1. #1241
    The Insane Bakis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    15,321
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Actually, if anything the developing countries are bigger polluters (when accounting for size and total power used) than the developed world, an effect of having energy-producing technology from the developed world without the infrastructure in place to streamline and maximize the energy gained. That and in areas where there is instability, setting up renewable energy-utilizing systems is simply unfeasible.
    Yea, that is my point. We in the western world had our "trial run", did they?
    They are already behind by definition, then what happens? We tell them stop and freaking relax and use measures they cant even afford cos their current solution polute too much.
    The best thing about Kremlin posters is that as soon as you voice something they have to mention the US.
    Their awe and love for the US is truly great and I commend them for their love of their fellow men.

  2. #1242
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The problem with most hippies in this thread is that they want to destroy the world to save the world.
    If these "hippies" can destroy the world with efficient light bulbs and good mileage then give up, you already lost.

    Welcome your new hippie overlords.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  3. #1243
    I think people are stuck in a time warp of 40-50 years ago when the only people that wanted to "save the earth" were pot smokers. These days it's scientists and most of the developed world. Some people are just behind the times.

  4. #1244
    Quote Originally Posted by phatpat View Post
    This isn't a statistical thread proving that scientifically, global warming must be true. However, it's just become so clear in my eyes that global warming has been occurring that it just seems obvious.
    How ,you say? I live in Canada, and I'm 21. When I was smaller (the age where you loved building snow forts and playing in the snow) I distinctively remember huge mountains of snow piling up in my front yard...I mean huge, 7-10 feet piles that had to be plowed consistently from my driveway. I also remember halloweens where there was snow ( although not every one).
    Fast forward to they past two years, living in the same neighborhood, in the middle of December....barely two inches of snow. Whereas 8-10 years ago there was probably upwards of 2-3 on the ground, with a mountain 8 feet high on my yard.
    Thoughts?
    OP posts like this make me NOT want to believe in global warming. 1st, "This isn't a statistical thread proving that scientifically, global warming must be true." But with said title, "How could you NOT believe in global warming?" Definitely seems like a horrible way to start a thread.

    2nd, point to the evidence "at my house 8 years ago...." has zero basis in fact and as thus can be completely disregarded.

    There have been many threads about global warming in this off-topic forum, and it usually has the pro-global warming saying "give me a study to back up your claims or gtfo." Now we have this thread with no evidence, just 1 subjective observation from somewhere in Canada...

  5. #1245
    The Unstoppable Force Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    23,487
    Quote Originally Posted by Daelak View Post
    Yea all the wacko scientists in every single science academy in the world, versus your opinion. OK.
    You mean like those whacko scientists hired by the Koch Bros who came up with the same conclusion?
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I wouldn't expect someone who thinks science provides proof to know that.

  6. #1246
    Quote Originally Posted by Deadvolcanoes View Post
    We want to destroy the world by convincing people that anthroprogenic climate change is real?

    No ones even talking about solutions in this thread. We're too busy combating debunked claims.
    I wasn't aiming this at everyone who thinks climate change is real. I mean, it's not like I'm arguing against its existance either.

    It's just that I know from experience that the next step for some folks here is to enact ridiculous "green policies" that will destroy the world economy.

  7. #1247
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    10,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    I wasn't aiming this at everyone who thinks climate change is real. I mean, it's not like I'm arguing against its existance either.

    It's just that I know from experience that the next step for some folks here is to enact ridiculous "green policies" that will destroy the world economy.
    Question for you, than.... what will happen with the world economy when nonrenewable resources are used up or, more likely, become scarce enough that the cost associated with them drastically increases? There should be an inherent direct interest in beginning a push for renewable resources now, at least in a research capacity, for the very reason that it is a far more stringent choice in the long run.

  8. #1248
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Question for you, than.... what will happen with the world economy when nonrenewable resources are used up or, more likely, become scarce enough that the cost associated with them drastically increases? There should be an inherent direct interest in beginning a push for renewable resources now, at least in a research capacity, for the very reason that it is a far more stringent choice in the long run.
    What does this have to do with climate change?

