Page 26 of 65 FirstFirst ...
16
24
25
26
27
28
36
... LastLast
  1. #501
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by TradewindNQ View Post
    Like what? I changed to LED Christmas Lights 2 years ago, they haven't burnt out and the entire 180m length uses less power than an old incandescent lightbulb. I spend less on my electricity bill, they use less energy and I save on replacement bulbs and in turn, less waste. Small change...if only everyone could make a few of them...
    If the "green" version of things were superior to the normal version in all aspects, then we wouldn't need any kyoto protocols at all and we'd already be living as green as possible.

    The fact is of course that the green versions aren't as efficient as the co2 emmitting solutions we use today. We'll have to reduce our efficiency as a society to achieve less co2 emissions. And this will cause poverty and death.

    But if we can avert much more poverty and death by using less efficient green options, then it can be worth it. But we better be damn sure about it.

  2. #502
    On another thread today, I saw a humorous summary of the changing face of the climate change denialist movement:

    1. Climate change isn't occurring.
    2. The people who say it is occurring are only in it for the money.
    3. Even if it really is occurring, it’s not our fault.
    4. Anyway, there's nothing we can do about it.
    5. If it is occurring, and it is our fault, and there is something we can do about it, doing so would wreck our economy.
    6. In fact that’s the point of all this so-called climate science, it’s actually a liberal plot to destroy America! Damn those omnipotent liberals!
    7. Al Gore said he invented the internet; therefore climate change is not real. Q.E.D.
    8. We need to study this subject more before we take any action.
    9. Hey, it’ll be a good thing! Yeah, that’s the ticket….
    10. Remember: it’s controversial!!!

  3. #503
    High Overlord Molyneux's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Palo Alto, CA
    Posts
    145
    Fortunately for us, we don't have to choose whether or not to believe in it. You can also choose not to believe in gravity, air, or evolution. It doesn't make any of them less real; it just makes anyone who thinks it's something to "believe in" pretty uneducated.

  4. #504
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    If the "green" version of things were superior to the normal version in all aspects, then we wouldn't need any kyoto protocols at all and we'd already be living as green as possible.

    The fact is of course that the green versions aren't as efficient as the co2 emmitting solutions we use today. We'll have to reduce our efficiency as a society to achieve less co2 emissions. And this will cause poverty and death.

    But if we can avert much more poverty and death by using less efficient green options, then it can be worth it. But we better be damn sure about it.
    What does this have to do with being more energy efficient in your own home?

  5. #505
    OP, you are confusing ancedotes with data. In the same time, plenty of the world experienced colder winters than before, for instance.

    I'm doubtful about aspects of climate change. While it seems certain that extra carbon in the atmosphere will cause a warming effect eventually, this field has been treated to the wailing cries of hysteria since literally the beginning. First were the cries of global cooling, then hysterical predictions about a looming apocalypse before Y2K, etc. Climate scientists, while generally united about AGW being a real thing, disagree on the timing, and there is serious political muscle pressing both sides to say what they want to hear.

    Additionally, the COST to "correct" climate change would be at minimum HUGE- and also unpredictable. Such a change would require an imperial will and level of power to force compliance- if simply, say, the US changed their energy consumption and production habits, the cost would be tremendous, and the US would essentially be throwing money into a pit if, say, China continued to do exactly what they are doing now. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be done, or can't, should the bulk of global warming thought turn out to be true, but it raises the importance of knowing this for a damned fact tremendously.

    A viable strategy could simply be "continue on the current path, and research better batteries and better energy production methods, hoping to race against the clock with those technologies and use geoengineering to cloak or mitigate the damage done by AGW". Many of the most active climate change scientists / activists HATE this idea- some are opposed with an almost religious ferocity, and demand that we change NOW (many of the changes demanded are trivial, such as the elimination of gas inefficient vehicles that are owned by a fucking tiny percent of humans, and even a small percent of Americans, because they offend them- such a reaction is emotional, not rational).

