quote:All I am saying is that I am not absolutely certain that CO2 plays as big a role as many people are saying it does, in the face of other natural effects, it could be close to negligible.
I only wonder if the blisteringly universal consensus of the entire world's supply of qualified climatologists may be able to help clear the matter up for you? They actually seem to think that CO2 is pretty important and I'm not sure that some errant skepticism by a fiction writer is enough to unseat that?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the reason it's so ballyhooed is that it's the largest single man made gas emitted. We can't control what volcanoes do, we CAN control what gases we emit into the atmosphere.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The answer is that CO2 is only one of several factors that influence temperature, such as volcanic eruptions, solar variability, sulfur dioxide emissions (see Figure 1), and small changes in the earth’s orbit. The combined impact of all effects was cooling for those middle decades of the 20th century. When climate scientists look at the entire last century, however, they are unable to explain the significant temperature increases solely from natural causes. Only when the trends for human-induced heat-trapping gases, sulfur dioxide emissions, soot, ozone, and land use changes are also included do the hindcast model results (Figure 3) and the recorded reality match up. This is particularly true of the pronounced warming that has occurred since 1970.
OK, makes sense. So CO2 is not a huge factor in the overall temperature of the planet, its just one of many. And they cannot account through natural means the increase in temperature, fine. So then why is CO2 paraded about as if its overpowering all these other factors. That last sentence is just my perception, but it was hammered into me at school, and in the periodicals I have read.
CO2 is paraded about as if its overpowering for several reasons. The most obvious is that it is the primary factor which human activity is changing. If human activity were altering the earths orbit, I'm sur you would here plenty about that as well but right now CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the primary factor that is changing due to human activity.
Because CO2 and other greenhouse gases are changing very rapidly (on a time scale relevant to individual human lives) they are very different from other forces which influence climate that change over periods of thousands of years.
Data from ice cores indicates that the global climate has changed abruptly half a dozen times over the past 400,000 but abruptly in this context mean over a period of 5 - 10 thousand years. The changes we are observing now due to human greenhouse gas emission are occurring over a time from of 50 years. Clearly if the climate were to change gradually over 5000 years, people and other living things would have much more ability to adapt than if those changes occur in only a few decades.
Let me break down for you what I see as the relevant questions.
1. Is it possible for changes in CO2 (and other human produced greenhouse gases) to alter global climate in the absense of any other effect? The answer to this question is a simple yes and is based are extremely well established scientific prinicples.
2. Are human activities changing the levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases enough to alone result in a significant changes in the global average temperature? The answer to this question has been addressed by both measurement and theory and is an unqualified yes.
3. Are the current changes we are observing in the global climate the result of greenhouse emissions or the result of other phenomena? Mounting evidence indicates that we are observing global climate change which can not be explained without including CO2 and other greenhouse emissions. For example, volcanoes can result in climate change but the volcanic activity we've observed does not account for the climate change we have observed. Change in solar activity can cause climate change but we haven't observed changes in solar activity that are sufficient to observe the changes we are seeing the global mean temperature.
4. Will other factors that influence climate change such as ocean currents, cloud cover, vegetation etc. react in a way that will counter or reinforce the effect of increased greenhouse emissions? The answer to this question is still controversial. If it weren't for this, the Climate Change science would be a no brainer and any undergraduate science student could calculate how much the earth would warm and how fast. This is the crux of all the models and why the science is so complicated. Right now the scientific consensus is that these factors will not counter the influence of greenhouse emissions. In fact, there is growing evidence suggesting that such factors will reinforce the greenhouse effect causing additional warming.
Whether or not changes in the solar irradiance have caused climate change in the past and will cause them in the future is an interested scientific question that has no immediate social or political relevance because we don't have the ability today to change the solar irradiance.
Whether or not CO2 emission from burning fossil fuels can and will change the climate is not just an interesting academic question, it is one which has immediate social and political relevance.