    You see, the private sector is more than capable of tackling the problem of resource scarcity. What it cannot do is take care of most forms of pollution - there's no mechanism for that.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2013-01-15 at 12:14 PM.

  9. #1249
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    10,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    What does this have to do with climate change?
    It is a direct response to your line: "It's just that I know from experience that the next step for some folks here is to enact ridiculous "green policies" that will destroy the world economy."

  10. #1250
    Mechagnome larrakeyah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Australian in NZ
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Question for you, than.... what will happen with the world economy when nonrenewable resources are used up or, more likely, become scarce enough that the cost associated with them drastically increases? There should be an inherent direct interest in beginning a push for renewable resources now, at least in a research capacity, for the very reason that it is a far more stringent choice in the long run.
    Peak oil is a lie Kasierith.

  11. #1251
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    It is a direct response to your line: "It's just that I know from experience that the next step for some folks here is to enact ridiculous "green policies" that will destroy the world economy."
    Resource scarcity doesn't have anything to do with "green policies". Green policies are aimed at reducing pollution. When it comes to energy they just happen to be connected. Altough Nuclear Energy is a viable green energy source as well.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2013-01-15 at 12:20 PM.

  12. #1252
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    10,493
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Resource scarcity doesn't have anything to do with "green policies". Green policies are aimed at reducing pollution. When it comes to energy they just happen to be connected.
    Than we must be on a different page, because I see research being put into energy sources that do not use nonrenewable resources, which just happen to be a contributor to climate change, as an inherent part of a coherent and well founded "green policy" approach. Your argument against such green policies is that they are economically inefficient. I am pointing out that there are parts of the plan that are not only economically efficient, but economically viable in the long run.

    Quote Originally Posted by larrakeyah View Post
    Peak oil is a lie Kasierith.
    Is oil a renewable resource now, without that few billion years requirement? And do you still believe that making entire populations of people sick is acceptable for you to get at oil in a specific location?

  13. #1253
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Than we must be on a different page, because I see research being put into energy sources that do not use nonrenewable resources, which just happen to be a contributor to climate change, as an inherent part of a coherent and well founded "green policy" approach. Your argument against such green policies is that they are economically inefficient. I am pointing out that there are parts of the plan that are not only economically efficient, but economically viable in the long run.
    But the point is that when we start to talk about running out of resources there are other resources than just oil and natural gas. Things like running out of copper and so on have absolutely nothing to do with global warming. The perpetual nature of some green energies obviously adds to their attraction, but it doesn't mean they will be any better at stopping climate change.

    But to answer what I think is your question: Yes, when I consider what's economically viable I also take a look into the far future. That said, any economic gain in the future is worth much, much less than the same gain right now.

  14. #1254
    Mechagnome larrakeyah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Australian in NZ
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    Is oil a renewable resource now, without that few billion years requirement? And do you still believe that making entire populations of people sick is acceptable for you to get at oil in a specific location?
    I posted this a while ago:

    "No man no, peak oil is a scam, we are not running out of oil, my father and one of my brothers are mining engineers and worked/works for major oil companies, they know their stuff, when asked about peak oil my father always relates the story of a professor claiming (in the 60s) oil would run out in the 80s and exactly the same thing happened to my brother in the late 90s, but the endtime was around 2010 this time lol. Prophets of doom always have and always will exist. People need to think critically. Even Spain has found oil bro."

    Oil is not running out and peak oil prophets have always been wrong. Will we run out of oil? no. Will we run out of cheap oil? So far, for the next 50 years no. Technology is key. Fracking, economically viable fracking that is, was something unthinkable in the 70s, but look now, it's booming. In 20 years we will see a boom in Venezuela and Canada. Same with gas btw.

  15. #1255
    Moderator Kasierith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    St Petersburg
    Posts
    10,493
    Quote Originally Posted by larrakeyah View Post
    I posted this a while ago:
    There is a distinct difference between random people that no one cares about no matter their credentials, and professionals in the field putting estimates in through structured research. Even studies pushed by large oil companies have identified peak oil as existing; their measurements for when the peak is have simply been pushed down the road further. It is indisputable for anyone with even basic scientific comprehension that such a limit exists. The difference simply shows that oil companies have the same intellectual honesty of cigarette companies who claim that there is no proof that smoking hurts people.

