Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Convincing people that global warming is a real thing

12467

Posts

  • EchoEcho staring is caring Super Moderator, Moderator mod
    edited July 2009
    Oh yeah, now I remember: they recommended that the EU reduces its emissions by 40%, and then invest in green technology in developing countries for another 40%.

    That's now how math works damnit

    I have an even better idea: if 100 countries reduce their emissions by 1% each, we can totally eliminate emissions!

  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Echo wrote: »
    The Swedish Green Party is demanding that the EU reduces its emission footprint by 80% before 2020.

    ...yeah. Don't see that happening.

    Sure, we can improve efficiency, make stuff produce the same output with fewer resources. But 80%? This is a figure out of goddamn fairy land. We'd have to dismantle the industrialized society to even begin to approach that.

    Ok, which are we talking about.


    1) We have to ensure that the planet is able to sustain life.

    2) We have to ensure that our businesses meet their quarterly expectations.


    PICK ONE. These are mutually exclusive. One cannot have 1 and 2.

    Do we want the planet to sustain life or do we want to make money?

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Echo wrote: »
    The Swedish Green Party is demanding that the EU reduces its emission footprint by 80% before 2020.

    ...yeah. Don't see that happening.

    Sure, we can improve efficiency, make stuff produce the same output with fewer resources. But 80%? This is a figure out of goddamn fairy land. We'd have to dismantle the industrialized society to even begin to approach that.

    I think 80% by 2050 is a reasonable goal considering the rate of technology progression over the past 41 years (this was bandied about during the G8 conference but died).

    @GPIA7R: Greenhouse gas emissions are caused by economic activity. The only way to reduce them is to change aspects of our economy. Thus, incentives and disincentives are the tools to use. It has to be about money; how else would you change the economy? Fairy dust?

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • Eat it You Nasty Pig.Eat it You Nasty Pig. tell homeland security 'we are the bomb'Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Presumably with hard regulation of specific industries.

    edit: not that I think that's practical

    gkcmatch_zps97480250.jpg
    remember pluto? Once a planet but now a pseudo
    funny how information changes the facts that you know
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I think 80% by 2050 is a reasonable goal considering the rate of technology progression over the past 41 years (this was bandied about during the G8 conference but died).

    Man, I love how technology is going to save the human race some day.

  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    I think 80% by 2050 is a reasonable goal considering the rate of technology progression over the past 41 years (this was bandied about during the G8 conference but died).

    Man, I love how technology is going to save the human race some day.

    We have the technology, at least in part, we simply need to implement it. These things take time, man. We can't magically wave our wand and have happy fun land appear.

    There is a flip-side to this stuff, and it's the slowing of economic progress in developing nations. It's really easy for the US and other developed nations (who grew into world powers by polluting like motherfuckers) to throw up the stop sign and say, "Whoa whoa whoa, slow down developing world. The world's too polluted so you guys need to cut it out right away. Sorry about retarding your growth but it's for the best!"

    Nations like China don't care because their attitude is, "You guys got a chance to grow by using dirty energy. Why can't we?" It's tough to dispute that unless we give them a shit ton of aid and assistance so they can continue to grow and improve the quality of life for their citizens.

    And this is just one of the reasons why it's so hard to get things going. Your idealism is admirable but change on the ground takes a lot longer and will require a huge sacrifice from the entire developed world.

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited July 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    That's my problem with the video. It's just Pascal's Wager and engaging with consequences of hypothetical situations. There are any number of hypothetical situations which could be approached in this way

    - What if a giant meteorite is headed to earth?
    - What if the next hitler is being born right now in Germany?
    - What if this thread is going to be locked and everyone in it banned?

    Hmmm...

    *daydreams*

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    That's my problem with the video. It's just Pascal's Wager and engaging with consequences of hypothetical situations. There are any number of hypothetical situations which could be approached in this way

    - What if a giant meteorite is headed to earth?
    - What if the next hitler is being born right now in Germany?
    - What if this thread is going to be locked and everyone in it banned?

    Hmmm...

    *daydreams*

    D:

    Though to be fair, you'd have to ban yourself too.......

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited July 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    The Swedish Green Party is demanding that the EU reduces its emission footprint by 80% before 2020.

    ...yeah. Don't see that happening.

