Forum Thread

Lake Martin Topics

(Lake Martin Specific)

111,143 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 7:30:23 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,605 messages

Updated 4/25/2024 9:33:24 PM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,193 messages

Updated 4/3/2024 3:47:36 AM

Lake Martin Fishing

(Lake Martin Specific)

4,169 messages

Updated 4/16/2024 3:16:57 AM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,169 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 11:05:05 PM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,260 messages

Updated 3/24/2024 9:24:45 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,976 messages

Updated 3/20/2024 11:53:43 PM

Lake Martin SCUBA

(Lake Martin Specific)

169 messages

Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Climate Crisis Crisis
Date:	12/9/2009 3:09:44 PM

So what about the climate info? I am trying to get beyond the "I think I will go with this report because it is what I want to believe anyway" attitude. Personally, I think we should be conscious, conservative and cautious with mother nature, but I do not think we do a lot of harm. But then there are the 3 mile island and Chernobyl events. We need to be cautious but to blame anything on cow manure is a stretch.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Climate Crisis Crisis
Date:	12/9/2009 5:43:25 PM

I have to say that until I started reading this forum on the climate issue, I was not aware there is as much of a disagreement on it as there apparently is. In fact, I guess because of the discussion here, I'm noticing more articles about the disagreement. It's not an issue I'm passionately interested in, but I'm grateful for the insight in the scientific disagreements.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	Climate Crisis Crisis
Date:	12/9/2009 6:20:11 PM

This needs to be said AGAIN! The raw data should be made available to anyone who wishes to download it and process it… and then publicly present methods and results. The scientific method demands this. Anything else is not science. Good science is made in the light… not in the dark; in the open… not in a closed room. AGW proponents and skeptics must be required to make their cases in public debate before another dime of our economies is squandered. We know that neither Gore nor Jones would debate either Drs William Gray or Richard Lindzen... much less Lord Mockton, whom Gore has avoided like the plague. Now I suppose Sarah Palin is another that Mr. Gore will have to avoid… because he can’t defend his version of science.

We know that the CRU raw data is gone and the processed data is soup. The CRU code is an amalgam of convoluted smoothing and filtering and weighting routines... and some downright fabrications. We now know that the (Mann) code which produced the famous “hockey stick” can make a hockey stick out of random data. The Australians did not fall for bogus data and cap-and-trade was tossed by their legislature.

The NASA GISS will also soon fall from grace as it becomes public. It has taken two years and yet NASA is dithering on this release for which the taxpayers paid the bill. Now, NASA is threatened with a lawsuit.

The common thread is that, in each of the above cases, science was co-opted to support political agendas. In order for this to happen, the unbiased peer review process was circumvented and the data and code increasingly isolated from public access.

I am a geophysicist and a registered professional geologist. I, and over 31,000 others like me, am appalled at this unprofessional conduct. Gore can be intellectually dismissed… he is not a scientist, but an unethical profiteer (and maybe subject to criminal prosecution). But those “scientists” who took their nefarious manipulations underground… They MUST be censured and rendered professionally inconsequential.

Are global temperatures warming? Could be. Are global temperatures cooling? Also could be. Is the atmospheric concentration of CO2 higher than last century? Yes. Has the global climate ever been warmer than over the past century? Yes, much warmer. Has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 ever been higher than that of the last century? Yes, many times higher.

I do agree that the global climate is changing as it always has. I’d prefer warming over cooling. Please let me see the raw data. I Don’t need your computer code... I know how to do that myself (in FORTRAN if you like). When I get done, let’s debate.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	Climate Crisis Crisis
Date:	12/9/2009 6:28:25 PM

The "skeptics" ARE NOT afraid to debate in public. But the AGW "scientists" WILL NOT debate their "science" in public. The AGW folks keep saying "trust us"... yet they refuse to release their data and methods as required by the Scientific Method.

They say their work has been peer reviewed... it has... amongst themselves. It has not been released so that other scientists can independently validate their work. Why not? Independent peer review is the standard for good science. The AGW folks will not allow anyone outside of their closed group to have their data, examine their code, or conduct an open peer review of their work.

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	Chernobyl
Date:	12/9/2009 6:32:22 PM

Comparing Three Mile Island to Chernobyl is like comparing the sinking of the Titanic to having the radiator boil over in your car. Although, all were the product of stupidity on the part of the on-duty operators.

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Why are you confused??
Date:	12/9/2009 7:21:41 PM

I was a math major in college and believe in emperical data.. Given the latest information, I think that the 'global warming tirade' is an agenda of a socialist, anti-captialist activists??

Help me out, I will listen..

Name:	Mack -	Reply
Subject:	Hey LNG>>
Date:	12/9/2009 7:38:12 PM

The Climate Issue is both political and Economic, and one cannot separate the two, can one?? To wit:

If you travel by air to any degree, you will have noted the gray-dull brown haze hanging over most large American cities, even those without any heavy industry. That haze is auto/truck exhaust. That cannot be good to inhale, can it? Did we cause it? Oh, yeah. Are we fixing it? No. Too political and too expensive.

Smoking?? Extensive campain to eliminate it. Much money spent. Much media attention devoted to it. Big taxes applied to tobacco to exterminate it. Really, really bad stuff, right?
Well, I still see fitness freaks running 5 miles in the brown smog, then climb into their Deisel Mercedes and roar off, waving the Finger at a Smoker on the sidewalk. Political victory? Yes. Problem solved? No.
Let's not even mention the "War on Drugs".