    We've also seen leaked emails from climate change scientists showing them plotting to manipulate public opinion, and selectively releasing data, withholding that data which conflicts with their views.

    It's a warzone. Both sides have dollars to spend to convince YOU that they are right. The denialists have more skin in the game (and thus more money to spend) to shift public opinion- obviously energy companies don't want you believing too much in climate change- but the alarmist side of the bench is twisting the truth too.


    The religiosity of both sides turns me off, but I'm honestly more concerned if the AGW proponents are allowed to get their way, especially if their influence doesn't stop the developing nations from doing their thing. We've already seen all manner of exploitation in the carbon markets in ways that aren't making the goddamned world have less CO2 emissions, while costing developed nations DEARLY for our factories. Any solution that fails to consider geoengineering, uses the words "Gaia" or "consumption", blames trivial bullshit like SUVs (usually while ignoring giant fucking ships burning almost crude oil at high efficiency, but in HUGE amounts), or otherwise prescribes austerity as 'the only way', is seriously suspect in my eyes.

  6. #506
    That's a lot of false equivalencies for one post.

  7. #507
    Quote Originally Posted by phatpat View Post
    <snip>
    Climate change is real. The climate has never been permanent. However Global warming implies that there is something artifically driving the climate to be warmer.

    I personally do not think that global warming is real. If anything the basic idea that the CO2 emitted from vehicles and such is a greenhouse gas. When in fact it is a cooling agent as higher CO2 levels stop heat from entering the atmosphere.

  8. #508
    Quote Originally Posted by crakerjack View Post
    There's a reason we call them theories...
    It'll do you some good to actually look up what a theory is.

    I don't know enough to properly elaborate, but people need to take into consideration that this planet is old... old as fuck... We humans haven't even been on this planet for 1% of it's existence, so why are people assuming that when things change... it's due to some crazy thing that humans did?
    If you don't know enough, find out instead of jumping immediately into an argument from ignorance. "I don't know why we know global warming is human's fault, so why does everyone who studied this think it is!??"

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-12 at 01:09 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by N-7 View Post
    We've only collected data about 200 years ago, we don't have enough data to determine with certainty whether climate change (hint global warming is myth just like the another ice age crap) is occurring or not and whether it is caused by us humans entirely or partially.
    We have more than enough data to determine both. We've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for 200 years. It's been warming for 200 years.

    I must say seeing a global warming denier fall back to their old "it's not warming" lie is refreshing. Most of you have advanced well into the "Earth is warming and humans are having an influence but I want to pretend this is 1990 and say we don't know how much".

  9. #509
    Quote Originally Posted by Linkedblade View Post
    higher CO2 levels stop heat from entering the atmosphere.

    See, claims like this get my back up. Just like Venus, right? Do you honestly think if CO2 was net protective of heat, that so many climate scientists would believe the opposite?

    Anyway, I'll probably want to step out of this thread. The last time this came up this rabbit hole went ALL the way down, and I spent SO DAMNED LONG researching, but my degree isn't in climate things, so not everything was even accessible to me. It's an absolute nightmare. The one thing I know for sure is, anyone posting a couple sentences saying that AGW is/is not accurate, is leaving out a lot of important stuff.

  10. #510
    Quote Originally Posted by Bootstrapper View Post
    It's still not enough proof. ^^,
    Humanity is the only species where some members will claim that with a 80% chance of disaster striking, "it's not enough proof" to take preventive action.

  11. #511
    Quote Originally Posted by Linkedblade View Post
    I personally do not think that global warming is real. If anything the basic idea that the CO2 emitted from vehicles and such is a greenhouse gas. When in fact it is a cooling agent as higher CO2 levels stop heat from entering the atmosphere.
    Good Lord if this post isn't indicative of the terrible shape our science education is in this country I don't know what is.