    Sure, we can improve efficiency, make stuff produce the same output with fewer resources. But 80%? This is a figure out of goddamn fairy land. We'd have to dismantle the industrialized society to even begin to approach that.

    Ok, which are we talking about.


    1) We have to ensure that the planet is able to sustain life.

    2) We have to ensure that our businesses meet their quarterly expectations.


    PICK ONE. These are mutually exclusive. One cannot have 1 and 2.

    Do we want the planet to sustain life or do we want to make money?

    NO. BAD _J_. GO SIT IN THE CORNER.

    *waves rolled-up newspaper threateningly*

    one of the biggest things about green tech and business is that it can save companies money and create new jobs. This is important, damnit.

    And in any case, its a choice between spending the money on greening up or spending the money on resource-shortage driven conflict throughout the coming century. Pick one of them.

    tmsig.jpg
  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    We cannot have industry, agriculture, and technology AND not fuck over the planet. Industry, agriculture, and technology (on the scale that humankind utilizes them) are fundamentally destructive to the planet.
    [citation required]?

    Ishmael

    While the book has a few flaws I think the core message of "human beings think they are somehow seperate and distinct from the planet...but that is a stupid fucking thing for a species which resulted from common evolution to think" is pretty damned on the ball.

    And if you can think that we can pave half the world and still maintain the atmospheric conditions which occurred prior to paving half the world...i'd be interested in your source.

    You're a good example of why the whole "let's combat global warming drastically" won't work. You can't have your industry/technology lite free world and still hang out on the internet all day. You should be living in a simple, low-electricity, low-tech situation right now if you truly believe what you think you believe. However, who the fuck wants to be the first (and possibly only) person to make that major change which hurts them and no one else?

    "Well, look at this. Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What's that make us?"
    "Big Damn Heroes, Sir."
    "Ain't we just."
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    That's my problem with the video. It's just Pascal's Wager and engaging with consequences of hypothetical situations. There are any number of hypothetical situations which could be approached in this way

    - What if a giant meteorite is headed to earth?
    - What if the next hitler is being born right now in Germany?
    - What if this thread is going to be locked and everyone in it banned?

    Hmmm...

    *daydreams*

    Oh, Jeffe. You're my favorite.

    sanstodo wrote: »
    Nations like China don't care because their attitude is, "You guys got a chance to grow by using dirty energy. Why can't we?" It's tough to dispute that unless we give them a shit ton of aid and assistance so they can continue to grow and improve the quality of life for their citizens.

    It's not difficult to dispute that. You say: "THE ENTIRE SPECIES IS GOING TO FUCKING DIE UNLESS YOU X."

    I'm confused as to whether we are talking about human business in a magical fairy land in which we have a guaranteed tomorrow or if we are talking about our current environmental situation within which we're fucked unless we change things yesterday.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    One of my big beliefs is that relatively minor adjustments to our lifestyles - living in smaller but more efficiently designed homes, in walkable neighborhoods with public transit rather than driving, eating more locally-grown and seasonal produce rather than foods shipped in from god knows where - can bridge a lot of the gap between "fuck it, technology will save us!" and "fuck it, let's go live like hippies!"

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited July 2009
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Nations like China don't care because their attitude is, "You guys got a chance to grow by using dirty energy. Why can't we?" It's tough to dispute that unless we give them a shit ton of aid and assistance so they can continue to grow and improve the quality of life for their citizens.

    And this is just one of the reasons why it's so hard to get things going. Your idealism is admirable but change on the ground takes a lot longer and will require a huge sacrifice from the entire developed world.

    I think this is the best argument for helping developing nations develop as fast as possible, by whatever means necessary. The US is all happy and super-developed, and as such is wealthy enough to dick around with regulations to address climate change. China? Not so much. So we pour resources into advancing China. Dirty? Clean? Whatever, who cares. Just get them up to the same level as developed nations, and then they can afford to clean up their act, so to speak.

    If we can help them advance by affordably giving them cleaner technologies, great. But perhaps slowly helping them advance with a trickle of clean technology will result in more pollution in the long run with just letting them smog the hell out of atmosphere for a few years in a bum's rush towards modernity.

    And on the heels of that, I think the proper way to work with this is to make our solutions economically favorable to those who participate. With the right regulations, we could create an entire green industry premised on clean energy and increased efficiency. An entirely new industry developing new technologies would mean bank. Who wouldn't want to get on board with that?

