 watts(22 watts) for like 10-12 bucks at lowes and home depot or 6 60 watts for the same price.

Be careful though that you dont screw them in to hard. Screw only on the base if you screw them in with the curly glass it will crack and let the gas out over time or break in your hand.

By the way they last like 10k hours!

These small steps if done in mass can take a huge chunk out of pollution.

EDIT...
My goodness...I sure wrote a lot. Ha ha so thats why it took 15 minutes.

Yes, the energy saving bulbs are great, only wish they made them in 'natural' light rather than the slightly 'off' tint they give.

Can understand why many people do feel, "High prices are good in a way" ", but in reality, it causes a huge hardship - imagine those on a fixed income or a single-income family trying to make ends meet at the best of times. Sadly, public transit is not possible for all people and neither is riding a bike, etc.

I could be wrong about this, but I'm wondering if a car not properly maintained wouldn't emit as much or more pollution than an SUV? Here in British Columbia, we have a Province wide 'Air Care' program and without passing the inspection, one simply can't insure their vehicle. I wonder if something similar is used elsewhere?


Oh while I think of it, CGM - be careful which shower nozzle you get when trying to conserve water . We bought one and I discovered to my frustration that while it may use 'less water' in certain conditions, it took literally twice as long to rinse the shampoo and conditioner out of my hair. Sort of cancelled any water savings out.
(The one area where I 'draw the line' on water conservation is toilets! Good grief, that is one thing that should work - and work well the first time it's flushed! Eek! Nearly everyone we know is now trying to cope with these pesky 'low water volume' things and while plunging never killed anyone, it's not a great deal of fun either! Ugh!)

China's pollution levels truly are frightening - much of it apparently caused by tons of factory chimneys that emit thick, yellow or white smoke (think Chinese people refer to it as "smoke dragons" or something similar).
And what enters the atmosphere there eventally works it's way in other people's air too, sadly.

Toilets back in the 80s we sold at 5 gallon capacity in Cananda. Some Americans who wanted a good and powerful flush went to Canada to buy there toilets. However until recently (1996) they have been revamping the laws in Canada and now the biggest capacity toilet you can buy is 13L. Where as the most common is 6L. So if you think 3.5 gallon toilet is using too much water try using one that only uses 6L (1.5 gallons)!

(Quote) So if you think 3.5 gallon toilet is using too much water try using one that only uses 6L (1.5 gallons)! (Unquote)


Eep!! If this keeps up, there may be an underground market for toilets!

MaraM, I don't like the way those bulbs make things look either!

**Warning: science geek alert!!** The reason florescent bulbs make things look so strange is that they produce only a small range of light frequencies. This is how they work: electrodes on the ends of the bulb "fire" electrons through the tube, kind of like your tv. When these electrons crash into the atoms of mercury vapor in the tube, these atoms' electrons are excited and "bumped up" a level (an energy level...the zone in which a given electron orbits the atom's nucleus). When they fall back to their normal configuration, the energy has to go somewhere...and it does...in the form of a photon of light of a specific wavelength. That wavelength, as it turns out, is in the UV range...but the UV's crash into the phosphorous coating on the inside of the glass tube which causes the coating to glow in a visible light, again, of a small range of frequencies. Regular bulbs, on the other hand, look more like sunlight because like the sun, they create light by way of black body radiation, which consists of a large "gentle" curve encompassing a wide range of light frequencies.

Here's the curve of an incandescent bulb. And here's a typical fluorescent bulb. Finally, here’s a groovy jpeg slapped together by none other than me and my own artistic skill…har har. I just superimposed the two frequency ranges so you can see just how drastic the difference is.

See, I warned you!

Really, rather than florescent bulbs, I think we should head straight for LED's (light emitting diodes). They produce a lot of light for their size and the amount of energy they use, they don't make very much heat, they last a long time, and don't need any poisonous gasses to work!


CGM - hehe, space heaters with light as a side effect...perfect description. But while the florescent bulbs save a lot of energy, if everyone switches to them we need to have an organized method to dispose or recycle them. Again, they contain mercury...granted, a relatively small amount. But imagine a landfill full of them...the mercury would start to add up.

But that brings up a point that was mentioned: sometimes a solution for one problem causes ecological issues elsewhere...perhaps even worse than the original problem! We have to try and look ahead to prevent any possible side effects that a new technology might have.



We have something similar here in Oregon, at least in the suburban areas. The Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). You have to have your car checked out every couple of years and pay a fee. If you don't, you get fined.



