Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Penguin on February 06, 2012, 08:43:33 PM
-
No, I'm not Jewish, but I think that the expression is apt.
Today in French I had the displeasure of learning about environmentalism. Now, while many would call me a 'hippie treehugger,' I know that not every method of 'going green' is helpful in preserving our planet's precious resources and the climate that lets us grow food. So, here are a few sample questions. The answers were either 'Good for the environment' or 'Bad for the environment' with nothing in between.
1.) Driving hybrid vehicles
2.) Cutting down more trees
3.) Hunting animals for fur
4.) Using aerosols
I just can't believe how poorly worded these questions are. They make no mention of how much CO2 is created in building, say, a Prius and where the electricity comes from, or that hunting can be conducted responsibly, or that using aerosols does not necessitate the use of greenhouse gas or CFC propellants, or that trees can be replanted after careful harvesting. When I asked my friends about it (and we are in the Honors class, so it's not like I'm hanging around with tweedle dee and tweedle dum) they said 'Don't think about it, just answer it'. Their views on hunting were so extreme that it was unbearable: Hunting animals is bad, period. Many species, such as deer, have exploding populations due to the extinction of natural predators, so hunting is a good way to control pests.
When I asked the teacher, it was even worse. She said "9/10 of us say that it's green, so it's green. Just go with the majority opinion." For all the talk about 'The good old days' of education, those days had certainly not taught her that a show of hands doth not a true statement make. While I agree that we must be good stewards of the planet, getting sucked in by commercial hype and acting like sheep isn't the way to do it. It's the little stuff like shutting the lights off or turning down the heat or A/C that really make the difference. Idiots.
-Penguin
-
90% of Oxygen production and CO2 is scrubbed from the atmosphere by algae... forests are pretty, but it's really not a horrible thing to cut down a tree.
I'd be more concerned with the chemicals used in making batteries slowly seeping into ground water and making their way to the Ocean.
-
Audi TDI's can go 25,000km between Oil Changes.
-
well, if this was in French class as you say, then I imagine they are just trying to teach you how to say/write the 'correct' answers for passing the tests etc, rather than having a serious discussion on environmentalism...don't read too much into it
-
Audi TDI's can go 25,000km between Oil Changes.
The PT-6 turbine in the T-6A Texan II NEVER needs an oil change. It burns off a bit all on its own so it just needs topping off every few flights. That must mean it's totally GREEN, right?
-
Read up on Agenda 21 if you want to know what all that brainwashing is about.
-
:bhead
-
Badly worded but I'll have a go.
A Japanese hybrid is one of the worst polluters in the world. The batteries contents are mined in South America, shipped to Japan, finally put in the cars then shipped across the world.
Cutting down trees unlocks more carbon and hydrocarbons stored.
Hunting Animals for fur is... Bad for the animal, good for the enviroment. No more polluting for you chinchilla! Animal methane is terrible.
Aerosols are no longer a danger to the enviroment as CFCs are banned and conpanies recycle the cans.
-
Read up on Agenda 21 if you want to know what all that brainwashing is about.
:noid :aok
-
No, I'm not Jewish, but I think that the expression is apt.
Today in French I had the displeasure of learning about environmentalism. Now, while many would call me a 'hippie treehugger,' I know that not every method of 'going green' is helpful in preserving our planet's precious resources and the climate that lets us grow food. So, here are a few sample questions. The answers were either 'Good for the environment' or 'Bad for the environment' with nothing in between.
1.) Driving hybrid vehicles
2.) Cutting down more trees
3.) Hunting animals for fur
4.) Using aerosols
I just can't believe how poorly worded these questions are. They make no mention of how much CO2 is created in building, say, a Prius and where the electricity comes from, or that hunting can be conducted responsibly, or that using aerosols does not necessitate the use of greenhouse gas or CFC propellants, or that trees can be replanted after careful harvesting. When I asked my friends about it (and we are in the Honors class, so it's not like I'm hanging around with tweedle dee and tweedle dum) they said 'Don't think about it, just answer it'. Their views on hunting were so extreme that it was unbearable: Hunting animals is bad, period. Many species, such as deer, have exploding populations due to the extinction of natural predators, so hunting is a good way to control pests.