    One of my biggest problems with that Pascal's Wager video is that it grants that addressing climate change will be hugely expensive and will fuck up our economy to some extent. It needn't fuck anything up. It needn't be anything less than a terrific boon. Oh noes, we have to learn how to do the same things for a fraction of the energy cost? Wow, that sounds dreadful.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The Cat wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Echo wrote: »
    The Swedish Green Party is demanding that the EU reduces its emission footprint by 80% before 2020.

    ...yeah. Don't see that happening.

    Sure, we can improve efficiency, make stuff produce the same output with fewer resources. But 80%? This is a figure out of goddamn fairy land. We'd have to dismantle the industrialized society to even begin to approach that.

    Ok, which are we talking about.


    1) We have to ensure that the planet is able to sustain life.

    2) We have to ensure that our businesses meet their quarterly expectations.


    PICK ONE. These are mutually exclusive. One cannot have 1 and 2.

    Do we want the planet to sustain life or do we want to make money?

    NO. BAD _J_. GO SIT IN THE CORNER.

    *waves rolled-up newspaper threateningly*

    one of the biggest things about green tech and business is that it can save companies money and create new jobs. This is important, damnit.

    And in any case, its a choice between spending the money on greening up or spending the money on resource-shortage driven conflict throughout the coming century. Pick one of them.

    By couching the conversation in green tech and business we're still making the environmental problem subject to business and human posited heirarchies of concern. Talking about green business and creating jobs puts perpetuating this economic system first and solving global environmental concerns second.

    And that's cute and all, but I'm not entirely sure that it is a sensible view to maintain.

    When someone says: "We're going to create new jobs and save the planet." I think the order in which those sentiments are expressed belies a gigantic fucking problem with their thought process.

    Green tech is fantastic. But we aren't trying to save jobs. We're trying to save the species from extinction.

  • Caveman PawsCaveman Paws Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The best way to reduce pollution is to reduce people. So lets adopt China's one child policy and... well I'll leave the rest to your imaginations. :)

  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I think this is the best argument for helping developing nations develop as fast as possible, by whatever means necessary. The US is all happy and super-developed, and as such is wealthy enough to dick around with regulations to address climate change. China? Not so much. So we pour resources into advancing China. Dirty? Clean? Whatever, who cares. Just get them up to the same level as developed nations, and then they can afford to clean up their act, so to speak.

    If we can help them advance by affordably giving them cleaner technologies, great. But perhaps slowly helping them advance with a trickle of clean technology will result in more pollution in the long run with just letting them smog the hell out of atmosphere for a few years in a bum's rush towards modernity.

    Part of the point the author of Ishmael makes is that when a species food supply increases the population of that species increases. I think that with regard to human beings we can carry this over to not only food supply but also economic growth and prosperity.

    The question I have, though, is whether or not aiding developing countries is a sensible thing to do once one recognizes that the planet earth has a carrying capacity (a term I know some of you love) of X human beings.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The best way to reduce pollution is to reduce people.

    Nope. As countries approach first world economies, their birth rates slow down while the environmental impact per person goes up. Even if we reduced our numbers by half, the earth would not be able to sustain that many people if they were all living a first-world lifestyle as it is currently practiced.

    Since it is obviously desirable to improve people's quality of life, and infeasible to reduce our numbers to a level where that quality of life is environmentally sustainable, the best option is to find ways to maintain an adequate quality of life with less environmental impact - through a combination of economic incentives, green technology, and lifestyle alterations.

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • GoodKingJayIIIGoodKingJayIII Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Dibs wrote: »
    I think your perception of the global warming debate is off. I'd say the majority right now are clamoring for action, not the minority.

    We've also definitely learned our lesson about viruses - hello freaking out about SARS and avian and swine flu.

    Quick tangent: the threat from avian and swine flus is still real and still exists. Just because it's not on the media radar anymore doesn't mean it's not there. Avian flu is pretty fucking deadly, and if it ever starts spreading the way swine flu does... well that's something to be concerned about.

    Regarding global warming, it seems to me that regardless of whether we are the primary cause for increasing global temperatures, we should be doing what we can to mitigate whatever damage we cause.

    steam_sig.png
    Battletag: Threeve#1501
    PSN: Threeve703
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Nations like China don't care because their attitude is, "You guys got a chance to grow by using dirty energy. Why can't we?" It's tough to dispute that unless we give them a shit ton of aid and assistance so they can continue to grow and improve the quality of life for their citizens.