This is a huge issue. As developing countries try and catch up with the West, they often follow the same steps. And guess what...they make up a much larger portion of the population of the world than we do, and look at the damage we've caused! I think it's important for us to take a leadership roll in helping developing countries avoid the mistakes we have, so they can build their economies on ecologically sound policies as they go instead of trying to backpedal and change down the road.

An ounce of prevention vs much more than a pound of cure...

Well not so fast. We have a older toilet. Prob a 3 gallon tank. It flushes okay and all. My pops got a new toto 1.6 gallon and it flushes very very fast and "great" all with about half the water.

For those who didn't see the movie, try to see this:
Al Gore: The Climate Crisis

It's an excellent advice locally pwned, but they have an inconvenient:
They work only with low electrical voltages (about 3 Volt).
Regards,
Darthy

They work in any socket darthy....

There set back is they are focused. The light is not spread out. Made for point of use only. They even if put in the ceiling like in recessed lighting would focus most of the light in one spot.

They do last a long time.

http://www.eepublishers.co.za/images/uploa...htingT%2001.pdf

LEDs do have there own problems.

Darthy, true, that's no doubt why LED's are only used extensively thus far in electronics, flashlights, ect. But imagine new home construction...instead of high-voltage wires going to standard light fixtures in ceilings and closets...low voltage lines going to recessed LED clusters.

Yano - I hadn't thought about possible UV damage. Still, what about traffic signals or covered lamp posts? They are for the most part shielded from UV's. I would imagine that any lighting fixture that had some type of shielding on top would prevent direct UV damage.

The technology of LEDs has been around for decades and we are just now beginning to make use of it in the most common applications. Your average incandescent flash light only last for about fifty hours, a five bulb LED flash light will last thousands of hours.

One of the problems mentioned here is that they are low voltage, if you're familiar with most control systems in modern houses then you will realize that most all are low voltage. All of your touch controls on your appliances are low voltage. A rectified power supply for something that draws as little as a LED array would be small enough to be built into its fixture. As for the UV problems, there are lenses that are clear and can protect the LEDs from the UV damage, most of the traffic light used now are lit with LEDs.

It's a shame that it has taken Al Gore's movie to generate the level of concern that this problem warrants, unfortunately there are those that believe that this was just a ruse on his part to get him back into the lime light. These same people argue that the events that we are experiencing are a cyclic events, the earths distance from the sun being the closest in thousands of years, the tilt of its axis, ice ages... Well for those who think along those lines I can't help but wonder how they can refute the findings of two studies that took place in the late nineties involving ice coring in Green Land and the Arctic. The levels of carbon dioxide over the last ten thousand years had only risen about 80 ppb where as the level has risen the same level over the last two hundred year, and the most significant levels have occurred in the last fifty years. Think about that, this would start around WWll, and the car craze in the fifties.

If you wish to read this article it can be found here.

I had made this post in another topic but I feel it applies to this topic more.



Stan Meyer's has since passed away and every time someone figures out how to use this fuel method, they are forced to sell their patents to the big automobile companies like BMW and GMC.

That's good...that way we could convert existing homes easily, but for new construction we can convert from the power source on.

Oh, I saw an episode of the show Myth Busters on the Discovery Channel the other day. They were testing various types of light bulbs...including an LED cluster. The LED performed better in every way, including duration. The myth they busted was the idea that leaving lights on all the time is more efficient than turning them on and off. Apparently, unless you are going to go back into the room within 30 seconds or so, you save more power by turning them off. Turning them on and off doesn't use that much extra power; you save much more by keeping lights off while not in use.

Trivia question: how much coal does it take to run one 100 watt bulb, 24 hours a day, for a year?

Answer: 714 lbs. Wow.


Even worse, think of the fact that most of the damage done so far has been by western countries...which make up a relatively small portion of the world's population. But as giant developing countries begin to follow the same path...imagine, well over a billion people in China and India burning petroleum and coal the way Americans do...

That’s why it is so important to help developing countries avoid the mistakes we made along the way.

A quick fact correction. The CO² increase is more in line with 80 ppm. 80 ppb wouldn't be anything to worry about.

Isn't it odd that while our government talks about global warming, very few seem to have taken firm action?

I've watched so many science shows on the pros and cons of using wind-mills and it seems that all the 'cons' come from those interested in building nuclear energy sites instead. (All I think of when I hear that is it's one more chance to pollute our world on a massive scale when something goes wrong).

And watched another science program where GM 'gave' electric cars to people to test - and not a single person wanted to return them when the trial period ended. Yet not only were they returned to GM, each and every one was apparently then destroyed. Very odd?