[ January 29, 2007, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: [QUOTE] The precise mechanism responsible for these massive events is a matter of lively inquiry in the scientific literature, but the fact that they are all happening now that human activities have increased the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration to a level not seen over the past 400,000 years, after having survived millennia, is powerful circumstantial evidence that should not be lightly dismissed.
Well OK, but its still circumstantial isn't it? Hardly cause enough to convict and take action. The fact that its the subject of "lively debate" makes me less inclined to swallow it without thinking twice.
The lively debate is about the precise mechanisms responsible for events like a massive hurricane or the break up of an ice sheet not about the basic theory of greenhouse warming.
What we have is not solely circumstantial evidence. We have a simple well established scientific premise. That premise is that adding chemicals to our atmosphere which absorb infrared radiation will change the radiant heat balance of the planet. No One with any credibility questions that premise. We have 50 years of data showing that burning fossil fuels and other human activities are significantly changing the concentration of infrared absorbing chemicals in our atmosphere. We have many elaborate scientific models in an attempt to understand exactly how our planets oceans, atmosphere and biosphere will react to those models. We have measurements showing that the average surface temperature of the earth is increasing as is predicted in those models. We have catostrophic events like the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and record strength hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones all of which are consistent with the theory.
What we have no other scientific theory which can explain what's going on.
This is more that circumstantial evidence.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I only wonder if the blisteringly universal consensus of the entire world's supply of qualified climatologists may be able to help clear the matter up for you? They actually seem to think that CO2 is pretty important and I'm not sure that some errant skepticism by a fiction writer is enough to unseat that?
Seriously, Samp. Look at what Rabbit is doing. It's informative, relevant to the question, and not annoying. Please please please stop with the appeal-to-authority fallacy. People are trying to learn something here.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rabbit, I understood the point you are making in the first paragraph of your above post. I know they are arguing the "average" is what is increasing, and it seems the average indicates warmth that is unusal and beyond natural.
BlackBlade, I was simply answering the question you posed. You asked why if the data couldn't be used to support cooling it could be used to support warming. If you understood it before I posted, then why did you ask the question in the first place.
quote:But again the picture I was painted in school and in newspapers was CO2 CO2!!! There was no mention of other factors. Obviously now that I am in college and individually decided to pursue the subject of my own accord I see there is more to it. What I have seen makes me skeptical, but even I agree that I am inclined to believe that CO2 a greenhouse gas is causing our mean temperatures to increase. All I am saying is that I am not absolutely certain that CO2 plays as big a role as many people are saying it does, in the face of other natural effects, it could be close to negligible.
I'm sorry I broke up your points into several pieces. It seemed if I did not my post would end up being so long no one would read it. I addressed you CO2 question in my last point.
Let me reiterate one key point that is made in the sites I linked you to. This is not a novel criticism of the greenhouse gas theory. Scientist know that there are a variety of additional factors which influence climate. The question has been asked and explored in hundreds of scientific papers. Researchers have used the best scientifically available understanding of the system to determine whether those other factors could be responsible for the changes in Global Climate we are observing today. The conclusion of those studies is uniformly that greenhouse gases are the only thing we know of that can explain whats going on.
So for example, It has been suggested that the increases in the earth surface temperature since the 1970s could have been caused by changes in solar activity. Several teams have taken all the data that is available on solar activity and put it into the best models available and they have all found that the observed changes in solar activity can't explain the observed changes in the surface temperature of the earth. The same is true for every other factor. In fact, if you plug all those other factors into the best models what you find is that combined they cannot explain the surface warming unless you include the changes in greenhouse gases.
Is that certainty? No. But it is compelling.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
(This is a preemptive strike against the sites grammar Nazi's. If you aren't one of them, please skip it).
I've just read through my last several posts and recognize that they are rife with typing errors. This is a forum not a publication so I generally don't take the time to proof read what I post. It takes more than enough of my time to write this stuff as it is. If you are unwilling to look past my typing errors to the content of what I've posted, I'm not interested in hearing about it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, it is such a pleasure to follow your thinking. I know it takes a lot of energy to do this again, but each time the line of reasoning continues to become more clear to me.
quote:If you wish to discuss Buddhism you must meditate several hours daily, as well as believe in Karma.