    And this is just one of the reasons why it's so hard to get things going. Your idealism is admirable but change on the ground takes a lot longer and will require a huge sacrifice from the entire developed world.

    I think this is the best argument for helping developing nations develop as fast as possible, by whatever means necessary. The US is all happy and super-developed, and as such is wealthy enough to dick around with regulations to address climate change. China? Not so much. So we pour resources into advancing China. Dirty? Clean? Whatever, who cares. Just get them up to the same level as developed nations, and then they can afford to clean up their act, so to speak.

    If we can help them advance by affordably giving them cleaner technologies, great. But perhaps slowly helping them advance with a trickle of clean technology will result in more pollution in the long run with just letting them smog the hell out of atmosphere for a few years in a bum's rush towards modernity.

    And on the heels of that, I think the proper way to work with this is to make our solutions economically favorable to those who participate. With the right regulations, we could create an entire green industry premised on clean energy and increased efficiency. An entirely new industry developing new technologies would mean bank. Who wouldn't want to get on board with that?

    One of my biggest problems with that Pascal's Wager video is that it grants that addressing climate change will be hugely expensive and will fuck up our economy to some extent. It needn't fuck anything up. It needn't be anything less than a terrific boon. Oh noes, we have to learn how to do the same things for a fraction of the energy cost? Wow, that sounds dreadful.

    I basically agree. China is playing a weird game, though. They have had to cut back on emissions growth due to a few practical reasons: pollution is sickening and killing their populace. So there is a growing push in the Chinese government to realign their economic plan toward green energy. They've realized that they can't continue to grow dirty forever without reaching a point of diminishing returns. If they become world leaders in green energy, they'll be set for stable long-term growth.

    In the meantime, though, while they catch up and surpass us in green tech, they figure they can pollute to sustain growth. That's why they're spiking our wheels right now; they're buying time for their transition from dirty to clean.

    We need to say, you know, fuck China, they're coming around anyway. We need to take care of their own economy and, along with the rest of the developed world, go mad ass crazy into green energy technology. I fully believe that whichever countries come out at the forefront of green technology will dictate the future of this century. We're at a crucial moment in our nation's history, world history, and we're falling further and further behind.

    If we grab the wheel and lead the way, we can export our green energy technology to developing nations. They will be incredibly grateful for our assistance and this will help us build strategic alliances for the future while diminishing the power of repressive petro-states. As you said, green technology = bank.

    So the US has a choice. Either we can cede the green technology race to China (and thereby give up our place as the preeminent power in the world) or we can win it (and cement our place as the world's superpower). Personally, I prefer the American vision of the future (as envisioned by Obama's best moments) than the Chinese vision of the future (maybe this is just the Korean in me speaking).

    The headquarters for my writing:
    hummusandkimchi.blogspot.com

    http://us.battle.net/d3/en/profile/FriedRice-1814/hero/11834264
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    Ishmael



    While the book has a few flaws I think the core message of "human beings think they are somehow seperate and distinct from the planet...but that is a stupid fucking thing for a species which resulted from common evolution to think" is pretty damned on the ball.



    And if you can think that we can pave half the world and still maintain the atmospheric conditions which occurred prior to paving half the world...i'd be interested in your source.

    I think my point is more that you are being short-sighted if you can't imagine us advancing to the point where we don't need that pavement anymore. Where the input and outputs required for our food and energy are drastically reduced in their ecological impact. It's at least conceivable to the point where I disbelieve your assertion that quality of human life and quality of all other life is neccessarily a zero-sum game.

  • DarkewolfeDarkewolfe Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    I think this is the best argument for helping developing nations develop as fast as possible, by whatever means necessary. The US is all happy and super-developed, and as such is wealthy enough to dick around with regulations to address climate change. China? Not so much. So we pour resources into advancing China. Dirty? Clean? Whatever, who cares. Just get them up to the same level as developed nations, and then they can afford to clean up their act, so to speak.

    If we can help them advance by affordably giving them cleaner technologies, great. But perhaps slowly helping them advance with a trickle of clean technology will result in more pollution in the long run with just letting them smog the hell out of atmosphere for a few years in a bum's rush towards modernity.