  16. #1256
    Quote Originally Posted by larrakeyah View Post
    I posted this a while ago:

    "No man no, peak oil is a scam, we are not running out of oil, my father and one of my brothers are mining engineers and worked/works for major oil companies, they know their stuff, when asked about peak oil my father always relates the story of a professor claiming (in the 60s) oil would run out in the 80s and exactly the same thing happened to my brother in the late 90s, but the endtime was around 2010 this time lol. Prophets of doom always have and always will exist. People need to think critically. Even Spain has found oil bro."

    Oil is not running out and peak oil prophets have always been wrong. Will we run out of oil? no. Will we run out of cheap oil? So far, for the next 50 years no. Technology is key. Fracking, economically viable fracking that is, was something unthinkable in the 70s, but look now, it's booming. In 20 years we will see a boom in Venezuela and Canada. Same with gas btw.
    Well, eventually we will run out of oil. But it sure as hell isn't around the corner.

    I think many people fail to look at the history of oil. There have been many occasions when the known oil reserves have been seriously low (especially late 19th century and early 20th century). Yet surprisingly as our methods improved, we were able to find more of it and use it more efficiently.

    The market price of oil just doesn't reflect the peak oil hysteria that you sometimes see. And the guys who involve themselves in the oil market are the producers who have inside information about future oil supply, as well as oil users who know the demand side. Oil prices aren't going to spike because we run out of oil in the ground, they might spike because of politics or some huge accidents/catastrophes.

  17. #1257
    Quote Originally Posted by larrakeyah View Post
    my father and one of my brothers are mining engineers and worked/works for major oil companies, they know their stuff,
    An appeal to nameless authority.

    relates the story of a professor claiming (in the 60s) oil would run out in the 80s and exactly the same thing happened to my brother in the late 90s
    Using anecdotes to jump to conclusions by acting as though the argument that oil will run out depends on "a (random unnamed) professor claiming".

  18. #1258
    Mechagnome larrakeyah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Australian in NZ
    Posts
    586
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    An appeal to nameless authority.


    Using anecdotes to jump to conclusions by acting as though the argument that oil will run out depends on "a (random unnamed) professor claiming".

    Agree it's not very scientifical, but when your leftist greeny prophets start retreating then it's time to call a spade a spade:
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ong?intcmp=122 that comes from a rabid anti-oiler.

    We have gone from "we are running out of oil" to "oil is plenty but man don't you think about the trees!"

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-15 at 02:57 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    An appeal to nameless authority.
    In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010.

  19. #1259
    Quote Originally Posted by bergmann620 View Post
    It would be, except that I've bought literally hundreds (my house, fully stocked, needs about 80 bulbs) of those bulbs, and they rarely last a even year.

    I guess what we have have here is a case of conflicting anecdotes.

    (Oh yea... The light from a couple 40-watt standard soft-white bulbs is soooooo much nicer than a compact fluorescent. I have CFL's throughout the house, but I have standard bulbs in my office and reading area.)
    Back in 2000, I bought a large pack of dimmable energy saving "green" light bulbs. They had a 10 year guarantee on them that said if they failed before 10 years, you could mail the entire package in for a replacement (with proof of purchase date etc). That package and the receipt are still sitting in the top of my closet 12 years later, and not a single one of them has blown... I should probably just throw it away at this point since the warranty on them is no longer in date.

    There are probably a lot of poorly made ones out there that are indeed to gouge you for your money, but look out for the ones with warranties and guarantees. They're probably going to hold themselves to a much higher standard of quality and lasting power if people will actually hold them to that promise of quality.

  20. #1260
    Quote Originally Posted by larrakeyah View Post
    Agree it's not very scientifical
    That's really the only point of significance in your thinly veiled political drivel against imaginary "leftist greeny prophets".

    In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010.
    This proves that "peak oil is a scam, we are not running out of oil", how? It is impossible to argue against the fact that we will run out of oil.

Posting Permissions

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