When I asked the teacher, it was even worse. She said "9/10 of us say that it's green, so it's green. Just go with the majority opinion." For all the talk about 'The good old days' of education, those days had certainly not taught her that a show of hands doth not a true statement make. While I agree that we must be good stewards of the planet, getting sucked in by commercial hype and acting like sheep isn't the way to do it. It's the little stuff like shutting the lights off or turning down the heat or A/C that really make the difference. Idiots.
-Penguin
Seriously, you should seek help. :old:
-
Read up on Agenda 21 if you want to know what all that brainwashing is about.
I'm not so much concerned that it's brainwashing, rather a mistake in the system (e.g., math is 'brainwashing' in the same as sense as what I described, but as long as the information is correct then it's fine). It's the poor conduction of the lesson and vague questions that frustrate me.
-Penguin
-
No, I'm not Jewish, but I think that the expression is apt.
Today in French I had the displeasure of learning about environmentalism. Now, while many would call me a 'hippie treehugger,' I know that not every method of 'going green' is helpful in preserving our planet's precious resources and the climate that lets us grow food. So, here are a few sample questions. The answers were either 'Good for the environment' or 'Bad for the environment' with nothing in between.
1.) Driving hybrid vehicles
2.) Cutting down more trees
3.) Hunting animals for fur
4.) Using aerosols
I just can't believe how poorly worded these questions are. They make no mention of how much CO2 is created in building, say, a Prius and where the electricity comes from, or that hunting can be conducted responsibly, or that using aerosols does not necessitate the use of greenhouse gas or CFC propellants, or that trees can be replanted after careful harvesting. When I asked my friends about it (and we are in the Honors class, so it's not like I'm hanging around with tweedle dee and tweedle dum) they said 'Don't think about it, just answer it'. Their views on hunting were so extreme that it was unbearable: Hunting animals is bad, period. Many species, such as deer, have exploding populations due to the extinction of natural predators, so hunting is a good way to control pests.
When I asked the teacher, it was even worse. She said "9/10 of us say that it's green, so it's green. Just go with the majority opinion." For all the talk about 'The good old days' of education, those days had certainly not taught her that a show of hands doth not a true statement make. While I agree that we must be good stewards of the planet, getting sucked in by commercial hype and acting like sheep isn't the way to do it. It's the little stuff like shutting the lights off or turning down the heat or A/C that really make the difference. Idiots.
-Penguin
This troll needs to go the same way davidwales did.
-
It's not trolling if it's true.
-Penguin
-
It's not trolling if it's true.
-Penguin
On the contrary, posting the truth is often the best way to troll, because so many people don't want to hear it.
-
On the contrary, posting the truth is often the best way to troll, because so many people don't want to hear it.
*Slow clap*
-
well, if this was in French class as you say, then I imagine they are just trying to teach you how to say/write the 'correct' answers for passing the tests etc, rather than having a serious discussion on environmentalism...don't read too much into it
Oui, c'est vrai. écoutez-vous a cet homme intelligent la, jeune!
-
merci beaucoup ;]
-
Is that Esperanto?
-
Oui, c'est vrai. écoutez-vous a cet homme intelligent la, jeune!
Je comprend que tu dit, mais je veut seulment expliquer mon frustration avec les questions.
No, it's French. Pierre, baguette, Marie Antoinette.
-Penguin
-
Et JE comprend ce que TU veu dire-- les questions qu'ils vous demandent sont ridicule-- mais je veut simplement dire qu'I'll n'est pas autant les sujets qu'ils veut vous introduire aux different sujets/façons de parler.
Immersion or Core?
-
Nous sommes dans un combination bizarre de les deux methodes. En le future, je vais ne discoute pas des questions parce qu'ils sont moins importantes que le lecon.