    Part of the point the author of Ishmael makes is that when a species food supply increases the population of that species increases. I think that with regard to human beings we can carry this over to not only food supply but also economic growth and prosperity.

    The question I have, though, is whether or not aiding developing countries is a sensible thing to do once one recognizes that the planet earth has a carrying capacity (a term I know some of you love) of X human beings.

    Embrace the ideals you espouse and stop enjoying the fruits of an industrialized society.

    "Well, look at this. Appears we got here just in the nick of time. What's that make us?"
    "Big Damn Heroes, Sir."
    "Ain't we just."
  • _J__J_ Festive Pedant Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Yar wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    Ishmael



    While the book has a few flaws I think the core message of "human beings think they are somehow seperate and distinct from the planet...but that is a stupid fucking thing for a species which resulted from common evolution to think" is pretty damned on the ball.



    And if you can think that we can pave half the world and still maintain the atmospheric conditions which occurred prior to paving half the world...i'd be interested in your source.

    I think my point is more that you are being short-sighted if you can't imagine us advancing to the point where we don't need that pavement anymore. Where the input and outputs required for our food and energy are drastically reduced in their ecological impact. It's at least conceivable to the point where I disbelieve your assertion that quality of human life and quality of all other life is neccessarily a zero-sum game.

    I can imagine it in the same way that I can imagine flying cars, 0 emission power plants, and women wanting to date me. But if we're solving environmental problems via "let's imagine what might happen" then let's just imagine that there is no environment and we're all plugged into the Matrix.

    If we're going to talk about the facticity of the situation then let's talk about the situation. We don't have a techonological solution, we don't have 0 emission renewable sources of power, and it's really fucking hot.

    So let's solve the problem within that reality as opposed to saying "We'll figure it out in 15 years, time to drive my SUV to the store one block away."

  • DmanDman Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    The best way to reduce pollution is to reduce people. So lets adopt China's one child policy and... well I'll leave the rest to your imaginations. :)

    It turns out that almost every 1st world nation has negative population growth already and only maintains or increases it's population because of immigration.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    _J_ wrote: »
    So let's solve the problem within that reality as opposed to saying "We'll figure it out in 15 years, time to drive my SUV to the store one block away."

    Do you honestly not see that there is a middle ground where technological, economic, and personal lifestyle changes can meet?
    Dman wrote: »
    The best way to reduce pollution is to reduce people. So lets adopt China's one child policy and... well I'll leave the rest to your imaginations. :)

    It turns out that almost every 1st world nation has negative population growth already and only maintains or increases it's population because of immigration.

    Interesting. Can you source this?

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    And on the heels of that, I think the proper way to work with this is to make our solutions economically favorable to those who participate. With the right regulations, we could create an entire green industry premised on clean energy and increased efficiency. An entirely new industry developing new technologies would mean bank. Who wouldn't want to get on board with that?

    A good way to do that is to figure out which clean technology works best and commit to it. Business wont invest in something that is a "let's try this out and see if it works, but just scrap it if not" plan. A focused approach would work wonders for inspiring innovation and investment.

    Rather than vacillating between several options with a bunch of hand-wringing... just pick one (or several, but pick them) and stick to it/them.

  • FeralFeral Who needs a medical license when you've got style? Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    we also need to get over our fear of nuclear power

    just saying

    every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
    the "no true scotch, man" fallacy.
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Cap & Trade is intended as an economic pressure for entirely such an industry. Right now, pollution doesn't cost you anything, so you might as well do it, if there's any advantage at all. By adding a price to doing it, you create an incentive to do the opposite.

    I tend to agree, nuclear energy should be an option. In general, I wish a lot more research money went towards energy, it's the major concern of the 21st century. The oil is gonna run out in a few decades, and right now, we're seem to be heading mostly straight back to coal. And that just seems like the worst option.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    I don't need to come back later. Any type of taxation on the production of something as basic and exerted by every living animal. According to the AGW philosophy its that while we humans make an overall minor part of CO2 production in our industrial and automotive industries and products, that the minor part we are responsible for is the tipping point that will forever screw up a 4.5 billion year old planet. So what it proposes much like a cigarette sin tax that we while it lowers our overall usage by a very minor portion we turn it into a revenue stream for the government. While in the truth climate prediction has been one of the models that science still can't get down because there a bazillion different variables.

