Thursday, December 27, 2007

10 Green New Year Resolutions

Cut down on water use

How much? Sydney Water will do everything you need for just $22.

How hard? One phone call.

Links WaterFix

Sign up for GreenPower

How much? Between $4 and $8.50 extra a week for the average family.

How hard? A couple of phone calls.

Links GreenPower scheme

Green Electricity Watch

How much? A 23W Megaman CFL bulb that replaces a standard 125W light costs $19.25 from Todae ( It is claimed to last 10 times longer than a conventional bulb.

How hard? Get the stepladder out and do the whole house in a couple of hours.

Links Phasing out of incandescents

How much? Saves money.

How hard? Stand up. Put one leg in front of the other. Repeat. Easy.

Links National Physical Activity Guidelines

10,000 Steps

Think before you buy

How much? You could potentially save a lot.

How hard? Just don't do it!

Links Affluenza

Eat locally
Install solar hot water
Learn to compost
Plant some food
Get active
blog it


Anonymous said...

The Problems with the Man-Made Global Warming Argument

In order to scientifically or mathematically prove that man is causing global warming and that we need to listen to this latest of causes, it is not the amount of data or the so-called “consensus” that has any logical impact. Only logic can have logical impact. That is what is sorely missing from the global man-made global warming argument, which has become mostly political in recent years.
Any person with logical reasoning capability must analyze cause-effect, logical linkages and other factors to come to their own decision. Having analyzed these factors I cannot in good conscience give credence to the man-made global warming argument, and in fact believe it to be a purely political tool these days.
First there must be proof that the climate on the planet Earth has warmed significantly in a short period of time. The warmth and coolness of the earth is measured using temperature. In this case, a “Global Temperature” average must be used. Since the “Global Temperature” as reported in the U.N. Climate Change panels is based on only 20 years of temperature measurements which do not take into account various altitudes and climates, and the rest is extrapolated to obtain hundreds of years of “make-believe” temperatures, no such proof of warming exists. Add to that the fact that their estimate is only half a degree increase in 100 years, using this skewed and unreliable data, and you find that there is not a single basis in fact that the Earth has indeed warmed, or that the warmth has been significant. Even if the measurements were scientifically and dutifully taken over the past 100 years, taken at different altitudes and climates, as well as in different settings (urban, suburban, rural, wild and over water), which they were not, the change is not significant. A significant change would be several degrees.
Second the change would have to be linked to carbon emissions by mankind. Being that there has been no significant change proven, and that it has been measured that volcanic eruptions, cattle, animals and other factors release more carbon into the atmosphere than mankind, such a link has not been made. Also no proof that carbon increase affects global temperature has been offered, only rampant speculation. The time period used for the measurements, including the extrapolations beyond the last 20 years of “reliable” data, is the only time period in which western society has known the world was not flat, and known of the western hemisphere, so we have no reliable reference to determine what temperatures were like before the west was settled. Add to that the U.N. chart of extrapolated global temperature showing that the period of the 1600s was exceptionally cold, a “little ice age” as some called it, and we may be on a normal warming curve, if indeed there is warming.
Third all factors must be taken into account. If indeed the Earth is warming, of which there still is not enough proof, then we must look at all causes, not using a bias of just one. Volcanic activity, the “wobble” of the Earth’s rotation, solar activity, the rise of large cities made of glass, concrete, glass, metals, asphalt, deforestation and other factors have not been included in the calculations made by the U.N. commission and other man-made global warming theorists, but have instead been dismissed out of hand.
Fourth there must be proof that catastrophe and not a boon will result from climate change. Wild theories by some that the Oceans will raise eighteen to twenty-four feet within fifty years are not scientific or accurate. In fact, there has been no natural calamity or increase in ocean levels as a result of temperature increases claimed, yet not proven. Hurricanes have not increased in frequency or violence. Water shortages have falsely been linked to global warming rather than calmly looking at increasing population and water usage in affected areas, so claims of droughts and such need to be retracted until proven to be caused by this so-called global warming. Fires seem to occur in the same areas as they have in the past, though people live in those places now so they are more widely reported. Claims of polar bear population decreases have been found to be wrong. In essence, there has not been a single negative factor reported which has been successfully linked to global warming.
And finally, the motives of those who are espousing this theory must be examined. This is the sole tactic repeatedly used to attack those who have more reasonable and less dogmatic views on global warming. But those who make claims that Global Warming is false and a political tool often have nothing to gain. In the case of Climatologists, notoriety, grants and other financial boons, fame and the like are great motivators…so much so that they have sponsored “the sky is falling” theories of global warming, cooling, warming, cooling, etc… for over 100 years. Politicians have obvious reason to endorse such theories, whether to get elected, tax to provide programs they espouse, to avoid being attacked by fanatics or to make $100,000 per speech as they ride private jets around the world or make outlandish “documentaries”.
All of these factors must be examined before giving credence to man-made global warming theory. None have been, and instead political entities like the U.N. have used bandwagon propaganda techniques like this so-called “consensus” as their latest tactic. They refuse to listen to counter arguments and label those opposed as fanatics, when they are very fanatical in their theories, even proposing taxation of every man woman and child in industrialized nations (excluding China of course!). There has been no logical and well thought out link made between man and global warming. There have been outrageous predictions of impending catastrophe used for political and monetary gains. And there has been a lot of political talk and money changing hands. This is not science. This is not logic. This “Man-Made Global Warming” theory shows all signs of political propaganda, without facts to back it up.