Don't know what the answer is, but hope it happens soon.

Thermodynamically, this is BS. What is the energy source used to electolyze the water? Lets assume it was electricity.

The electricity is used to electolyze the water. Lets assume 90% efficient. The resulting H2 and O2 are burned in an ICE with an efficiency of 30%. The results of that combustion is water. No net loss of water with a system efficiency of 27%.

Much better off just using the electricy to run an electric motor at a perhaps 85% efficiency.


Some of the complaints are coming from bird lovers. Seems the little guys tend to fly into the rotating blades with fatal results.....

Oh dear, I love little birds as much as the next person but wouldn't it be nice if the government simply figured a way around that. Perhaps with a simple large 'mesh' screen to keep our feathered friends away from the blades - gentle smile.

Wish I had some answers but suspect my efforts of recycling and not burning coal is equivalent to that proverbial 'drop in the ocean' in the scheme of how we have abused and continue to abuse our poor planet.

There is a documentary and information on that site on how it works. In fact, the part 2 of the movie on the site claims that the technology is more than 100% efficient. It has to do with the "duplicate voltage disassociation of the water into fuel gas" (source). I don't know enough about the technology but it looks pretty promising. Especially, when the site claims that Stan Meyer's was poisoned in a restuarant then in a couple of days, some agents went to his house and stole his patents and the water-powered-car that he was working on. I was shocked to when I found out about it and remain skeptical.

Here is the full article.

"more than 100% efficient" implies perpetual motion. Need I say more?

It is indeed an interesting subject, and I also have been most interested in alternative power sources.I have read literally thousands of pages on various inventions and Inventors.
Nearly every invention is clouded with one conspiracy or another as to why it failed to materialise.I just keep an open mind and keep reading.To me ,Stan Meyer's invention was nothing more than a form of electrolysis being adapted to a different use,but thats only my opinion.When he didn't let the experts examine the car,I started to think something was a bit suss.
Agree, Nikola Tesla was in my mind one of ,if not the greatest inventor of the last 100 yrs.Imagine a life without electricity which he pioneered.His story is amazing to read.
As far as perpetual motion goes,many have come close,but I'm yet to see more than 100% efficiency in
reality.Here it a link to do with Stan Meyers court case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Fuel_Cell

I've seen it today, and it appears to be our warning call.

There are alternatives, that are clean, fuelless, and most importantly, inexpensive to convert to, but the problem is with the industries and the governments NOT wanting any of it out in the open, because it'll hurt their pockets, and most importantly frightening, it'll drive those industries into an immediate shut down..... for ever.

I have plans to do many fuelless energy applications, and they will work. One example is the FREE electricity. I've showed one of the plans I have to a friend of mine, and he constructed his plan in a few months time. To this day, he doesn't have an electric wire, nor an electric meter attached to his home. It costs him approximately $30 per year to refuel his electric cells to power his house (water & bleach, inside a copper and aluminum fuel cell).

The same with solar power.... You can use ordinary glass, and an air brush machine, and make your own solar cells, that cost less than the traditional solar cells that cost $15,000 or such to power a home. And also, you can build a wind mill to add to the solar cells, or to a fuelless energy pack, and it'll recharge it just by the natural wind.

...... and lots and lots of more workable and proven methods that will save on energy, lower emissions in the air, save people money, and help keep the atmosphere cleaner, but the big guys don't want that.

Did you know?
You can reuse incandescent and florescent light bulbs over and over again?
You can make your own batteries, that run off of just water and beach solution? Even car batteries.
You can heat your home for about $5 or so per year, using ordinary liquids like, water, kool aid, coffee, cooking oil, transmission/motor oil, juice, etc.
You can get electricity from your home phone line.
You can get electricity from copper pipes & pvc pipes and some wires put in your back yard, and power your home.

And the talk of the economy losing money if we were to implement any of the above, is just a cop out for anyone that believes it would hurt us. It wouldn't. It'll just hurt all of those that have been raping us for so long.

Vehicles.......

There is a car that has been invented, driven and tested, that doesn't have a transmission, and other traditional parts. Why aren't those vehicles being manufactured? Because it'll hurt the industries.

There was an inventor that had the water powered car. He was offered over 1 BILLION dollars from the Aribs to sit on his invention. He refused, and to this day now, no one knows how that man died from poisoning.

That's how desperate the industries will go to silence anyone that has a workable, proven, earth saving invention. It's ashame that people die because of such.