    So in the end we "think" that our very minuscule addition of CO2 (the gas most necessary for all life on the planet) is the cause for something we "think" we understand that it "might" be acting odd. On top of that, the most popular theory is to rid the world of its production by dropping it slowly through taxation so the government can use its as a revenue stream. While crossing our fingers the whole time hoping that the minuscule amount of a minuscule amount that stops getting produced will drastically prevent a planet as old and big as earth from spiraling out of control, that we can stop the "trend" and right the planet.

    I am not buying it.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited July 2009
    Topweasel wrote: »
    _var_blogusers_attachments_1113167774925_salmon.JPG

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • WestfordeWestforde Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Topweasel wrote: »
    I don't need to come back later. Any type of taxation on the production of something as basic and exerted by every living animal. According to the AGW philosophy its that while we humans make an overall minor part of CO2 production in our industrial and automotive industries and products, that the minor part we are responsible for is the tipping point that will forever screw up a 4.5 billion year old planet. So what it proposes much like a cigarette sin tax that we while it lowers our overall usage by a very minor portion we turn it into a revenue stream for the government. While in the truth climate prediction has been one of the models that science still can't get down because there a bazillion different variables.

    So in the end we "think" that our very minuscule addition of CO2 (the gas most necessary for all life on the planet) is the cause for something we "think" we understand that it "might" be acting odd. On top of that, the most popular theory is to rid the world of its production by dropping it slowly through taxation so the government can use its as a revenue stream. While crossing our fingers the whole time hoping that the minuscule amount of a minuscule amount that stops getting produced will drastically prevent a planet as old and big as earth from spiraling out of control, that we can stop the "trend" and right the planet.

    I am not buying it.

    I'm not going to comment on the rest, as I am sure others will do better than me. But I hear this often among my friends.

    Nobody is saying that the planet will explode or all life will die out. The thing we are mostly concerned is how suitable it we will be for human welfare, which can be drastically effected by a few degrees difference

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited July 2009
    Feral wrote: »
    _J_ wrote: »
    So let's solve the problem within that reality as opposed to saying "We'll figure it out in 15 years, time to drive my SUV to the store one block away."

    Do you honestly not see that there is a middle ground where technological, economic, and personal lifestyle changes can meet?
    Dman wrote: »
    The best way to reduce pollution is to reduce people. So lets adopt China's one child policy and... well I'll leave the rest to your imaginations. :)

    It turns out that almost every 1st world nation has negative population growth already and only maintains or increases it's population because of immigration.

    Interesting. Can you source this?

    It's certainly true in the US. I don't have any sources, so sorry, but I know the reproduction rate in most developed nations tends to be right at or just below 2, while 2.2-ish is the equilibrium point. Given that, any nation that isn't seeing a population drop must necessarily be making up the difference via immigration.

    Though I, too, would appreciate some sources on this.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    CO2 is not killing the planet. Hell, even if we actively tried, we'd have serious trouble harming the planet itself. But it sure as hell is wreaking havoc on the ecosystem (together with all the other fun stuff we're up to / have been up to).The ecosystem is a dynamic and fragile thing, and it sustains us, so why is it so odd we're looking out for it? And yes, our industrial output is "only" about 5% of the total global output. However, there isn't enough absorbtion capacity to get rid of that 5%. And it just keeps adding up and adding up. The thread has had ample graphs showing the unparalled increase, and the correlation with temperature increase. What is there left to not believe?

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
  • BladeXBladeX Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    _var_blogusers_attachments_1113167774925_salmon.JPG

    I don't know why a literal salmoning of a post for lies cracked me up so much but well played.

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Westforde wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    I don't need to come back later. Any type of taxation on the production of something as basic and exerted by every living animal. According to the AGW philosophy its that while we humans make an overall minor part of CO2 production in our industrial and automotive industries and products, that the minor part we are responsible for is the tipping point that will forever screw up a 4.5 billion year old planet. So what it proposes much like a cigarette sin tax that we while it lowers our overall usage by a very minor portion we turn it into a revenue stream for the government. While in the truth climate prediction has been one of the models that science still can't get down because there a bazillion different variables.

