Is It Really That Cold?

[Zierro]

I think that climate change or no climate change, there's nothing wrong with going greener. It IS an undeniable fact that our fossil fuels will run out someday, so the sooner we develop greener methods of generating energy the better. Also, what's wrong with trying to cut carbon emissions ect? Unless people like having a polluted atmosphere.

 

I think people just don't like the amount of money put into it when the money could be better invested with a problem that we're sure of. I don't know whether global warming is real or not, but you raise a good point about developing greener methods regardless.

[magekillr]

I think that climate change or no climate change, there's nothing wrong with going greener. It IS an undeniable fact that our fossil fuels will run out someday, so the sooner we develop greener methods of generating energy the better. Also, what's wrong with trying to cut carbon emissions ect? Unless people like having a polluted atmosphere.

 

I think people just don't like the amount of money put into it when the money could be better invested with a problem that we're sure of. I don't know whether global warming is real or not, but you raise a good point about developing greener methods regardless.

 

Going on that point, as a polluted atmosphere was talked about, I've read studies that say the effects on one's health, especially the development of asthma, from the carbon we emit costs us more in health care than it would to invest in green technology to get rid of the carbon emissions.

 

I've definitely found something newer than this but for some reason cannot find what I was looking for, but here's a 2002 article from USAToday regarding that:

 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2002-11-12-pollution-health_x.htm

 

Medical spending is very expensive, and with less polluted air, that's less people with lung defects, asthma, cancer, etc. Then there's ocean acidification and its effects on tourism, the fishing industry, and hell, people's food is on the line.

[Rebdragon]

I just spent ten hours a week over the past two weeks (20 total) doing an engineering project for one of my classes. This project is a "Green Neutrality Project" for the city my college is in. Over these past twenty hours I and four other members of my group researched, consulted, and crunched numbers on every possible option for making our town completely carbon neutral. We calculated solar energy based on irradiance per square meter and dozens of available solar panels, biomass based on tree density, spacing, and energy density, wind based on wind speed and Bernoulli, hydro based on basic power equations, and heat based on Carnot engines. We also looked into various other options too.

 

To show for all our hard work, were able to power less than a third of the small town with nearly all of the available green energy available, and that third costs more than double what coal based electricity costs now to power the enter town.

 

So, basic idea? Green energy production now is just self gratification. Money should be put into research, because without any major scientific breakthroughs green energy will never ever be economically feasible as a true replacement. It just can't happen with the technology we have nowadays.

[fastortoise]

I just spent ten hours a week over the past two weeks (20 total) doing an engineering project for one of my classes. This project is a "Green Neutrality Project" for the city my college is in. Over these past twenty hours I and four other members of my group researched, consulted, and crunched numbers on every possible option for making our town completely carbon neutral. We calculated solar energy based on irradiance per square meter and dozens of available solar panels,

I actually made a solar panel and it produced a lot more power than I expected since I too based my results on how much irradiance hit my city (got my figures from a large scale map which covered the entire earth though, so it wasn't accurate to start with). Solar panels are also more effective than what they're labeled as (for example, mine were something like 12% efficiency, when they were really around 14-15).

 

But yeah, solar panels are only effective if you live in the desert or something.

[dusqi]

So, basic idea? Green energy production now is just self gratification. Money should be put into research, because without any major scientific breakthroughs green energy will never ever be economically feasible as a true replacement. It just can't happen with the technology we have nowadays.

 

Except, there are timelines for how much we need to reduce emissions in order to keep damage to an acceptable level, and obviously the longer you wait the more effective you have to be later. It might be that it's better to start on some of the best options we have now rather than wait for something that could possibly be better but too late.

 

 

 

 

I think there should be a register of people who think there is no such thing as human-induced climate change. Then if things go wrong, they can all be rounded up and thrown into the (rising) sea, and then perhaps the rest of us can live on top of them. I do have a serious point though: All of these people who say that we don't need to do anything will suddenly change their minds in the future once cities start flooding. They'll complain about how nothing was done, and will expect everyone else to look after them still. In other words, no one will be held responsible for their views - there won't be consequences, so people have the tendency to be selfish and hope it will go away.

 

Imagine a situation where the government said that, "everyone who believes in climate change can choose to pay a climate-insurnace tax of an extra 1%. Everyone who doesn't can carry on paying what they do now. However, if in future something happens and we only have the resources to look after 50% of the population, then everyone who didn't pay the tax will have to fend for themselves." If this were to happen, suddenly I suspect that people would take the situation much more seriously, and would do some proper research into understanding it (as opposed to the bs that people are writing in this topic and others like it).

[Rebdragon]

Ultimately anything we say here will hit a dead end because you and I believe different things about what the data says about climate change. From what I've seen all I know is that climate science is shaky at best, with highly speculative and often contradictory results. You believe, I think, that the world will end within the next century, maybe two if we don't change our ways, based on the data climate scientists have found. So based on that we won't really get anywhere arguing your first point, nor your unfunny joke.