There is an inventor that made a machine that turns freezing cold water into boiling water in less than 5 seconds. Guess what?.... They jailed him.

I can go on and on and on about the inventions that are readily available right now, as we speak, that we all can benefit from, but the big guys don't want it.

The sad part about all of this is that 95%+ of the inventors have said or will tell you that their lives have been threatened, their work has been confiscated, their homes/work labs been broken into, and they've been jailed, or at least threatened of it, if they continued their works.

What will any of you do when the time comes (oh, it's gonna come) when you've paid all of your utility bills on time, and just like in New York, you're suddenly in the dark?

Or, what about California, how everyone there has been extorted out of their money and were put on "blackouts", where the power company purposely shut off peoples' electricity? For months? What are you gonna do?

And you better hope none of this happens to you smack dead in the middle of the winter, where all the electrical lines break. Be prepared, and do what you can do now to supply your own power/energy.

Energy is FREE and every human being has the right to supply his/her own power sources, and it's also our job as human beings to help one another achieve that goal.

And the really sad part about all of this is that we even get taxed for using it too.

We all have been psychologically embedded with the notion that we must rely on the utility companies, but in reality, that's further from the truth.

The film An Inconvenient Truth should be more than enough for everyone to take action. If you haven't seen it yet, do so, because your children and their children depends on it. Find the time to seek the truth.

Hi MaraM,Found a Web Page,regarding GM reclaiming EV cars and crushing them.All car manufactures have undertaken to cease production of EV Vehicles.Makes you wonder how much influence Major Oil Companies have in desiding what future directions are taken.Bottom of the web page shows all the near new cars in a junk yard.It seems OK to build petrol-electric cars,but to build a car that is soley electric is a no no.Billions of Dollars is more important to Government,Big Business and Oil Companies,than saving our Planet.IMHO.

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/electric-car-timeline.html

Thanks for the link DSTM and for GM o say that they "can no longer supply parts to repair the vehicles " honestly made me laugh. One would have thought they could come up with a more believable reason than that (after all, they created these very cars that performed so well and were so efficient!).

And although it's always hard to sort through news stories to find the truth behind them, must say that I suspect there was a great deal of influence from oil companies and other 'interested' parties to stop production and in fact, crush them. And surely there are too many vanished inventions and possibly even inventors to disregard why we are not making any progress towards saving this world for those that follow us. Sigh.

And even taking many of the news stories 'with a grain of salt', I do agree that if something doesn't happen quickly, 'The Inconvenient Truth' will become a reality. Our earth is suffering and while war is something to fear for many, annialiation of our planet through our own misuse is becoming more realistic all the time, One has only to follow the weather pattern changes that are taking place right now to realize that Mother Nature is already beginning to throw hissy-fits and perhaps we should all remember she has no sense of humour or compassion.

I read your comments about having "plans to do many fuelless energy applications" and your friend building his home power-saving home with great interest, Walkman . While some of the ideas may not be applicable for those of us living in multi-family dwellings, I suspect many individual home owners would be extremely interested if only they knew these options were available and equally, how to do it. (Or, in reality, someone who was willing to do it for them at a set price).


Do have a question though - would you mind going into a bit more detail about "You can get electricity from your home phone line".

There are a lot of things worth discussing in Walkman's post but I think I'll stick to one. There is no such thing as free energy. There is energy you won't have to pay monthly for, but you still have to pay one way or another. If nothing else then time and effort.

To MaraM,

You may be right about the multi-dwelling homes, but....... it's still the same. In other words, if the owners wanted to go fuelless, they can make it so for everyone living there, as long as everyone chips in on the cost to build the cells. After that, it'll probably be no more than $500 per year to give electricity to every unit in the apartment/dwelling. The cost all depends on how many units there are, and how many outlets each unit uses on average.

The FREE electricity plans work for single family homes, businesses, including shopping malls, grocery stores, car repair shops, hospitals, manufacturing plants, etc.. etc.. ANY and EVERY structure that uses electricity. Even NASA can run off of this,, which they probably are. I never saw any wires connected to their facility. There may be wires, but I never saw them.

As far as using your phone line to get electricity, it's very simple, but the method works when the phone rings, it'll produce approximately 90 VAC which then activates a timer (regular cooking timer) to start powering/charging a fuelless PSU (power supply unit)..... which in turns generates the electricity for you.

The above is the short version of how it's done, but very useful when you want to generate electricity, even if you have no electricity in your home.

Basically, mostly every part you'll need to construct these units can be gotten for FREE, if you know where to look for them.

Depending on a person's living conditions and needs of electricity, a unit to power a single family home can cost in the hundreds of dollars to build. It's not expensive at all. All you'd need to do is refuel it with water and a small amount of bleach or Draino, and you're good to go, for a few months or so.

FREE energy has been in existence since man was put on earth, but somehow, we've all allowed the elite to make us pay for using it,,, which is as close as to making us pay to breath air, which calls for another topic/post........ and that is in November of 2006, Bush signed a bill that restricts any country from putting satellites up in orbit. Now how can any man do that? Personally, I still find it hard to believe, but I saw the news report ONLINE about it.

Some call it "Wanting World Domination and Control", and others say that a person or a group of people like that are the ones that are the REAL Weapons of Mass Destruction

Although it's unlikely most of the owners in our complex could see the financial benefit (our electrical costs are very low here) and just getting them to recycle is a struggle for our poor caretaker, if I still lived in our house I'd be rummaging for step-by-step instructions on how to do it right this moment, Walkman. (The 2,400 sq foot house had electric heat and monthly bills would often hit close to $250 a month during the winter months - eep!).

Re: "November of 2006, Bush signed a bill that restricts any country from putting satellites up in orbit. Now how can any man do that?". Actually, I'd not heard anything about this before but am sitting here wondering about whether it is intended to prevent future space pollution - but even so and for whatever reason, how very odd that "any man" or any one country for that matter, has the 'authority' over the rest of the world in this regard?

Mr. Alpha made a good point too - nothing in our world is free, one "still have to pay one way or another". And for many, perhaps they honestly think the dangers of global warming etc are "over-rated" and to add to the problem, we've become a tad lazy in our society and perhaps have become a bit too comfortable simply going along with what our government does or doesn't do to protect our earth.

(In all fairness to many of those who feel taking on the government involves life-sucking-energy, it's often sadly true. But the alternative may be lack of life at all for our future generations).

To DSTM,

I failed to mention the most important thing.... and I thank you very much DSTM for putting me in check.

WARNING: ------ WHAT YOU READ BELOW, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DO WHAT IS POSTED UNLESS YOU'RE A CERTIFIED ELECTRICIAN. NONE OF BELOW IS AN EASY-TO-DO TASK FOR THE INEXPERIENCED PERSON.

DO NOT TAMPER WITH ELECTRICITY AT ALL... NO MATTER WHAT I OR ANYONE POST ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN DO... IT CAN, AND WILL KILL YOU IF YOU'RE NOT CAREFUL!!!! TAKE THIS AS YOUR WARNING

Thanks again DSTM for pointing that out.... and I'm ashamed I didn't think to mention that. Electronics & Electricity are totally different, incase anyone didn't know it.

To MaraM,
I'm sorry for not mentioning this, but inside of every dwelling unit (your apartment or such) there is an circuit breaker box. If a person took off the "box cover" all of the electrical wires will be exposed, even the wires that run from your "meter" to the box. All a person would need to do is connect the wires directly into where the input power cables are, and they're good to go. They don't even have to disconnect the existing wires, (especially if you told the electric company to turn off your electric) to make it work.

Right now I don't have my whole house that way, but I have all of my computers on it's own power (6 computers with monitors, printers, a scanner, etc, etc).... but when I finish with some of my other projects, I'll combine the cells I've created and the fuelless psu, I'm going to hook my whole house up. Ohh.. and I'm renting, but I can easily pull my cables out of the circuit breaker box, and everything is back to the way it was. It's simple... but if you're doing it yourself, it can be a task, but it's well worth it. At least when storms hit and such, my computers don't go out.

As far as Bush signing that bill, I have it bookmarked on on of my computers, and I'll post the link, but....if I'm not mistaken, I think I read it on Shoutwire. not sure, but give it a go at.

The reason wasn't primarily the pollution issue, it was the fact that the U.S doesn't want satellites with MISSLES pointing at us, as we have them point at other parts of the world. That's what that's about. But they won't mention it that way. Just a smoke-screen story of the real agenda.

I know FREE is FREE and paying for something is paying for something. But like I said,,, IF you know where to get components to build these devices, they ARE FREE. And your energy is FREE. Even paying $13 per year to heat my home is FREE to me, although I payed $13 compared to my usual $2,400 per year. And if I won the money playing scratch-offs, or found a $20 bill to pay for this,,,,, it's still FREE because it wasn't my hard-earned money that payed for it.