    So in the end we "think" that our very minuscule addition of CO2 (the gas most necessary for all life on the planet) is the cause for something we "think" we understand that it "might" be acting odd. On top of that, the most popular theory is to rid the world of its production by dropping it slowly through taxation so the government can use its as a revenue stream. While crossing our fingers the whole time hoping that the minuscule amount of a minuscule amount that stops getting produced will drastically prevent a planet as old and big as earth from spiraling out of control, that we can stop the "trend" and right the planet.

    I am not buying it.

    I'm not going to comment on the rest, as I am sure others will do better than me. But I hear this often among my friends.

    Nobody is saying that the planet will explode or all life will die out. The thing we are mostly concerned is how suitable it we will be for human welfare, which can be drastically effected by a few degrees difference

    But even that goes both ways. An increase in temperature even if caused by man might actual spawn higher plant growth, long food crop seasons, less crops ruined by late frost. While a decrease in temperature could actually be worse. All the science and all of theories are like walking on a blades edge and instead of approaching like so our reaction seem to be like tipping one way so to regain balance we are jumping off the other way. The end result is we place more financial pressure on an economic system that is already struggling.

  • TopweaselTopweasel Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    SanderJK wrote: »
    CO2 is not killing the planet. Hell, even if we actively tried, we'd have serious trouble harming the planet itself. But it sure as hell is wreaking havoc on the ecosystem (together with all the other fun stuff we're up to / have been up to).The ecosystem is a dynamic and fragile thing, and it sustains us, so why is it so odd we're looking out for it? And yes, our industrial output is "only" about 5% of the total global output. However, there isn't enough absorbtion capacity to get rid of that 5%. And it just keeps adding up and adding up. The thread has had ample graphs showing the unparalled increase, and the correlation with temperature increase. What is there left to not believe?

    As shown by an earlier graph we are not at either a high point in temperature or a high point CO2 ppm then the last 400k years let alone the some odd 4 billion years this planet has been mostly tropical. Just so I know for further reference though how much of that 5% that we are responsible for is too much? Whats the magical number that puts this planets ecosystem on red alert?

  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Topweasel wrote: »
    As shown by an earlier graph we are not at either a high point in temperature or a high point CO2 ppm then the last 400k years let alone the some odd 4 billion years this planet has been mostly tropical. Just so I know for further reference though how much of that 5% that we are responsible for is too much? Whats the magical number that puts this planets ecosystem on red alert?

    Er... I posted that, not realizing it stopped at 1950... so it doesn't really prove that as much as I thought it did.

    It does, however, seem to indicate extreme highs and lows in CO2 and global temperature have occurred before man started making machines.

  • QuidQuid The Fifth Horseman Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    BladeX wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    fish]

    I don't know why a literal salmoning of a post for lies cracked me up so much but well played.
    I took it for that fish won't swim.

    I am terrible at this.

    PSN: allenquid
  • ChanusChanus Registered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Quid wrote: »
    BladeX wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    fish]

    I don't know why a literal salmoning of a post for lies cracked me up so much but well played.
    I took it for that fish won't swim.

    I am terrible at this.

    I had no idea... at least you had an idea...

  • SanderJKSanderJK Crocodylus Pontifex Sinterklasicus Madrid, 3000 ADRegistered User regular
    edited July 2009
    Chanus wrote: »
    Topweasel wrote: »
    As shown by an earlier graph we are not at either a high point in temperature or a high point CO2 ppm then the last 400k years let alone the some odd 4 billion years this planet has been mostly tropical. Just so I know for further reference though how much of that 5% that we are responsible for is too much? Whats the magical number that puts this planets ecosystem on red alert?

    Er... I posted that, not realizing it stopped at 1950... so it doesn't really prove that as much as I thought it did.

    It does, however, seem to indicate extreme highs and lows in CO2 and global temperature have occurred before man started making machines.

    720px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png

    That shows the Temperature / [CO2] relation, and adds an arrow where we currently are. As to how much reduction is enough? Truely we don't really know. We've already messed it up, and we are going to have to see where it ends. We've let the cat out of the bag. Current treaties mostly only try to stop any further growth of the pollution. Doubt that that's enough, but maybe it can get to an equilibrium, where we can at least see the consequences. The G8 has suggested a 50% reduction by 2050, but I fear that's just a pipedream.

    Steam: SanderJK Origin: SanderJK
Sign In or Register to comment.