As Hound says, "WhatEver". Many more examples apply to the question of progress and priorities.

Not to worry, though. Your elected officials, who represent YOUR IDEALS and YOUR WORRYS are paying close attention to you. They will provide.

Name:	lakngulf -	Reply
Subject:	Why are you confused??
Date:	12/9/2009 8:21:26 PM

Math major here too. Program now in .Net C# after years of other languages. To me the facts some drive the opinions and policy, not the other way around. I don't even recycle, but want to know how best to be a steward of what we have....air, water, trees, animals, etc.

I have never liked Al Gore, and really hated that the GW group got so many big stars to "entertain" us with the big GW even last year, even Bon Jovi.

I think there are two sides to the argument. You and I stand on the same side, I just want to be honest with the facts, and our responsibility

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Photosynthesis..
Date:	12/9/2009 8:42:31 PM

Help me our here.. trees require CO2 to survive and produce the O2 we need to survive. but now, EPA has decided that CO2 is a pollutant that Washington must regulate. I wonder when oxygen will be regulated by the EPA?? Stay outta Tallapoosa
county, Y'all, I'm depend on both..

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Recycling
Date:	12/9/2009 10:06:21 PM

Recycling or the lack of mandatory recycling has be of interest to me since I moved here.
When I last lived in NJ some 20 years ago, we had mandatory recycling of paper, aluminum and glass (by color. Trash days were complex).

When I moved to VA, we had voluntary recycling of aluminum, paper and glass, but our contract trash carrier picked it up once a week at no additional cost.

I was really surprised when I moved to Alabama to find out there is no "organized" recycling, although I can carry my cans to Alex City on Thursdays.

I'm wondering why the diffeences. Any ideas?

Name:	Summer Lover -	Reply
Subject:	Hey husker
Date:	12/10/2009 9:48:14 AM

In order to save our environment and comply with future EPA regs, it has been determined that you will only be able to exhale on Tuesdays, I got lucky - my day is Saturday. It just worked out like that - sorry.

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Recycling
Date:	12/10/2009 10:47:46 AM

Hound: the lack of recycling in rural areas is pretty easy to explain. First, the reason recycling in urban areas is more prevalent is that you have a sufficient density of population to generate sufficient volume to justify the extra cost of a recycling program. Secondly, because of the higher population and the resultant large volume of garbage, landfill space is much more valuable and any reduction in waste going to the landfill extends its life. Third, because of the population density and the NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude in the northeast it became very difficult to permit new landfills or even to amend existing permits to increase landfill capacity. It doesn't help that a large number of landfills in the northeast are very old and the original cells were not designed as well as they are today so you had lots of releases of contamination that the public is very well aware of. Finally, urbanites tend to be more liberal and more attuned to the environmental impact of packing so many people into a small geographic space and therefore they demanded recycling even when it did not make economic sense.

You have neither the socioeconomic drivers nor the political impetus to force recycling on more rural areas. Put simply, there aren't enough people making enough trash for it to make sense, especially given the ready access to landfills.

Name:	Talullahhound -	Reply
Subject:	Recycling
Date:	12/10/2009 3:41:25 PM

Not that it would apply to glass or aluminum, but there were also burning restrictions. I notice a lot of people here burn.

I'm happy to carry my aluminum to Alex City about once a month. I think that the Alex City program is run by volunteers. If they had enough volunteers, I would think they could make a bit of extra cash for the town if they started accepting glass as well.
Plastic, I understand, gets a bit more complicated.

I'm just curious, with regard to MM's explanation. Do Montgomery or B'ham have recycling programs?

Name:	PC Al -	Reply
Subject:	Recycling
Date:	12/10/2009 3:53:06 PM

Yes, B’ham and most of the suburbs have recycling programs, although all do not have home pickup. Here in Hoover they pick up every Wednesday and as far as I can tell, every single house in my neighborhood participates. We have a small version of the roll-up cans that is furnished by the city. Regular garbage on Monday and Thursday and recycled on Wednesday.

Name:	MrHodja -	Reply
Subject:	Recycling
Date:	12/10/2009 6:51:12 PM

They do/did in Montgomery but it has been scaled back because the sanitation workers were picking the recycle bags up every Friday - but tight city budgets have restricted the pickups and I haven't yet found out when they do come by. The recycled materials were being sorted by students at McInness School, an organization for mentally challenged citizens. Not sure wha is happening now.

Knowing that recycling an aluminum can only takes 5% of the energy it took to make it the first time is a strong reason to recycle.

NH

Name:	alahusker -	Reply
Subject:	Recycling Dadeville
Date:	12/10/2009 7:24:08 PM

You can take your Al cans to Dadeville, East South, few block up from the High School.. Currently $0.30 a pound, so don't pitch 'em if you are on this side of the lake..

Name:	MartiniMan -	Reply
Subject:	Burn restrictions
Date:	12/12/2009 9:04:21 AM

As for these, most of the northeast and most urban areas are called non-attainment, which means they do not meet Clean Air Act minimum air quality standards. USEPA designates zones of attainment and non-attainment based on ambient air quality samples and other measurements. That triggers all sorts of additional requirements that do not apply to attainment areas. That's why allowing things like outdoor burning and even adding additional lanes to the highway system may threaten certain federal funding so they are banned. The nuisance factor also applies. If you burn in a highly populated area it can be a nuisance while in a rural area it is not as much, or at least there aren't as many people that are impacted.

Quick Links
Lake Martin News
Lake Martin Photos
Lake Martin Videos