Wow, I feel like I'm really getting the hang of French!
-Penguin
-
Nous sommes dans un combination bizarre de les deux methodes. En le future, je vais ne discoute pas des questions parce qu'ils sont moins importantes que le lecon.
Wow, I feel like I'm really getting the hang of French!
-Penguin
Well done young man :aok
The correct phrasing is:
Nous sommes dans une combinaison bizarre des deux méthodes. Dans le futur, je ne vais pas discuter des questions car elles sont moins importantes que la leçon.
If you need some proof-reading of one of your works, just let me know ;)
(pssst Penguin-haters: I have a paypal account if you mant me to slip some awful errors in his texts :devil)
-
1.) Driving hybrid vehicles
2.) Cutting down more trees
3.) Hunting animals for fur
4.) Using aerosols
1: Driving Hybrid Vehicles.
Sure. You'll burn less gasoline, but what about the manufacture it takes to create the batteries and electric motors, and the disposal of said batteries?
2: Cutting down more trees. So, the great thing about lumber harvesting, is that they grow the trees, then cut them down, send them to the sawmill, turn them into planks/plywood/particle board/paper/ etc. etc. Very little of the tree is wasted, and in order to release the carbon stored by the tree you have to burn it. Whereas I'll wager most of the wood goes into making houses. Which don't burn down all that often... at least not intentionally.
So wouldn't the forestry industry be saving the environment from an environmentalist's perspective? Since they grow the trees, the trees eat the carbon, they cut down the trees, and that carbon is then stored in someone's new house, and isn't released until the house is burned down by an angry neighbor. :angel:
They then plant more trees to eat more carbon to turn into more houses.
3: Hunting animals for fur. Mmm... tasty tasty animals... and once you've eaten them you get a nice warm coat out of the deal too... and maybe a new leather couch.
Over hunting is bad. But since human presence tends to drive away predators then hunting animals for their fur is probably a good way of fixing population imbalances caused by human expansion.
4: Aerosol... I thought we banned all the nasty stuff from aerosols 20 or 30 years ago?
-
Hoff, your bit with trees made me laugh harder than I have in a while :rofl :rofl :rofl
plant more trees to eat more carbon to turn into more houses.
:lol :lol awesome :aok
-
2: Cutting down more trees. So, the great thing about lumber harvesting, is that they grow the trees, then cut them down, send them to the sawmill, turn them into planks/plywood/particle board/paper/ etc. etc. Very little of the tree is wasted, and in order to release the carbon stored by the tree you have to burn it. Whereas I'll wager most of the wood goes into making houses. Which don't burn down all that often... at least not intentionally.
So wouldn't the forestry industry be saving the environment from an environmentalist's perspective? Since they grow the trees, the trees eat the carbon, they cut down the trees, and that carbon is then stored in someone's new house, and isn't released until the house is burned down by an angry neighbor. :angel:
They then plant more trees to eat more carbon to turn into more houses.
3: Hunting animals for fur. Mmm... tasty tasty animals... and once you've eaten them you get a nice warm coat out of the deal too... and maybe a new leather couch.
Over hunting is bad. But since human presence tends to drive away predators then hunting animals for their fur is probably a good way of fixing population imbalances caused by human expansion.
Exactly! You beat me to it and these are the points I want to build on.