If someone payed for your electricity, and never asked for a dime from you, are you getting FREE electricity or not?. Yes, because you aren't paying for it.... and No, because someone else is paying for it. It all depends on how a person defines the word FREE. But either way, it's all good. Just look at how much money you'll save, and now you're able to do other things you've had to hold off on, because of lack of money.

If we all take part in making a difference, we will all make the difference in how we'll live, and our off-springs the rest of our lives on planet earth.

You all are great. I'm so glad to get the chance to interact with you all.

WARNING.Please do not attempt to play with the electricity metre box.All the wires are live and if you touch them you are DEAD. On experienced Electricians are allowed to remove metre box covers.The input wires as Walkman is suggesting to play with cannot be turned off,and any circuit breaker or trip switch does not work on the input side.The power is constant and can only be shut off by the relevent authority.
BE WARNED.
Walkman,in all interests of safety,would you edit your first paragraph please?
I am a retired engineer and I shudder to think what might happen if some person attempts what is suggested.

To DSTM,

I did however mention the fact that a person informs the electric company to turn off the electricity.

But out of respect, and not wanting anyone to harm or kill themselves or others, I'll edit that post.

Thank you very much DSTM. I should have labled it as dangerous, and not to attempt it if you're not experienced with electricity.

I thank you very much DSTM. I couldn't live with myself if an inexperienced person tried this and something happened to them.

Hi Walkman,No hard feelings.I have witnessed 2 people electrocuted and that is maybe why I pannicked when I read it.The problem is that there are strict guidelines or codes which relate to circuitry inside the metre box.
Any tampering with the said design is forbidden.What you hook up to a power point is your business,and I'm all for saving by any means possible.I read all your posts Walkman,and realise you are only trying to help everybody,and I appreciate that.I look forward to your future posts.

Footnote.The Electrical Authorities will not turn off the power ,because you would be attempting to alter a design which is against their codes.Electricity can be your best friend or your worst enemy.
Treat it with respect.

Even though i do not know much about the topic, I do agree with ecological preservation, or with optimization of ecological laws and its use, but it pisses me off when the U.S. pronounce themselves over ecological topics, because its them who produce almost 60% of global contamination and evate international treaties to avoid impact on their economy.

To DSTM,


I have no idea of how your government works there, where you're from, but here in the USA, if you request a utility company to turn off your service(s)... they'll do it.

But all in all.... don't want anyone to be discouraged about not only saving the earth, but saving their money. There are certified electricians, and electronic engineers that do this stuff for a living. Trust me... there are many of them in your areas that can do all of this for you in no time.

This is information that makes an educational impact on a person's life. That's all.

But... again...... this whole topic is about An Inconvenient Truth.

Please... don't let it be an inconvenient truth to any of you. I know you all would love to implement it.

Hi Walkman,Of course our Electricity Supplier will turn off our power if it's for a legitimate purpose,but not for anything that is against their codes,and modifying anything inside the metre box is, if not in the drawings submitted for approval is deemed illegal.I doubt if your power supplier is any different.Lets now get onto ways of alternate clean pollution free energy and at the same time saving our planet.

I thank you for the above post. You just hit the nail on the head. Codes are standards authorized by an elite group. Codes aren't universal as to "implying to everyone". Codes are restrictions on ones ability to move forward without approval. Codes may save lives, and they may exterminate lives. But, you decide.

Why are we speaking in governmental terms? Why is it that when we debate (not just this subject), we always mention what the government says?...... why?.... Do you know that they are the reason why the mayhem is what it is?...... And if you don't believe me.... then you need to look in the mirror.... because we all elected and allowed them to do this to us. And no matter where any of us are from, we're all facing the same fate.

The question is this: How do you want it?

Again.. we all have the right to respect this thread/topic as it was intended..... and no matter which way my words go, I'm talking about "An Inconvenient Truth" (global warming).... something that is known that we'll debate about. But I'm not debating anything.... because I know how the perpetrators think.... that's the knowledge that GOD gave every human being...... and it's called "common sense". They are depending on us to always debate. They'll admit, and they have admitted that if it wasn't for the media being hush-hush about it, they would have never achieved their agenda.

But I respect you all on this and any matter.......... but when are we going to stand up and take a stance? Tomorrow is going to be too late. I know I'm going to pass away, and there's nothing to stop it....... so I ask myself,,,,, "Why all the denial of the people of the world"........ and the only thing I can logically think of is this:

People Are Too Scared To Stand up For Their Own Rights.... nothing more...... and a whole lot less. You're gonna die anyway.... why die lying down, denying your own children and granchildren of what's rightfully all of ours?