Anonymous said...

"In order to scientifically or mathematically prove that man is causing global warming and that we need to....."

It was scientifically and mathematically proved in 2005 beyond a doubt by Naomi Oreskes in her peer-review paper in Science - you bloody moron.

Phrenology is the subject for you, leave global warming for those who are willing to use scientific-method.

Christine said...

I think my posting on Polluted China should be of great interest to your readers. What we ask of China in the coming years is going to be huge in our efficacy to deal with the issue of global warming! Take a look and feel free to discuss it.

Anonymous said...

Mission Statement:

Green Rules facilitates networking for the common good allowing information sharing to help us help our planet. The greener you get, the more informed you are, the greener the flag. As you go greener, you trade green flags with other Green Rules members learning how they got to the next shade greener.

Green Rules website facilitates greener living behavior through a perpetual gathering of non-bias pure uninfluenced real information that is tracked and compiled…...

It works in 2 ways:

1. Allowing the user to see and learn from other posted rules by searching the rule and then rating the rule.

2. User can post a Rule by building a Rule page very similar to a Myspace page, with a Rule as the page title.

In the middle of the page the growing RULESLIST of new posts continually scrolling,


Also on the front page, a rule of the day, a top ten, most viewed, best and the worst rated etc.

For example: Consumer/Rules will share and rate info about corporations to better informed the consumer of there Green or not so green business practice. Political rules works the same way in the very important and not so forth coming political arena IE: Land of Lobbyist and Pork bellies.

Best Website Contest:

Contest Rules: Web Designer can use and is not limited to the following, Greener Rules/Ideas/info/Flag/Shade

Must have all marketing tools: Logo, Slogan, Font, Color Scheme etc.

Must have and not limited all website components mentioned.

“Each Rule is Ruled upon”

"Each Idea Shared and Rated"

"Informed People Know"

"Greener Flag Better Planet"


samojo said...

For a news years green resolution, start with usingorganic skin care. The biodynamic harvesting methods of the plants and herbal ingredients is more sustainable for the environment

Unknown said...

It sounds like you’re creating difficulties oneself by attempting to solve this situation rather of looking at why their is often a dilemma to begin withBest advertising Agency in the world | top advertising agencies in pakistan | Marketing Agency | pakistani matrimonial

Unknown said...

Very Useful information , this is both good reading for, have quite a few good key points, and I learn some new stuff from it too, thanks for sharing your information.
Mobile apps for university