You will note that my list of qualifications did not include anything of the form "believe in X". I would point out, though, that no religion is actually at all difficult to understand; there are no mathematics, no abstruse special cases. Any man is as qualified as a bishop to discuss the truth of religion; which is, in fact, precisely the hallmark of things that are made up. You might have a point touching discussion of the effects of living a certain moral code; you will note that I have never discussed this, except to note that mine makes me as happy as yours makes you, and hurts fewer people at that.
Incidentally, I said no word about your intelligence, only about your education. There's a difference. I'm sorry you did not see fit to educate yourself in science, but it's not too late. Get thee to grad school, go.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM, I am a deeply religious individual and a scientist. I find your tirades against religion to be utterly counterproductive when discussing the validity of any scientific topic. There is no reason to insist that science in general or Global Climate Science in particular are incompatible with a devout spiritual life. If you do so, you are more likely to pursuade the devoutly spiritual to ignore science than to abandon their spirituality.
The Global Climate crisis is real and responding to it is a moral imperative which will affect all our lives whether we accept Jesus as our Savior our not. Since it isn't necessary to be an athiest to believe in Climate Change, please leave the religion bashing for somewhere else.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not think it is "religion bashing" to point out that people are applying a different standard of proof to global warming and to their theistic beliefs.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No KOM, its little quips like "precisely the hallmark of things that are made up", which constitute religion bashing.
Please KOM, I'm making a serious effort here to explain to skeptics why the arguments made by people like Crichton against Global Climate Change science are invalid. The insults you keep repeating aren't helping their hurting.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: By way of analogy, the occurrence of large earthquakes is also very difficult to predict. Just because we can’t predict when the next big earthquake in California will occur, should we stop building earthquake-resistant buildings?
Holy Crap do they really expect that analogy to fly? That comparison only works if the question of earthquakes was still a matter of discussion, which they are not. Whether or not global warming is actually taking place is precisely what we are arguing about!
Whether or not global warming is actually taking place is not the central argument. In fact it is only a small part of the picture.
If the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to rise, this will shift the radiative balance of the planet which will result in a rise in global mean temperatures. That is not in question. NO ONE who understands the basics of radiative energy exchange doubts that. It is as certain as whether or not there will be another earthquake along the San Andreas fault.
There may still be a question about whether our not the CO2 we have already added to the atmosphere has already caused a measurabe change in the climate. There may still be question about how much the CO2 concentration will have to increase before it causes significant climate change. There may still be question about how soon that climate change will occurr and how severe it will be. But there is no doubt in any scientists mind that if we keep increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere sooner or later it will cause global warming.
How different is that from earthquake codes? The best scientific evidence is that there will be a significant earthquake in Salt Lake City sometime in the next century or so. There is no certainty about how soon it will happen or how severe a quake will be when it comes, but the state is rebuilding the capital and the LDS church is renovating the Tabernacle to meet earthquake code.
Its not the best analogy, but its not nearly so bad as you paint it to be. I think that the authors point was that we do things all the time because the best evidence suggests a significant risk. We are willing to buy insurance on your home even though there is not certainty that we will ever have a fire or be robbed.
We wear our seat belts even though there is not certainty that we will ever be in an accident. We go in for cancer screening even if there though there is no certainty that we will ever get cancer and no guarantee that they will be able to cure the cancer even if they catch it in screening. We do this things not because they are "certain" to be of benefit, but because we believe that the risk associated with not doing them is worth the cost.
As someone who is very familiar with the science, I think that the probability of catastrophe if we do not respond to the warnings of Global Climate scientists is more than high enough for us to act now even though it isn't certain.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm reading with interest, Rabbit. The exact (or, well, sometimes theoretical-but-highly-likely) sciences involved in global warming have never really interested me all that much, since I support the various measures designed to respond to global warming for a bunch of other reasons and because I think it's a highly-likely set of related theories and data samples, so I'm not reading it all in one go-not really my thing, to make a long explanation short.
