Post: #51

If folks who believed in man-made climate change were serious, they would support nuclear power, and greater use of natural and shale gas, as well as tariffs on the main offenders like China, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

They don't. So they're not serious.

I can't take anyone seriously whose proposed solution is so out of touch with reality. The solution is more about atonement and abasement then it is about addressing whatever problems climate change might cause.

Post: #52

(03-29-2013 06:08 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  If folks who believed in man-made climate change were serious, they would support nuclear power, and greater use of natural and shale gas, as well as tariffs on the main offenders like China, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

They don't. So they're not serious.

I can't take anyone seriously whose proposed solution is so out of touch with reality. The solution is more about atonement and abasement then it is about addressing whatever problems climate change might cause.

You also almost never hear these people talking about population control or the problem of third world birth rates. When it comes to them having to take a position contrary to the usual liberal orthodoxy, suddenly the environment isn't such a big priority.

A lot of these people are just Al Gore-style alarmists/profiteers. It is the usual excuse for finger wagging and claims of moral and intellectual superiority. And I think some people get off on the self-denial aspect of it (like Sheryl Crow bragging about using only 1 sheet of toilet paper at a time). These are the same people who were burning witches and whipping themselves 300-400 years ago.

Post: #53

Quote:You know what this who debate makes me think of:



It's like a posting I recently made showing how a feminist's hamster would run non-stop every time someone pointed out a study showing a higher percentage of false rape accusations than 2%, but how her hamster thinking accepted without question any data supporting the 2% figure, no matter how dubious.

I feel the same way when debating climate change (or when debating whether we really landed on the moon, or whether Obama was born in Hawaii, or debating with a young earth creationist).

That article has been refuted: http://www.skepticalscience.com/australi...rming.html

There is no debate about man-made global warming. There are a lot of people with hamster logic who think otherwise, but I don't like hamster logic, whether it comes from a femnazi in leftfield or a right-wing extremist.

[/quote]



It's hard to take anthropogenic global warming serious when Al Gore has just sold Current TV to Qatar.

Post: #54

the butterfly effect exisys. does not mean its applicable to everything.

Post: #55

(03-29-2013 06:08 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  If folks who believed in man-made climate change were serious, they would support nuclear power, and greater use of natural and shale gas, as well as tariffs on the main offenders like China, India, Russia and Saudi Arabia.

They don't. So they're not serious.

I can't take anyone seriously whose proposed solution is so out of touch with reality. The solution is more about atonement and abasement then it is about addressing whatever problems climate change might cause.

To be honest, that's a pretty terrible argument.

I'm looking for a little more realism. Do you really think anyone is going to vaguely entertain the notion of putting economic sanctions against any of the countries you just mentioned? Might as well sever any kind of diplomatic ties to these countries while you're at it. You also forgot to mention the US in your list- do you really think anyone has the balls to tell the US that they should cut down on emissions or economic sanctions are going to be put in place?

As for nuclear, it's just not a very competitive option- capital costs are only increasing as they have to adopt increasingly stringent security measures and mechanisms, especially after the latest incident in Japan. Once the reactor has been built, then yes, it will provide reasonably clean, cheap energy, but the capital costs are much too high.

To illustrate this- the newest 1.7GW nuclear reactor in Finland is being built at an estimated 8.5 billion euros. Now I wonder how many similarly sized coal fired plants could be constructed for that kind og money?

The fact is, there is only a future pay-off for the reduction of emissions, not a present one. And each decision to lower emissions comes with a sizeable opportunity cost- one which few countries are willing to pay. The bottom line is, nothing significant is going to happen until it's too late.

Post: #56

(03-28-2013 11:14 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 11:09 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  I agree 100% with you on the A to Y. Problem is they are using global warming to extract billions from us, shut down industries and control us. That is why it is a highly contested debate.

Even if that's true, they're extracting billions from us in a multitude of ways. For instance, they're extracting billions to occupy other countries.

Hypothetically speaking, how do you think we could best prevent industries from polluting or from genetically modifying their crops to, say, maximize profit?

Protect property rights and polluters will be punished. Most cases of rampant environmental destruction happen on land/sea that no one owns or the government owns.

GMOs are no worse for your health than "normal" organisms. We've been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years through selective breeding.

Post: #57

Exactly. Hamsters will run non-stop, and people will believe what they want to believe.