Why?.... Why do we think death is such a bad thing? Because we're scared to face reality. We're simply scared. But guess what,,,, scared or not..... we're all out of here one day........ and please... don't take my word for it. It's gonna happen. But since it's gonna happen, why not put a footprint, make a change into what may happen to your off-springs?

We, as adults... (I'm 41 years right now) owe it to ourselves and our loved ones. Do you agree?

I do agree with what your saying Walkman.Our Governments have their own agenda and they know the public will not band together to fight them tooth and nail.Only when a small group makes enough noise, does the Government just do enough to quieten the objectors.Say,for example with our 20 million+ population,you would be lucky to get 2 or 3 thousand at a rally.If they got a million screaming people,I'm sure they would take notice and act quickly.Human beings will not stick together.
I read an article once which stated that the Government saturates the media with sport,and what country isn't obsessed with sport,merely to divert the publics attention away from what the Governments are really up to.Just keep the masses in the dark,and I am inclined to agree with this writers views.
Our Governments have a lame agenda regarding pollution,in my opinion.Both our countries are criminal for allowing Companies to go on destroying our planet.They say you can't stop progress.We point the finger at China and we are the ones giving China contracts to produce millions of dollars of manufactured goods which cause pollution during manufacture.We are partially to blame for China's pollution,but it is never mentioned in the media.
I am concerned what future generations are going to think of us for doing so much damage to our planet,in such a short time.

The agenda of the government is rarely mysterious; all you have to do is look at the agenda of industry, because they are one and the same.

As for "free energy," I imagine the phone line trick has to do with the strangeness of electromagnetism...an electric current creates a magnetic field, creating torque, which can in turn be used to make electric current. I doubt you'd get much out of a phone line though, especially since fewer people use them as we convert to cell phones.

Really, the only "free energy" is that which we get from the sun. Wind power is actually solar power...as wind is ultimately driven by the sun. That's why there ought to be a push toward making such energy viable.

Electric cars themselves make me nervous, for several reasons. After all, look at how much electricity we use now in our homes. Since we have very few methods for efficient production of electricity in use right now, flooding the market with electric cars would result in vast amounts increased emissions...ultimately electric cars now would be coal-burning cars.

I saw a great commercial once. A guy goes into his living room to watch tv. He walks over to it, and pulls the starter cable...the tv vrooms to life, quickly filling the room with exhaust.

Electricity is great, but we can't forget where it comes from. And when we try to solve environmental problems, we have to try and avoid making worse problems down the road.

My ideal world:

Diesel is replaced by biodiesel; gasoline ceases to exist as a common fuel. Cars become ever more efficient, using a mix of solar and hybrid biodiesel technology. This technology will of course continue to evlove toward zero emission vehicles.

Since we grow our own fuel, we no longer have to invade/manipulate other countries for it. Imperialism therefore takes one more step toward extinction.

Multiple levels of efficiency. In otherwords, put wind towers on land already being used for farms (compensate the farmers, of course). Solar shingles on houses and buildings...the area is already being used, why not use it for generating power as well?

Wind and solar power will become ever more efficient and will be used more and more often for large-scale power generation.

Hydro-electric dams will have much larger fish ladders to protect salmon runs. Logging near small creeks will be banned to protect salmon spawning grounds (it supposedly already is, but it will be enforced).

Houses are built with solar panel shingles and siding, solar heating, and if aplicable wind generators. They are extremely efficient in terms of insulation so very little energy is wasted. They are built out of recycled materials to decrease the need for timber. They use LED lighting!

People not only use energy efficient appliances, but they learn to be efficient themselves.

City infrastructure is designed with walking and bicycling in mind (this reduces emissions and increases general public health).

Recycling is down to an art, with only a small portion of refuse heading to the dump.

People become less dependant on meat as a source of food, as large industrial animal farms are cause vast pollution. Food animals can be raised on "open range" farms since industrial methods and unnatural manipulation is also no longer needed, as the demand deminishes. Crops are rotated...they are organic, no chemical pesticides or genetic mutation required.

After such changes we'd realize that we don't miss junk food, poisonous cars, chemically altered milk, smog, poisoned water supplies, massive land fills, destroyed forests, ect...not one bit! We'd be a bit like a man who'd spent his life as a sedentary, overweight smoker...who changes his lifestyle and becomes fit and healthy. He then looks back at his former lifestyle and asks himself, "Why did I do that to myself?"

Hey, I can dream can't I?