I'm a senior Forestry major. The Coal/Oil Industry is much more harmful to the environment than the Timber Industry. Trees capture carbon (A lot of friggin Carbon) in the wood from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. When the wood is burned, the carbon that was stored in the wood is released back into the atmosphere, yes. But think about it, there is no additional carbon put back into the atmosphere from burning the wood by itself. The process is a complete wash, like taking a bucket full of water out of the ocean and then dumping it back in. Here is the elemental break down of wood in % dry weight: 49.0% Carbon, 44.0% Oxygen, 6.0% Hydrogen and 0.2-.5% Ash. Using wood as a building material is the best thing we can do for the environment. As a building material, it is more efficient than steel or concrete because it is an excellent insulator (less energy needed to heat/cool a wooden building) and it requires less raw materials/energy to produce. I think what hurt the forest industry's reputation in the eye of public opinion was its stance up until the 80's that "They knew best" and chose to ignore outside opinions. Presently, the industry goes to great lengths to listen to all steakholders and run operations with as little environmental impact as possible. We have more standing timber now in this country than we did 300 years ago, its just not old growth timber. There are even government programs to convert old agriculture fields back into timberland. Forests are dynamic, they're always changing. Sadly, some people's perception of what our forests should look like comes from watching movies like "Bambi", where everything lives in harmony and man is the Factor. There are close to 7 billion people on this planet and to think that we can all survive without affecting the environment at all (staying completely "hands off") is loony, but we are certainly taking steps to reducing our global footprint in ways that are both plausible and realistic. Here is the link to my sources: http://www.mediafire.com/?pc3ufdb7dgqjd
Obviously, over-hunting an animal for commercial profits is bad and that was common prior to the early 1900's, but now there are management restrictions in place to attempt to keep populations in a state of equilibrium. Fortunately, we live in a time and society where hunting/trapping is not the only way a person can put food on the table. There are people in this world that are simply misguided and have chosen to only look at one side of the coin. For example, I read a response on a youtube video from a woman who basically said, "shame on you hunters! you are the reason why wild hogs are becoming extinct!"... :huh. Wild hogs are an abomination to the habitat and reproduce at an exponential rate; currently, hunting/trapping is almost not enough to keep their populations in check. As a hunter, I will take game animals in a responsible way that encourages the longevity of its own species. My family cooks a lot of wild game meat that is very good and filling. We are sure to give away any extra meat we are not planning on consuming; A lot of states have "hunters feed the hungry" programs where hunters can donate deer meat to shelters.
To conclude, there are many activists and organizations out there with different perspectives on issues. Keep in mind that all extreme activists have an agenda to push, and will not stop at misconstruing data to gain a following. Keep your wits about you and don't get sucked into one side of an issue without looking at both sides. Make informed decisions and rational conclusions.
(BTW, my text window keeps shifting back to the top of the post everytime I type. This is extremely annoying, does anybody know how to fix this?)
-
The PT-6 turbine in the T-6A Texan II NEVER needs an oil change. It burns off a bit all on its own so it just needs topping off every few flights. That must mean it's totally GREEN, right?
There are ALOT of PT-6s out there, guess the aviation industry is greener than I thought :D
-
(BTW, my text window keeps shifting back to the top of the post everytime I type. This is extremely annoying, does anybody know how to fix this?)
Mine keeps doing that too... haven't found a fix, I just ingore it and usually scroll down to make sure I didn't make any spelling errors. I wonder if it's a browser problem, I just checked and it only does it in Internet Explorer, Firefox works perfectly fine for me.
Also, on topic. Doesn't burning wood also leave a good bit of the carbon behind as solid material?(Ashes) Meaning that when you burn wood you have the over-all effect of putting less carbon back than the tree took out.
To continue the bucket analogy, the little droplets that stick to the side of the bucket after you've dumped it.
-
A whole semester of French 1 helped me understand most of that :D
Might be taking a trip to Nourmantier next summer
Probably didnt spell Noirmoutier right either :lol
-
(BTW, my text window keeps shifting back to the top of the post everytime I type. This is extremely annoying, does anybody know how to fix this?)
Mine keeps doing that too... haven't found a fix, I just ingore it and usually scroll down to make sure I didn't make any spelling errors. I wonder if it's a browser problem, I just checked and it only does it in Internet Explorer, Firefox works perfectly fine for me.
Also, on topic. Doesn't burning wood also leave a good bit of the carbon behind as solid material?(Ashes) Meaning that when you burn wood you have the over-all effect of putting less carbon back than the tree took out.
To continue the bucket analogy, the little droplets that stick to the side of the bucket after you've dumped it.
