Global Warming. What should be done about it?
-
I have yet to meet a person who can separate a discussion about global warming from the subsequent discussion about how their agenda is the cure for it.
Humanity as a whole is a lot better at bottom-up driven solutions to immedate, in your face problems then we are at any of the following:
- implementing coercive government solutions without horrible side effects
- forecasting the future
- accurately predicting weather
- separating science from politics
25-30 years ago the doom and gloom camp were talking about global cooling and the next ice age. I don't remember a government mandated program of worldwide intentional warming, but we seem to have shifted directions nicely in just 30 years.
While the climatology of global warming, and the anthropomorphic aspect of it may be very real, it's irrelevant to discuss since nobody wants to talk about anything other than how to force people to change their behavior for expansive government action.
No thanks.
There are pros and cons to everything, and nobody is smart enough to decide what's right for everybody.
-
I'm just looking for opinions on his logic, not if anyone agrees that global warming exists/doesn't. Like I said earlier, his logic is similar to mine.
-
I just don't like "alarmist" points of view on the whole subject like we're going to burn to a crisp in the 50 years or something. The video does make a very interesting point, action should be taken, but I don't think it's as bad as some others say it is. I've heard reports that the tempature has risen only 1-2 degrees over the past 100 years or so and that cows put out more green house gases that cars do, yes, cow farts contribute methane gas which is far more worse for the climate than automobile exhaust. So I think we just need to eat more beef to help aid in the problem, it's the vegetarians and vegans that are contributing to global warming.
Sterling Archer: Oh my god! You killed a hooker!
Cyril Figgis: Call girl!
Sterling Archer: No Cyril! When they're dead they're just hookers!
-
tjamz;174049 wrote:
I'm in the camp saying humans had a minuscule negative impact on global climate changes...but if we do nothing the impact could be catastrophic.Umm...how can you say we are very small part then say if you don't do anything it could be catastrophic...sounds like you know what the truth is (humans don't really have a big impact on global climate change) however you take in the far left agenda that if we do not do something, we are all gonna die...
Those two things together don't jive...
I'm all for keeping emmissions down to a minimum...but shit people, be realfuckingistic about this. We could stop driving cars and not pollute at all and it would have a minimal impact on the climate...
God forbid the earth be in one of its MANY cycles :icon_cheers:
-
im under the impression that people think the temperature is going to sky rocket over a short period of time. if we look at that graphic stangerbanger put up before, all of those time periods are millions of years long. so by the time that the entire world is ecologically influenced by the climate change, humans might not even be around.
-
ichibankilla;174062 wrote:
I just don't like "alarmist" points of view on the whole subject like we're going to burn to a crisp in the 50 years or something. The video does make a very interesting point, action should be taken, but I don't think it's as bad as some others say it is. I've heard reports that the tempature has risen only 1-2 degrees over the past 100 years or so and that cows put out more green house gases that cars do, yes, cow farts contribute methane gas which is far more for the climate than automobile exhaust. So I think we just need to eat more beef to help aid in the problem, it's the vegetarians and vegans that are contributing to global warming.I do my part by eating as many cows a year as I can. The only thing to consider is that global warming will NOT result in us burning up, rather the opposite will happen. As the polar ice caps melt they actually lower the ocean temperature. As the ocean temps drop (even by just a few degrees) the jet stream changes and the dawn of a new ice age begins. What most people do not realize is that the ice age will not gradually happen, but will likely be very rapid. In fact, many animals found frozen from the last ice age died while still chewing grasses, meaning that it happened fast, really fast. So fast that the grass never even died from the cold first. So fast that the animals never had a chance to escape its path. Sounds a lot like the movie "Day after tomorrow", doesn't it? The basis of the movie was correct, even if some drama was added for theatrical purposes.
-
Honestly the global warming issue should not be adressed. This will take care of itself through the implementation of alternative fuel production. The new science of breeding microscopic algae (diatoms) is what is going to have the largest impact. These algae are an oil producing type, and the newest breeds are able to produce almost 80% of their weight per day. Latest experiments use a closed, clear PVC triangle which pumps the water/algae mix using straight CO2 from a factories smokestack, producing only oxygen, biomass, and oil. This oil is such a high quality and purity that it needs only about 4 hours of refining time to be usable as straight 100% biodiesel. Using this method, one factory has become 100% self sufficient in its power. Using 3 biodiesel generators that only pollute 6% as much as the electric power plant equivalent energy. It has also been able to stockpile its excess biodiesel for use in its yard trucks and company pickups.