 

Holding people accountable for their beliefs with money is a smart but economically silly idea. If you could actually get people who believe in climate science to pay another 1% of their income, more power to you. Not that I can say anythong since it's just an idea, but I'd be very amazed if even a fraction of a fraction of people actually were willing to pay more.

 

I know my position and speech is acrid. I'm not going to pretend that it's not. I don't believe in the silly philosophy that we can throw money at every specious media forced hot button topic and expect that to fix everything. Politicians warp the idea of green energy in a way that makes them look better, that gets them votes and supposedly makes the world better. After spending every free moment i had last week crunching numbers, all I can say is that green energy policy nowadays is nothing more than a facade. If climate scientists actually did what was right, rather than what got them political funding, money would be put into making carbon-free emissions economically viable. The world won't end in the next twenty years, why can't we wait that long to possibly double or triple the amount of green energy we can buy?

 

So, as far as I know, your smug dogma is ridiculous. Your tone implies that your beliefs are written in holy stone, unequivocal and perfectly backed. The way your refer to people who don't agree with you as people who can "fend for themselves" pisses me off a great deal, to say the least.

[Golvellius]

Man-made global warming is a myth.

Tell Al gore with his nobel peace prize to stop riding around in a private jet trashing our atmosphere.

Plenty of seats in coach for his large "green" [wagon].

[Rebdragon]

Man-made global warming is a myth.

Tell Al gore with his nobel peace prize to stop riding around in a private jet trashing our atmosphere.

Plenty of seats in coach for his large "green" [wagon].

Al Gore isn't a proper counterpoint for climate change. Sure he obviously doesn't believe in it, but he's a stupid politician so that doesn't really mean much. The truth lies in the truthseekers, the scientists, not the fools who represent it.

[Zierro]

So, as far as I know, your smug dogma is ridiculous. Your tone implies that your beliefs are written in holy stone, unequivocal and perfectly backed. The way your refer to people who don't agree with you as people who can "fend for themselves" pisses me off a great deal, to say the least.

 

Well said. I wanted to say pretty much the same thing, but didn't know how to word it.

 

Not that I can say anythong

 

Very well said. <3:

[dusqi]

So, as far as I know, your smug dogma is ridiculous. Your tone implies that your beliefs are written in holy stone, unequivocal and perfectly backed. The way your refer to people who don't agree with you as people who can "fend for themselves" pisses me off a great deal, to say the least.

 

Well said. I wanted to say pretty much the same thing, but didn't know how to word it.

 

If people are sure there's no climate change, then why should they be offended? You are so sure that the situation will never occur, that you would not pay 1% of your income and would not expect any but a tiny fraction of other people to pay it either. The only reason someone would be offended by my statement is if they have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps there's something in this climate change stuff - but they're pretending to themselves that it's not a problem in order to get out of having to do anything about it.

 

As to who would pay 1% of their income - many developed countries already took part in the Kyoto Protocol and so are missing out on significant GDP. Many individuals are doing green things rather than using the cheapest option. Many people vote for political parties that will do green things on their behalf. You don't have to spend much money or time doing something green in order to get to 1% of your income. If only there was a way for individuals to guarantee their own welfare by paying 1%, I suspect that a high proportion of them would.

 

In reality, we're all stuck with getting the same global outcome, whatever that may be. But I think that it's an interesting thing to think about - would the climate skeptics admit their culpability if famine occurred? I suspect they'd be fighting at the front of the line to get the food rations.

[Zierro]

The only reason someone would be offended by my statement is if they have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps there's something in this climate change stuff - but they're pretending to themselves that it's not a problem in order to get out of having to do anything about it.

 

Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, it doesn't change how your tone was. You said people who do not believe global warming deserve to die from global warming. You don't see anything wrong with that?

 

All of these people who say that we don't need to do anything will suddenly change their minds in the future once cities start flooding.

 

"If global warming was a proven fact instead of just a hypothesis, then people would suddenly start believing it." Why does this surprise you?

 

In reality, we're all stuck with getting the same global outcome, whatever that may be. But I think that it's an interesting thing to think about - would the climate skeptics admit their culpability if famine occurred? I suspect they'd be fighting at the front of the line to get the food rations.

 

Let's think about if god were to come down to earth for a second here. Do you think all the atheists in the world should deserve to suffer? No, I suspect you'd be fighting at the front of the line to get your prayers answered. :roll: On a more serious note, you can't expect people who didn't believe in global warming to not want help if it was proven to them, just as you cannot expect atheists to not want help if god revealed himself.

 

Bottom line is that you act like not believing global warming is immoral, which is pretty ridiculous.