(03-29-2013 05:42 AM)placer Wrote:  You know what this who debate makes me think of:



It's like a posting I recently made showing how a feminist's hamster would run non-stop every time someone pointed out a study showing a higher percentage of false rape accusations than 2%, but how her hamster thinking accepted without question any data supporting the 2% figure, no matter how dubious.

Post: #58

(03-29-2013 03:56 AM)Huck Finn Wrote:  Hey man please clarify this? The very bottom what? The graph i inserted is from 450000 years ago to ~present day, your graph is 650 years before ~present day, is some of the data missing from your inserted graph?

I'll reply to this one since the figure doesn't include the caption, which says the units for the time is in k-years, (thousand years), so multiply the numbers by 1000. The bottom one is the actual data. If you knew a bit more about the Vostok temperature reconstruction, you would have known that. You can't directly measure temperature from an ice core sample. The bottom one shows the Oxygen isotope ratios, which is what is directly measured. Then you use that to calculate the temperature.

If you want more information, do a search. There are plenty of information out there. But I'll waste too much time fighting against hamsters.

Post: #59

(03-29-2013 08:20 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 11:14 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 11:09 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  I agree 100% with you on the A to Y. Problem is they are using global warming to extract billions from us, shut down industries and control us. That is why it is a highly contested debate.

Even if that's true, they're extracting billions from us in a multitude of ways. For instance, they're extracting billions to occupy other countries.

Hypothetically speaking, how do you think we could best prevent industries from polluting or from genetically modifying their crops to, say, maximize profit?

Protect property rights and polluters will be punished. Most cases of rampant environmental destruction happen on land/sea that no one owns or the government owns.

GMOs are no worse for your health than "normal" organisms. We've been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years through selective breeding.

If GMO is so safe then why doesn't Monsanto serve it to their scientists in any of their cafeterias ?

a 2000 years ago were the Greeks crossing insect genes with Salmon ? Were they combining Goats and Spiders to make super armor ?

You telling me it is safe to have spider goats ?

Go play in traffic

Post: #60

Obama just signed the Monsanto Protection Act. How does that protect the environment? It certainly doesn't help small farms and people who don't want to grow gmo crops.

Post: #61

(03-29-2013 12:25 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  

(03-29-2013 08:20 AM)ElBorrachoInfamoso Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 11:14 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(03-28-2013 11:09 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  I agree 100% with you on the A to Y. Problem is they are using global warming to extract billions from us, shut down industries and control us. That is why it is a highly contested debate.

Even if that's true, they're extracting billions from us in a multitude of ways. For instance, they're extracting billions to occupy other countries.

Hypothetically speaking, how do you think we could best prevent industries from polluting or from genetically modifying their crops to, say, maximize profit?

Protect property rights and polluters will be punished. Most cases of rampant environmental destruction happen on land/sea that no one owns or the government owns.

GMOs are no worse for your health than "normal" organisms. We've been genetically modifying our food for thousands of years through selective breeding.

If GMO is so safe then why doesn't Monsanto serve it to their scientists in any of their cafeterias ?

a 2000 years ago were the Greeks crossing insect genes with Salmon ? Were they combining Goats and Spiders to make super armor ?

You telling me it is safe to have spider goats ?

Go play in traffic

Cite something real. All I see is a sheep parroting ignorance and lies.

Monsanto DOES serve GMOs in their cafeterias. Do your research.

Eating something with proteins from X and Y is no danger assuming eating X and Y individually is safe. Proteins are denatured during cooking and during digestion anyway.

Eating a cooked spider goat is safe.

Post: #62

(03-29-2013 06:32 AM)Huck Finn Wrote:  It's hard to take anthropogenic global warming serious when Al Gore has just sold Current TV to Qatar.

Any time someone hammers on Al Gore it's a dead giveaway that they've bought into the Fox-News talking points hook, line, and sinker.

Here's the Fox-News propaganda machine tactic: pick a single "left-wing" boogie man (usually an exception to the rule) and repeat his name ad-naseum till people start repeating it too. They do it with George Soros to create this illusion that the "left" somehow has all these fat-cat individual benefactors (when the opposite is, in fact, true). They did it will Bill Ayers during the first Obama campaign. And they do it with Al Gore for Global Warming/Climate Change. Associate the person with the movement, attempt to discredit the person, and then--by extension--discredit the movement.

Think about it: how often do you hear a right-winger use George Soros, and only George Soros, as an example?

Al Gore is irrelevant. Al Gore doesn't equal the Global Warming issue just because he made a movie about it or runs a business. Even if he were the most corrupt criminal in the history of the universe, that doesn't change the debate.