Thanks DSTM for the initial warning about being careful to not accidently 'fry' ourselves - eep! And to Walkman's huge red font warning so we realize that not everyone should even think of attempting this themselves. In all honesty, my knowledge of electricity is so basic that I hire Certified Electricians to do even 'minor' work that others seem to be able to do themselves with confidence.

We dare not attempt anything quite like this within our apartment complex due to regulations and insurance etc even using certified Electricians but wouldn't it be wonderful if, in the near future, homes were built with this already in place, perhaps.

And I love locally pwned's thought of having "Houses built with solar panel shingles and siding, solar heating, and if aplicable wind generators. They are extremely efficient in terms of insulation so very little energy is wasted. They are built out of recycled materials to decrease the need for timber. They use LED lighting! ".

Even if each and every one of us just ensured we had double-paned windows, proper insulation in our homes, our tires properly inflated (we burn more fuel when the air pressure in them is too low), are careful what we burn in our wood burning fireplaces (coloured wrapping paper for instance emits toxic fumes - not good for us or the environment) and on and on.

In fact, while I likely won't go to the extreme of my friend who removes food from plastic wrapping before purchasing it in the store, if every single person stopped using plastic carrier bags from grocery stores that alone would make an impact.

Know it may not be practical for everyone but where possible we buy only meat from animals on open range farms that have not been fed ground bones of dead animals (ugh!) nor antibiotics, etc - and vegies and fruits from farms that use no pesticides.

One thing I'd truly like to see if the end of so, so many things packed in plastic containers (milk, shampoo, soda pop and on and on and on). Most of these containers don't get recycled and yet, if we returned to using glass, studies apparently have shown that people are nearly 80 perfect more apt to recycle glass than plastics.

Each little step we take as an individual can add up - perhaps not as much or as quickly as if our Government took action, but if we wait for that to happen there far less hope for the future of our beautiful planet, surely.

I just have to add my two cents to this thread.
Have you heard about the science of the metrics of the aether (Aetherometry)?
Go here and after, tell me something. I'm going to wait. I think Walkman is already awakened. Everything he said, is the real truth.
Go on Walkman.

I must admit that I am not a scientist but Aetherometry stinks of pseudoscience.

Of course, it could turn out the be the next paradigm, but I highly doubt it.


PS. Wikipedia deleted Aetherometry, because it doesn't allow any new and unpublished theories.

Darthy, I am not sure what your point is. As Mr. Alpha pointed out, this article doesn't appear to be in line with modern physics; not any that I have studied, anyway.

Darthy, I have to ask: Is this a serious post? No offense if it is...I can take a closer look at your link. But I have to say, it sounds to me like you are being sarcastic and have posted a non-scientific webpage as if to suggest that human-induced climate change is not based on science.

I hope I am wrong...

I think that it doesn't matter if you can prove it scientifically or not, but it goes hand by hand with the technological evolution of humanity since the last 2000 years. All major climate changes have taken complete ages... all but global warming. That drives me to the hasty conclusion that it has something to do with humanity itself. I think is the best evidence...

Well locally pwned, I think you don't understand the spirit of my post. If you open the link that I provide, you will see on the left superior corner the sun with an eye in the center. This is the symbol of some secret societies and, among them, is the New World Order.
If you see this and have the patience to read some of the articles, you'll see that Dr. Paulo N. Correa, founder of this "science" treats the global warming like a pseudoscience. He also says about GW:
Aetherometry

He lives on Canada and I think he is a defender of the New World Order that created a pseudoscience to convince all of us that GW it's a fancy. NWO wants to keep the interests of big oil companies untouchable and if you look to the agenda of Bilderberg Meetings you'll see they have the same interests.
I think now you'll understand what I meant with the post.
Regards,
Darthy

Ok Darthy, I hear ya now.

Hopefully the neo-cons that are behind such endeavors will be curbed for a while, seeing as though Bush-style politics have fallen out of favor (well, in the US...it's not as though said politics were ever in favor anywhere else). Change is in the wind!



And I would agree with you, petocities. But one of the main attacks anti-GW'ers use is the accusation that climate change isn't based in science. You know...it's all a lot of "tree-hugging," "owl-loving," "hippy nonsense" that simply gets in the way of the bottom line.

As Al Gore's movie points out, these attacks are designed to put doubt in the public's mind on the issue. They are very similar to the attacks used by Big Tobacco decades ago to protect their image against the growing evidence of the dangers of smoking cigarettes.

The irony is that worldwide, almost the entire scientific community now sees human-induced global warming as an unmistakable reality.