In short, once we get control of our electricity usage and switch to a high biodiesel oil usage, the whole enviromental aspect will come around on its own. By the way, did you know that if cities would start switching from the current mercury-vapor street light bulbs, to a 4000-LED bulb, they could cut their electric usage by almost 25%? A city like chicago would need about 1-2 less coal trains per week with these savings, big difference huh.
-
an inconvenient truth from al gore made me think twice
-
24valvenotak;174089 wrote:
an inconvenient truth from al gore made me think twicei dont think i can take anything seriously from somebody who thinks they created the internet and who owns a house that uses i believe 20x more energy than the average american home...
-
its not his research buddy, he is just the one delivering the message... such as facts, studies, theories from people far smarter then you or i, you know, that sort of nonsense
-
torbs;174065 wrote:
Umm...how can you say we are very small part then say if you don't do anything it could be catastrophic...sounds like you know what the truth is (humans don't really have a big impact on global climate change) however you take in the far left agenda that if we do not do something, we are all gonna die...Those two things together don't jive...
I'm all for keeping emmissions down to a minimum...but shit people, be realfuckingistic about this. We could stop driving cars and not pollute at all and it would have a minimal impact on the climate...
God forbid the earth be in one of its MANY cycles :icon_cheers:
Learn to read torbs, I said we had little to do with CAUSING global warming, but I believe honestly there are things we can do to counteract the NATURAL course of global warming. At some point in the future (not sure how near/far) there will be another ice age that will have a catastrophic affect on the world we live in, whether we cause it or not is debatable, but what IF there was something we could do to prevent it aside from bio-fuels, etc... What if we had technology that could reduce the CO2 in the air (natural or man made)? Is that not worth investing in now, to help prevent something catastrophic in the future?
The alternative is to do nothing and let nature take its course, but that would be entirely against human nature. We control the environment (or try) all the time in crop production (chemicals, fertilizer, irrigation, etc...) if we didn't do that, the world would be hurting as there would not be abundant cheap food available and we would probably experience world-wide famine. You wouldn't want that now, right? Of course not! So why would you not want to help prevent another catastrophe...again, not necessarily a man made disaster. Why not invest in the technology to clean the air and stabilize the CO2 levels so that they do not elevate to excessive levels? The example that Gary presented w/ the algae is a prime example of what I'm talking about.
If that is the "Far-Left" agenda, I'd suggest you look at the far left some more as Gore is WAAAAAAAAAY further left on this issue than me. Of course, Torbs will probably respond saying that only a liberal would think that another ice age will happen (regardless of humans causing it or not)
-
I didn't bother to read everyone's comments, but I think the guy is right. Global catastrophe or not, we need to stop polluting. I don't think anyone can argue that. The more toxins we introduce into the environment, the closer we come to destroying the world we live in.
On a side note: If I remember right, during the last major ice age the average global temperature was less than 2 degrees F lower than it is now. Ice core samples from Antarctica showed that the levels of CO2 were much higher then than they are now. I don't doubt that the Earth is warming up, but I don't think that CO2 from humans is the main reason why.
-
torbs;174091 wrote:
i dont think i can take anything seriously from somebody who thinks they created the internet and who owns a house that uses i believe 20x more energy than the average american home...I think his energy bill is something like $30, 000 a year or something close to it.
He contradicts himself by saying we have to use less energy and then using 20x the national average to power his estate, whether he's just stating information from other sources or not he's still a hipocrate.That's like preaching to somebody about how bad smoking cigarettes are and then selling them a pack afterwards.
Sterling Archer: Oh my god! You killed a hooker!
Cyril Figgis: Call girl!
Sterling Archer: No Cyril! When they're dead they're just hookers!
-
See, I feel he was making the case that there might be global warming. I'm mostly interested in your take on his way of presenting it though and the columns vs rows aspect of it along with his conclusions. If you disagree with his conclusion that one of 4 things can happen, point out the flaw in his reasoning. Whether he is/isn't arguing about man made global warming is not the issue, the issue is what happens if we do/don't act on it. He pretty much nailed it (in a nutshell) imho.
I feel you are better off preparing for the worst as opposed to hoping for the best.
-
His summary of the A and B columns is a little weak. If taking action causes global depression in the top box, it would almost certainly do it in the bottom box (the smiley face scenarios are not equivalent). Essentially, using his reasoning, ticket A guarantees a global depression, while ticket B poses risks of catastrophe but also retains the possibility of maintaining global prosperity. This makes the probability of significant warming a key factor in determining the course of action and not merely an afterthought as he indicates.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login