Whether you consider yourself Right, Left, or somewhere in between, stop falling for propaganda tricks.

Post: #63

I believe climate change is real. The only opinions that matter to me here are those of climate scientists. From my own reading, their overwhelming consensus is that it's a fact. It also fits with what I see in front of me.

Not many places outside the US is the validity of climate change greeted with such skepticism. There are far and away more people who have something to gain from denying climate change than the reverse. And these monied interests have been successful in creating genuine skepticism.

Gun control, war on drugs, etc etc etc. Whoever is making the bucks is happy with the status quo.
Future of the planet? Who gives an F...Exxon et al has to keep making trillions..

I sincerely home I'm wrong, but I think tough times are ahead..

Post: #64

(03-29-2013 08:06 AM)thebassist Wrote:  To illustrate this- the newest 1.7GW nuclear reactor in Finland is being built at an estimated 8.5 billion euros. Now I wonder how many similarly sized coal fired plants could be constructed for that kind og money?

The fact is, there is only a future pay-off for the reduction of emissions, not a present one. And each decision to lower emissions comes with a sizeable opportunity cost- one which few countries are willing to pay. The bottom line is, nothing significant is going to happen until it's too late.

Agree entirely. But these enourmous capital costs are arbitrary. Like complicated tax-regulation. All it does is force us to hire an army of lawyers worth 50bn annually.

We should do away with these cumbersome and inefficient restrictions and regulation. All of this regulation is just a death-wish, and it benefits corporations and monopolies, who are the only ones able to afford to deal with regulation, while stifling entrepreneurship.

In addition, gas and coal fired plants can provide heat and electricty simulataneously (by storing heated water from the induction process - especially useful to heat large cities).

Tariffs on green-house gas emissions along with reasonable and affordable regulation would automatically push emissions down in the US. Windpower still costs 20 times as much over its investment horizon as shale gas.

But even if the US reduces emissions, China and India belch out more new pollution annually rendering American reductions useless. Combining energy policy with environmental and foreign policy is an obvious solution.

Tariffs on China while helping India build new power plants, nuclear, gas and coal seems to me an approach that would solve multiple challenges, since the US will need India to head balance China going forward (Detente Vol. II)

Post: #65

Climate change is a part of the natural world cycle.

It is not a phenomenom caused by humans.

It has happenned many times over the course of this world.

Post: #66

I believe climate change is a very real thing, it's happening right now and the effects are being felt from the sundarbans delta to the coast of florida. However, it is important to take a step back and think about the final product of climate change if we stay on the same course. Would the final product be that bad? The world would be much changed from what it is now and the effects would be disastrous for a lot of people but it would be one of the most interesting things to happen in human history; it would be good fun to observe for me at least.

Post: #67

(03-31-2013 09:45 AM)ElJefe Wrote:  Agree entirely. But these enourmous capital costs are arbitrary. Like complicated tax-regulation. All it does is force us to hire an army of lawyers worth 50bn annually.

We should do away with these cumbersome and inefficient restrictions and regulation. All of this regulation is just a death-wish, and it benefits corporations and monopolies, who are the only ones able to afford to deal with regulation, while stifling entrepreneurship.

In addition, gas and coal fired plants can provide heat and electricty simulataneously (by storing heated water from the induction process - especially useful to heat large cities).

Tariffs on green-house gas emissions along with reasonable and affordable regulation would automatically push emissions down in the US. Windpower still costs 20 times as much over its investment horizon as shale gas.

But even if the US reduces emissions, China and India belch out more new pollution annually rendering American reductions useless. Combining energy policy with environmental and foreign policy is an obvious solution.

Tariffs on China while helping India build new power plants, nuclear, gas and coal seems to me an approach that would solve multiple challenges, since the US will need India to head balance China going forward (Detente Vol. II)

I truly think that the only way to go is through leading by example. The Chinese especially are a very prickly bunch when it comes to being told what to do- which is why I doubt that the diplomatic approach would be able to solve much- or at least until the US shows that they are practicing what they preach. Any murmuring of economic sanctions against China would immediately draw cries of US imperialistic tendencies against the rest of the world.

The wild card when it comes to China is its people. As the years go on, we will start to see more and more of the effects of pollution on the general population of China, and I believe it's possible that they will reach a breaking point. A real question to think about is how much will they tolerate? While the Communist Party in China is extremely powerful, ultimately, they fear the power of the masses just like any other government. As China develops and an environmental consciousness starts to form, how much longer will they bear the haze from factories and power plants on their cities, the masks they wear that will ultimately do little to protect them, or the long-term effects of terrible air quality on their health?

As for India, I can't say much as I'm not very familiar with their state of politics.

Post: #68

(04-02-2013 03:45 AM)thebassist Wrote:  The wild card when it comes to China is its people. As the years go on, we will start to see more and more of the effects of pollution on the general population of China, and I believe it's possible that they will reach a breaking point. A real question to think about is how much will they tolerate? While the Communist Party in China is extremely powerful, ultimately, they fear the power of the masses just like any other government. As China develops and an environmental consciousness starts to form, how much longer will they bear the haze from factories and power plants on their cities, the masks they wear that will ultimately do little to protect them, or the long-term effects of terrible air quality on their health?

As for India, I can't say much as I'm not very familiar with their state of politics.

The Chinese people seem to be putting up with a lot of pollution:

Post: #69

Regardless of the veracity of Global Warming ™, it's self-evident that the most prominent "solutions" - electric cars, carbon credits, optional CO2 limits - are utter left-wing farce, nothing but another excuse to redistribute taxes to political cronies.

Even *if* Global Warming ™ is true, a real environmentalist ought to be opposed to ObamaClimate and the IPCC for the simple fact that they're exploiting this reality to win political votes.

Any decent, politically honest person - Global Warming ™=(1/0) - ought to be on the "Denier" side due to the sheer cynicism and hypocrisy of those who are trying to "save" the environment by supporting their buddies in the solar-panel industry.

Personally, I'm siding with those who say that the Holocene is over, and we're looking at a new ice age.

Post: #70

Mu understanding of India:
They're highly suspicious of the West and still hold grudges against the West for colonization. One of the reasons why they kept their markets closed to the rest of the world until the 1990s was that they were terrified Western countries would take over again (after all, it was effectively a Western business, The East Indian Company, that actually conquered India).

So how do Indians see the entire climate change policy:
- The West has already pumped more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than their fair share. (Connection to their view that the West has stolen more resources than their fair share through colonization)
- Why should India cut down on greenhouse gases while the West profited from colonization and uses resources extremely out of proportion to their population up till now.

Hence, India looks at it like this:
- West should change their ways if they want us to take them seriously about their demands that we change our ways.

Post: #71

India and China pollute so much that even if every American driver alive today switched to a hybrid it wouldn't make a difference.

Only one thing exists, this moment right now. So cease that shit and make sure you are able to look back and smile at your life if/when shit hits the fan.

Post: #72

Al Gore is kind of the asshole of climate change even if you never watch the news. He arrived out of post-election obscurity, cheeseburger in hand, to tell us how we're all going to die and probably made billions doing it. I don't think he actually did anything.
I once spent a summer planting ~20,000 trees and I never even got government reimbursement for jack shit. They probably have the bill sitting on some government dick's desk, thinking to themselves "Well, he planted the trees, he's probably not going to burn them down anytime soon".

Climate change is likely a real threat but since they've moved the goalposts from global warming to climate change, nothing is easily quantifiable. I don't like seeing new (somewhat) invasive species moving north, the seasons being strange as hell, and likely more extreme weather, but it's the reality we're probably going to have to face since nobody wants to hop onto the nuclear power bandwagon post-Fukushima.

Post: #73

It's definitely happening, the world is getting warmer overall.

Whether or not it's anthropogenic is debatable, or even if it matters if we supposedly accelerate the process.

Once all the frozen methane melts underneath our oceans, we're all fucked anyways.

Post: #74

(04-02-2013 03:52 AM)durangotang Wrote:  The Chinese people seem to be putting up with a lot of pollution:

Hahaha exactly! It's quite insane actually.

I'd just keep my eyes out on the growing middle class- all of whom will be connected to the internet, increasingly educated, and (possibly, we'll see) decreasingly tolerant of the government's terrible environmental policies. It's already a sign when you start to hear about open criticism of the government in the press...

Post: #75

some interesting posts, we've had one of the worst winters on record here in the UK, the prime 'climate' tool responsible for that is the gulf stream, during winter it warms Europe, during the summer it cools Europe, however this winter the stream has either moved or slowed down due to freshwater coming from the Arctic and diluting the content at the northernmost extent of the stream, so we've had a harsh cold winter which is still continuing into April. It's the 3rd April, it's supposed to be a few weeks into spring but we've had -1C to about 4C since November now, our livestock has been affected, yeah it's fucked us a bit.