This may or may not work but if you go to internet options (I assume you are both using I.E.) and then over to advanced tab and under browsing check the box "Automatically recover from page layout errors with Compatibility View".
-
Exactly! You beat me to it and these are the points I want to build on.
I'm a senior Forestry major. The Coal/Oil Industry is much more harmful to the environment than the Timber Industry. Trees capture carbon (A lot of friggin Carbon) in the wood from the atmosphere through photosynthesis. When the wood is burned, the carbon that was stored in the wood is released back into the atmosphere, yes. But think about it, there is no additional carbon put back into the atmosphere from burning the wood by itself. The process is a complete wash, like taking a bucket full of water out of the ocean and then dumping it back in. Here is the elemental break down of wood in % dry weight: 49.0% Carbon, 44.0% Oxygen, 6.0% Hydrogen and 0.2-.5% Ash. Using wood as a building material is the best thing we can do for the environment. As a building material, it is more efficient than steel or concrete because it is an excellent insulator (less energy needed to heat/cool a wooden building) and it requires less raw materials/energy to produce. I think what hurt the forest industry's reputation in the eye of public opinion was its stance up until the 80's that "They knew best" and chose to ignore outside opinions. Presently, the industry goes to great lengths to listen to all steakholders and run operations with as little environmental impact as possible. We have more standing timber now in this country than we did 300 years ago, its just not old growth timber. There are even government programs to convert old agriculture fields back into timberland. Forests are dynamic, they're always changing. Sadly, some people's perception of what our forests should look like comes from watching movies like "Bambi", where everything lives in harmony and man is the Factor. There are close to 7 billion people on this planet and to think that we can all survive without affecting the environment at all (staying completely "hands off") is loony, but we are certainly taking steps to reducing our global footprint in ways that are both plausible and realistic. Here is the link to my sources: http://www.mediafire.com/?pc3ufdb7dgqjd
Obviously, over-hunting an animal for commercial profits is bad and that was common prior to the early 1900's, but now there are management restrictions in place to attempt to keep populations in a state of equilibrium. Fortunately, we live in a time and society where hunting/trapping is not the only way a person can put food on the table. There are people in this world that are simply misguided and have chosen to only look at one side of the coin. For example, I read a response on a youtube video from a woman who basically said, "shame on you hunters! you are the reason why wild hogs are becoming extinct!"... :huh. Wild hogs are an abomination to the habitat and reproduce at an exponential rate; currently, hunting/trapping is almost not enough to keep their populations in check. As a hunter, I will take game animals in a responsible way that encourages the longevity of its own species. My family cooks a lot of wild game meat that is very good and filling. We are sure to give away any extra meat we are not planning on consuming; A lot of states have "hunters feed the hungry" programs where hunters can donate deer meat to shelters.
To conclude, there are many activists and organizations out there with different perspectives on issues. Keep in mind that all extreme activists have an agenda to push, and will not stop at misconstruing data to gain a following. Keep your wits about you and don't get sucked into one side of an issue without looking at both sides. Make informed decisions and rational conclusions.
(BTW, my text window keeps shifting back to the top of the post everytime I type. This is extremely annoying, does anybody know how to fix this?)
Wow, I never heard about that before. Isn't the lumber industry also conducting its large-scale operations in forests devoted to creating timber (i.e., they grow trees, cut them down, replant them, and move on in an area small enough not to have a big impact)? I don't feel nearly as guilty about wood now. However, isn't it true that a great deal of energy (and therefore carbon) is expended in order to process the lumber?
-Penguin
-
^ unless one is using saws, horses and rivers, I think a LOT of carbon would be produced. Trucks, chainsaws, lumbermills, etc.
So any guilt you felt towards the actual cutting down down trees can now be diverted to the transportation and processing aspect. :D :aok
-
Also, on topic. Doesn't burning wood also leave a good bit of the carbon behind as solid material?(Ashes) Meaning that when you burn wood you have the over-all effect of putting less carbon back than the tree took out.
To continue the bucket analogy, the little droplets that stick to the side of the bucket after you've dumped it.