    Anything in excess can act as a pollutant. Nitrogen and Phosphorus are vital to life yet in excessive amounts they cause eutrophication and all sorts of environmental problems. We need greenhouse gasses to survive but in excess they cause climate change...which is bad when happening at the rate we are now experiencing.

  12. #512
    Quote Originally Posted by Linkedblade View Post
    I personally do not think that global warming is real. If anything the basic idea that the CO2 emitted from vehicles and such is a greenhouse gas. When in fact it is a cooling agent as higher CO2 levels stop heat from entering the atmosphere.
    When actual in fact that's complete misdirection bullshit. Solar radiation passes through the atmosphere unimpeded because it has such short wavelength. When the Earth radiates the heat energy back out, it does so at a higher wavelength that the atmosphere can interact with. And here CO2 traps the heat. Because it and other greenhouse gases absorbs the infrared energy as it radiates out into outer space.

    If the greenhouse effect isn't real, then you wouldn't be alive right now, because the Earth would be frozen.

  13. #513
    Quote Originally Posted by Linkedblade View Post
    I personally do not think that global warming is real. If anything the basic idea that the CO2 emitted from vehicles and such is a greenhouse gas. When in fact it is a cooling agent as higher CO2 levels stop heat from entering the atmosphere.
    Here's a bit oversimplified, but reasonably accurate, version of why this is wrong:



    Really, this topic isn't argued at all. All else held constant, CO2 absolutely does increase the temperature of the Earth. That's a physical fact, not a theory.

  14. #514
    Quote Originally Posted by Wikiy View Post
    With all due respect, biologists who question evolution are idiots that should be fired immediately and have their diplomas taken away.
    Global warming denial isn't really any different though.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-12 at 01:31 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Junkdepot View Post
    Here's one source of data that refutes the base supposition that CO2 emmisions have increased the rate of global warming. The HadCRUT global temperature dataset (Sept. 2012) was recently published - this is the dataset used in the most recent IPCC report and it currently shows that global warming from CO2 emissions is essentially non-existent. Source - http://www.c3headlines.com/global-co...videncetrends/

    Look it up - if you dare.
    Again? We already had a whole thread debunking this blatant, shameless lie of an article. See how it says it's based on the HadCRUT data? Here's what that data actually look like:

  15. #515
    If the "green" version of things were superior to the normal version in all aspects, then we wouldn't need any kyoto protocols at all and we'd already be living as green as possible.
    This really only makes sense in a text book and even then. Objectively superior products fall by the way side all the time.

  16. #516
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    This really only makes sense in a text book and even then. Objectively superior products fall by the way side all the time.
    Wait, you mean market forces aren't always enough?

  17. #517
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    Wait, you mean market forces aren't always enough?
    Markets aren't flawless and recognizing a superior product. I mean Betamax was arguably superior to VHS but it lost out due to business dealings and marketing and little to do with the product itself.

  18. #518
    Old God Grizzly Willy's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Kenosha, Wisconsin
    Posts
    10,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Markets aren't flawless and recognizing a superior product. I mean Betamax was arguably superior to VHS but it lost out due to business dealings and marketing and little to do with the product itself.
    I know. Was poking fun at some of the posters here who think that market forces are always right for some reason.

  19. #519
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Markets aren't flawless and recognizing a superior product. I mean Betamax was arguably superior to VHS but it lost out due to business dealings and marketing and little to do with the product itself.
    While this is true, I'm not necessarily convinced that governments are particularly good at selecting better products either, which is what we're talking about doing when we legislate certain sorts of lightbulbs and such. We have to be reasonably sure that the externalities are high enough to not just let the markets handle things for me to be sold on government action. That happens fairly often, but I think not quite as often as some think (and a lot more than others think).

  20. #520
    Selecting products outright is probably the wrong way, but governments specifying by regulations what output/input/efficiency characteristics a light bulb or motor engine ought to have at minimum isn't bad I think.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •