Founder of Weather Channel: Global Warming Hype = $4/gallon Gas

[LarryG]

Let me give you one example of what one man did to the envirement. Me! In the late seventys I dumped tons of propellant that was not able to be reprocessed, because there was concern, now that gas is called ucon, or freon, and along with it, who knows how much CO2, there was no immediate concern, we didn't know. Now we know. How many other chemicals have we legaly disposed of that never existed in nature. The company I worked for, made O2 tons of it, did we ever think about the causes of replenishment? No its only air that we reprocess using an awful ammount of energy.We wwere not the only company doing this, who knows what ammount of unseen damage we did, but later, when facts became known, these practises were stopped, but the horse had left the barn. Canada has what is known as oil sands, great amounts of it, but enviementally they are a disaster to refine, but were doing it.Yes man has an impact on this planet, sorry but true!

[LarryG]

Oh forgot asbestos, waiting for my turn for a lung disease, but maybe these [pollock genes are better than some.

[jcb]

Larry, it would help our discussion a lot if you guys would stop arguing against a position no one is taking.

No one is saying man hasn't affected the planet, but that's the way we get our beliefs characterized. What we're saying is that man's impact is not nearly what the media claims.

I'd be careful bringing up asbestos in a discussion about whose science is right. The asbestos scam/scare beginning in the 70s was one of the biggest wastes of government funds in our history--a boondoggle of waste, fraud, and junk science.

A huge scam/hype/media frenzy/scare brought about by scientists and politicians. Hmmm....sounds vaguely familiar...

[Moose1am]

You are showing your lack of scientific knowledge. If you believe that the asbestos control programs were a scam then go ahead and breath more asbestos. You might want to sprinkle some on your food too.

Why not add some asbestos to your pepper shaker too while you are at it.

In other words maybe you should eat your words!

Just for your information. The people first noticed the dangers of asbestos back in the early Egyptian Times. And Haliburton has a huge amount of asbestos liability so Cheney was is not a happy camper. When he's out of the White House the enforcement of the Toxic Substance Control Act will resume when Obama is inaugurated
-----------------------------------------------------

Larry, it would help our discussion a lot if you guys would stop arguing against a position no one is taking.

No one is saying man hasn't affected the planet, but that's the way we get our beliefs characterized. What we're saying is that man's impact is not nearly what the media claims.

I'd be careful bringing up asbestos in a discussion about whose science is right. The asbestos scam/scare beginning in the 70s was one of the biggest wastes of government funds in our history--a boondoggle of waste, fraud, and junk science.

A huge scam/hype/media frenzy/scare brought about by scientists and politicians. Hmmm....sounds vaguely familiar...

[jcb]

Another great job arguing against a position no one is taking.

The scam/scare lied in the fact that there really was no significant health danger if you worked in a building with asbestos fire-proofing. As a matter of fact, some say that the asbestos removal process actually increased any danger that existed.

Questionable science led to a massive, totally unnecessary removal program and scores of frivolous lawsuits. Politicians saw a chance to be seen as protecting the public, not to mention an opportunity to reward favored contractors with a highly lucrative asbestos removal contract.

[Moose1am]

This is one of the times you actually said a few things that were right, but you mixed in others that were false. I'll explain below:

Asbestos is dangerous when ingested or inhaled into the body. It's dangerous to animals as well as humans in this way. Asbestos fibers are released during demolition of older buildings that have asbestos fibers inside the building materials. Those Building Materials are called asbestos containing building materials. During a demo project one is required to treat all the building materials as ACBM unless the building materials have been sampled and tested for asbestos and proven not to contain any asbestos in those materials.

Remodeling buildings also can release asbestos fibers into the building and outside air where people can breath those fibers and suffer SERIOUS HEALTH problems and death

The SCIENCE around Asbestos is good and sound. What's missing is the building owners basic understanding of the science surrounding asbestos in buildings

It's pretty simple really. All a building owner needs to remember is to not disturb the asbestos containing building materials unless they make plans to control the dust that's released.

USEPA nor OSHA NEVER REQUIRED anyone to remove asbestos UNLESS the asbestos was going to be disturbed so at to release asbestos.

You can leave the asbestos containing building material alone and not disturb it and not have to do anything with it.

Instead of removing it one can encapsulate the ACBM in place and or work around it.

As long as you are not releasing dust from this ACBM you are fine.

So in summary it's the people that are not familiar with working with asbestos that are in error not the science. The science is sound.

If a lawsuit is filed, the courts will decide the case on it's merits. I often hear folks that have chosen to ignore the laws calling the lawsuits against them frivolous. Then they realize that they were legitimate law suits when the judge rules against them in court. But most people in prison exclaim that they are innocent too.

Poorly performed removal jobs can increase the dangers by releasing asbestos fibers into the work space if they don't keep the dust down and don't build full containment around the work site.

However very few asbestos removal jobs are performed by fly by night contractors these days. The laws are very strict and people that work with asbestos have to have training that meets federal USEPA and State requirements. They have to be certified to work in many of the asbestos fields. The project designer, the project supervisor, the workers and the company all have to be certified and they have to undergo hours of speical training to do this work.

Only those building owners who try to cut corners and do the jobs themselves are putting people in danger when they remove asbestos improper.

It's like working with dynamite. If you take precautions it's safe. If you don't take precautions and are haphazard in your work you can blow yourself up.

I see that Jcb has tried to mislead again just as he has done in the past on the Global Warming Issue. Perhaps it's due to his lack of understanding on the issues.. perhaps not!

Another great job arguing against a position no one is taking.

The scam/scare lied in the fact that there really was no significant health danger if you worked in a building with asbestos fire-proofing. As a matter of fact, some say that the asbestos removal process actually increased any danger that existed.

Questionable science led to a massive, totally unnecessary removal program and scores of frivolous lawsuits. Politicians saw a chance to be seen as protecting the public, not to mention an opportunity to reward favored contractors with a highly lucrative asbestos removal contract.

[jcb]

My post wasn't misleading to anyone with a basic knowledge of the asbestos story, but I'll admit filling in the gaps would have been better. Accusing someone of intentionally misleading folks, though, is better suited for 8th grade homeroom than this board.

And nice attempt at thread-linkage, but this global warming thread I began has been a resounding victory for free thinking. I posted a link to a meteorological pioneer's argument against manmade global warming, which was met with..drumroll...If He Was So Smart Why Didn't He Win a Nobel Prize.

Still waiting on that definition of "working American", btw...if we're going to debate we need to define our terms.

[Moose1am]

Look JCB:
If I have to define what "working American" means to you when I know that you can figure it out by yourself. It's not that hard.

And all I did was explain how the Asbestos Industry works. If you had told the entire truth about what happens in the industry I would not have said what I said up above. But when you state the things you said it's only have the story. And you used inflammatory words that are uncalled for. So when you do that you can expect a rebuttal from me. You might think of it as a clarification.

If it walks like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I am going to Call it a DUCK! I won't pull any punches.

The linkage was started by you implying things about global warming and asbestos industry. I just called you on your misleading statements and filled in the gaps to show why I think you were misleading. I did a good job too.

Now who's the one talking about 8 th grade classroom stuff? You not me!

Global warming is on the increase and so is mankind's ability to mine and burn coal and oil. The more fossil fuels we burn each day or each week the more CO2 gas that's put into the Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of CO2 added to the Atmosphere by mankind is making the earth warm up faster than ever before. Man is not only causing global warming but accelerating the Global Warming Process. The proof is right in front of our eyes. But some refuse to open their eyes and have a look see.

My post wasn't misleading to anyone with a basic knowledge of the asbestos story, but I'll admit filling in the gaps would have been better. Accusing someone of intentionally misleading folks, though, is better suited for 8th grade homeroom than this board.

And nice attempt at thread-linkage, but this global warming thread I began has been a resounding victory for free thinking. I posted a link to a meteorological pioneer's argument against manmade global warming, which was met with..drumroll...If He Was So Smart Why Didn't He Win a Nobel Prize.

Still waiting on that definition of "working American", btw...if we're going to debate we need to define our terms.

[jcb]

Look JCB:If I have to define what "working American" means to you when I know that you can figure it out by yourself. It's not that hard.

I know exactly what the phrase means. I also know why you won't define it after you used it.

[jcb]

Here's a link to one of the few news stories I could find about the scientists' petition Coleman references in his speech:

http://tinyurl.com/46qkjp

Anyone think, if the petition said manmade global warming was for real, it wouldn't have been splashed across the front page of every newspaper?

[Moose1am]

Global Warming is real and it's being accelerated by man.


QUOTE=jcb;330324]I also know why you won't define it after you used it.[/QUOTE]

Oh Please! Explain to me why I won't give you a definition of a word or words that you already admit that you know the meaning of.

[jcb]

And you used inflammatory words that are uncalled for.

This is an amusing comment coming from someone whose contributions to this board include:

(about McCain) "How can we call him a hero when all he did was get shot down and end up as a POW for the rest of the war."

(and to a member of this forum) "Do you beat your wife too?"