Yeah the charred remnants is essentially solid carbon. The burning of wood gives off CO2, heat and water vapor. If you burn the wood until there is nothing left, you have only released the CO2 that was sequestered by the tree out of the atmosphere in the first place. The additional carbon comes from the energy demanded to burn the wood to this degree of intensity.
This may or may not work but if you go to internet options (I assume you are both using I.E.) and then over to advanced tab and under browsing check the box "Automatically recover from page layout errors with Compatibility View".
Thanks. I followed your steps, but it was already checked on. I don't have this problem on any other internet text window, just the AH BBS.
Wow, I never heard about that before. Isn't the lumber industry also conducting its large-scale operations in forests devoted to creating timber (i.e., they grow trees, cut them down, replant them, and move on in an area small enough not to have a big impact)? I don't feel nearly as guilty about wood now. However, isn't it true that a great deal of energy (and therefore carbon) is expended in order to process the lumber?
-Penguin
Yeah, that's right. Sawdust, bark, trim waste, and lignin (pulping liquors) are used to generate electricity and steam. US Wood Products Industries are 60-70% self-sufficient, but 30-40% of energy consumed is non-wood based. Despite this, the US Wood Products Industries are still the third largest industrial consumer of energy in the United States behind the Petroleum and Chemical Sectors. Here in the southern US, particularly Arkansas as the #1 exporter of Pine, we are known as the "woodbasket". I always tell people that forestry is essentially "tree farming". Instead of annual agriculture crops like corn, rice and soybean, Loblolly Pine plantations are usually grown out to a little over 30 years. Before the final harvest, the stand is thinned 3-4 times to take out undesirable trees and free up room for the superior trees to keep growing.
^ unless one is using saws, horses and rivers, I think a LOT of carbon would be produced. Trucks, chainsaws, lumbermills, etc.
So any guilt you felt towards the actual cutting down down trees can now be diverted to the transportation and processing aspect. :D :aok
"Money" doesn't make the world go round anymore; petroleum does. Getting the oil out of the ground where it is locked and releasing new carbon into the atmosphere that has Been stored away for eons way out paces anything else. Now its used to produce an insane amount of goods we need, like fuel, rubber, lubricants and electronics. Even producing biofuel from trees is not a viable solution because of the energy required to produce it would pretty much null the effort. The thing I like the best is Hydrogen fuel cells, which gives off nothing but heat and water vapor (which is also considered a greenhouse gas). However, the thought of driving around in a hydrogen powered Ford "Hindenburg" does not excite me.
-
If it is any consolation, the gasoline in your car is just as dangerous. Furthermore, even if you were to get into a collision, the hydrogen would escape very, very quickly, whereas gasoline doesn't let anybody push it around, and would stay in your car. Even if the hydrogen did have the proper conditions for ignition and it reached the cockpit, death would be instantaneous, as opposed to gasoline, which would slowly grill you like an over-sized steak.
-Penguin
-
If it is any consolation, the gasoline in your car is just as dangerous. Furthermore, even if you were to get into a collision, the hydrogen would escape very, very quickly, whereas gasoline doesn't let anybody push it around, and would stay in your car. Even if the hydrogen did have the proper conditions for ignition and it reached the cockpit, death would be instantaneous, as opposed to gasoline, which would slowly grill you like an over-sized steak.
-Penguin
Thank you Penguin, how comforting...
-
Thanks. I followed your steps, but it was already checked on. I don't have this problem on any other internet text window, just the AH BBS.
I thought it had something to do with "compatibility view" maybe there is another option in tools for Windows 7.
-
I thought it had something to do with "compatibility view" maybe there is another option in tools for Windows 7.
Yep that seems to have done the trick, appreciate it sir!
Hey Hoff, hit the icon that looks like a torn page to the left of your refresh button. That did it for me.
-
I understand all of that....stuff...but...I just want to learn how to fly.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5BJXwNeKsQ
cheers :x
-
Wtf?