[dusqi]

The only reason someone would be offended by my statement is if they have a sneaking suspicion that perhaps there's something in this climate change stuff - but they're pretending to themselves that it's not a problem in order to get out of having to do anything about it.

 

Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, it doesn't change how your tone was. You said people who do not believe global warming deserve to die from global warming. You don't see anything wrong with that?

 

All of these people who say that we don't need to do anything will suddenly change their minds in the future once cities start flooding.

 

"If global warming was a proven fact instead of just a hypothesis, then people would suddenly start believing it." Why does this surprise you?

 

In reality, we're all stuck with getting the same global outcome, whatever that may be. But I think that it's an interesting thing to think about - would the climate skeptics admit their culpability if famine occurred? I suspect they'd be fighting at the front of the line to get the food rations.

 

Let's think about if god were to come down to earth for a second here. Do you think all the atheists in the world should deserve to suffer? No, I suspect you'd be fighting at the front of the line to get your prayers answered. :roll: On a more serious note, you can't expect people who didn't believe in global warming to not want help if it was proven to them, just as you cannot expect atheists to not want help if god revealed himself.

 

Bottom line is that you act like not believing global warming is immoral, which is pretty ridiculous.

 

 

People who don't get healthcare insurance in the US are basically left to die. I see nothing wrong with saying that people who do not support efforts to stem human-induced global warming, should also be left to die. Perhaps someone who does not buy health insurance will never get sick, and if so they've saved themselves lots of money by not purchasing health insurance. Perhaps global warming is not human-induced and will not happen, and if so those people would save themselves lots of money. But if they don't think it's worth getting my hypothetical global warming insurance, then why shouldn't they be left?

 

It's not about their "beliefs", it is about them taking responsibility for their viewpoint. People take healthcare seriously, because they know that they'll be held responsible for purchasing or not purchasing it. People don't take global warming seriously, because they think they'll get a free ride anyway.

 

As far as I know, Christians believe that if God came down, he'd smite the atheists without giving them a second chance. God is all about having faith without evidence, and if you don't have the faith then when the evidence comes it's too late. At the risk of starting a religious debate, I consider this to be immoral because no one should have to believe something on faith. Global warming is different. There is lots of evidence, some of it might be only to some (high) level of certainty, but the evidence is there - and that is why people can be held responsible for their views, because there is evidence and many people are ignoring it or distorting it. That is why they "deserve to suffer".

 

 

I've talked about a similar thing in the past, on the scale of countries rather than individuals. I think that if human-induced global warming turns out to be true, then the rest of the world has a duty to nuke the USA off of the map, because it was the USA that did most to stifle global efforts to do something about it. It's a similar point about getting a free ride. George Bush and the US people thought that their short-term business interests trumped the world's long-term interests. They thought that if global warming was not true, they'd save a load of money by not doing anything, and if global warming was true then no one would hold them accountable for not doing anything about it anyway. So they might as well disregard and distort the evidence. This is why it is the world's duty to hold them accountable. And after all, why not? If the USA attacked another country, then that country would be allowed to retaliate. But if the USA causes millions of deaths and a much lower quality of life by pretending that global warming isn't real, then it's all fair? I think not.

[magekillr]

The climate "debate" is snake oil salesmen versus scientists.

 

Just thought I'd point this out:

 

FACT:

U.S. Agency for International Development

United States Department of Agriculture

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration

National Institute of Standards and Technology

United States Department of Defense

United States Department of Energy

National Institutes of Health

United States Department of State

United States Department of Transportation

U.S. Geological Survey

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

National Center for Atmospheric Research

National Aeronautics & Space Administration

National Science Foundation

Smithsonian Institution

International Arctic Science Committee

Arctic Council

African Academy of Sciences

Australian Academy of Sciences

Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts

Academia Brasileira de Ciéncias

Cameroon Academy of Sciences

Royal Society of Canada

Caribbean Academy of Sciences

Chinese Academy of Sciences

Académie des Sciences, France

Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences

Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina of Germany

Indonesian Academy of Sciences

Royal Irish Academy

Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy

Indian National Science Academy

Science Council of Japan

Kenya National Academy of Sciences

Madagascar’s National Academy of Arts, Letters and Sciences

Academy of Sciences Malaysia

Academia Mexicana de Ciencias

Nigerian Academy of Sciences

Royal Society of New Zealand

Polish Academy of Sciences

Russian Academy of Sciences

l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal

Academy of Science of South Africa

Sudan Academy of Sciences

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences

Tanzania Academy of Sciences

Turkish Academy of Sciences

Uganda National Academy of Sciences

The Royal Society of the United Kingdom

National Academy of Sciences, United States

Zambia Academy of Sciences

Zimbabwe Academy of Science

American Academy of Pediatrics

American Association for the Advancement of Science

American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

American Astronomical Society

American Chemical Society

American College of Preventive Medicine

American Geophysical Union

American Institute of Physics

American Medical Association

American Meteorological Society

American Physical Society

American Public Health Association

American Quaternary Association

American Institute of Biological Sciences

American Society of Agronomy

American Society for Microbiology

American Society of Plant Biologists

American Statistical Association

Association of Ecosystem Research Centers

Botanical Society of America

Crop Science Society of America

Ecological Society of America

Federation of American Scientists

Geological Society of America

National Association of Geoscience Teachers

Natural Science Collections Alliance

Organization of Biological Field Stations

Society of American Foresters

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics

Society of Systematic Biologists

Soil Science Society of America

Australian Coral Reef Society

Australian Medical Association

Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

Engineers Australia

Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

Geological Society of Australia

British Antarctic Survey

Institute of Biology, UK

Royal Meteorological Society, UK

Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

European Federation of Geologists

European Geosciences Union

European Physical Society

European Science Foundation

International Association for Great Lakes Research

International Union for Quaternary Research

International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

World Federation of Public Health Associations

World Health Organization

World Meteorological Organization

 

FRAUD:

American Petroleum Institute

US Chamber of Commerce

National Association of Manufacturers

Competitive Enterprise Institute

Industrial Minerals Association

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association

Great Northern Project Development

Rosebud Mining

Massey Energy

Alpha Natural Resources

Southeastern Legal Foundation

Georgia Agribusiness Council

Georgia Motor Trucking Association

Corn Refiners Association

National Association of Home Builders

National Oilseed Processors Association

National Petrochemical and Refiners Association

Western States Petroleum Association

 

Again, economically it is sound to act even WITHOUT global warming. Climate change with respect to the oceans and the air are an unbearable cost alone! However, when we bring in global warming, statistically, it is also economically sound to act. It's like saying you have a 10% chance of living if you fly on an airplane, but a 90% chance of living on a train; you can ride the airplane, I prefer that we all ride the train.

[Alg]

I've talked about a similar thing in the past, on the scale of countries rather than individuals. I think that if human-induced global warming turns out to be true, then the rest of the world has a duty to nuke the USA off of the map, because it was the USA that did most to stifle global efforts to do something about it. It's a similar point about getting a free ride. George Bush and the US people thought that their short-term business interests trumped the world's long-term interests. They thought that if global warming was not true, they'd save a load of money by not doing anything, and if global warming was true then no one would hold them accountable for not doing anything about it anyway. So they might as well disregard and distort the evidence. This is why it is the world's duty to hold them accountable. And after all, why not? If the USA attacked another country, then that country would be allowed to retaliate. But if the USA causes millions of deaths and a much lower quality of life by pretending that global warming isn't real, then it's all fair? I think not.

The 8 years of Bush simply can't compete with the 200+ years of industrialization that got each and every developed nation to where they are today... Short-sighted is not only ignoring science but also history.

[Zierro]

I've talked about a similar thing in the past, on the scale of countries rather than individuals. I think that if human-induced global warming turns out to be true, then the rest of the world has a duty to nuke the USA off of the map, because it was the USA that did most to stifle global efforts to do something about it. It's a similar point about getting a free ride. George Bush and the US people thought that their short-term business interests trumped the world's long-term interests. They thought that if global warming was not true, they'd save a load of money by not doing anything, and if global warming was true then no one would hold them accountable for not doing anything about it anyway. So they might as well disregard and distort the evidence. This is why it is the world's duty to hold them accountable. And after all, why not? If the USA attacked another country, then that country would be allowed to retaliate. But if the USA causes millions of deaths and a much lower quality of life by pretending that global warming isn't real, then it's all fair? I think not.

 

Damn, even though that's a despicable belief, somehow you still won my respect in a way. Maybe it's because most other TIFers are too scared to go against a consensus on the internet. You bloody bloke, you. :)

[Faux]

Let this planet die off. The faster this stupid rock deteriorates the faster humanity will push for space colonialism.

[assassin_696]

Bottom line is that you act like not believing global warming is immoral, which is pretty ridiculous.

 

It's not immoral, it's just moronic. This is a pretty serious scienfitic issue, so people should look well beyond the media for their facts when it comes to this to make up their minds. You don't learn about astrophysics by watching one or two documentaries on space. Climate science is complicated.

[dusqi]

Damn, even though that's a despicable belief, somehow you still won my respect in a way. Maybe it's because most other TIFers are too scared to go against a consensus on the internet. You bloody bloke, you. :)

 

I don't really think this crazy in "real life". However, the internet is a good forum to go a bit extreme and see what stands up to scrutiny. Test arguments out :) It is why I am not offended when someone disagrees with what I say, so I hope no one else is offended by what I say.

[Zierro]

Yeah, most don't think that way. That's why I appreciate controversial posters.