But to get back to the point of this post, thanks for taking the time to post these explanations. It's appreciated
-------------------
And here's another example of why I do not believe you when you say you're usually trying to change people's minds, King of Men. You're basically in agreement with Rabbit here concerning global warming. You certainly understand the sciences involved a great deal better than I do, and yet your approach is sharply different from hers.
Why is that, I wonder?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cant write very effectively as I am using my wii to type this. I just wanted to say Rabbit that I greatly appreciate all that you are writing out. I need to reread it a bit as it's quite tedious to try and read the forums on my tv. But again, thank you very much!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Seriously, Samp. Look at what Rabbit is doing. It's informative, relevant to the question, and not annoying. Please please please stop with the appeal-to-authority fallacy. People are trying to learn something here.
Do you know what an appeal-to-authority fallacy is?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And here's another example of why I do not believe you when you say you're usually trying to change people's minds, King of Men. You're basically in agreement with Rabbit here concerning global warming. You certainly understand the sciences involved a great deal better than I do, and yet your approach is sharply different from hers.
Why is that, I wonder?
Not just that, but why we're more likely to listen to Rabbit than to KoM, even when they're saying the same thing. Personally, I find KoM's rants so... useless. Pointless. Idiotic, really.
Rabbit, thank you for your explanations and all the effort you've put into this thread. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think someone should point out that this (edit: If I recall correctly) is at least the third time Rabbit has done this at Hatrack.
And yet, in a couple of months, someone else will post a thread with a silly, empty, simpistic attack on it like Lisa did here and people will expect her to do it again. And will claim, despite her posts here, readily available detailed explanations of the topic online, and a wide-release documentary that you can rent for maybe $3, that no one ever tries to explain this to them.
posted
Maybe we should add this to JT's resource thread, so a quick link next time will save Rabbit all the trouble she keeps going through.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also want to thank you, Rabbit. I generally tend to lurk here, with high bursts of posting in very focused areas. I miss 85-90% of the threads created, and I seem to have missed those times you have explained these things before.
I have been reading this with interest, though, and appreciate you taking the time to break things down.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, I still don't buy it. I still think it's a scam because you (GCC advocates in general) are demanding we change our way of life when, even if you're right, we don't have to.
Nuclear power can generate all the power we need, but few of you (GCC advocates) are calling for it. Concern over waste is brought up but we have a mile deep hole with no aquifer near by in Nevada to bury it in.
Nuclear power plants won't melt down to China. That's pure Hollywood. There is no reason not to be building nuclear plants all over the country. If GCC were the threat that you (GCC advocates) claim it is, you'd be clamoring for nuclear plants to save the planet.
Combine nuclear plants with the new EEStor http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/03/eestor_capacito_1.php electric cars and suddenly, no more CO2 emissions from power generation OR transportation. This is technology that's just around the corner. But I hear nothing of this from anywhere but SlashDot and that's because it's geeky.
This is technology that is HERE and operational. It's expensive on a per-barrel basis but that's because they have to buy their turkey guts. Start replacing sewer plants and landfills and see how cheap per-barrel it gets.
If GCC were real and not just a way to make us change our lives, these would be headlines. These technologies get me wound up and excited and I'm not even an environmentalist. They're just too cool and efficient and we're going to need them if we ever go to the stars.
I am not a Luddite. I love science and I love technology. But when someone starts demanding money or change from me I have to wonder what's up. If you (GCC advocates) are really worried, sell us hope, sell us these cool new inventions, and stop selling us fear and sacrifice. (And public transportation for that matter. That's nothing but a rat hole of waste. At least here in spread-out San Jose.)
Now I know I had more to say, but I've been interrupted five times while typing this so excuse me if this post is disjointed.
Renewable energies, fuel efficient cars and light bulbs, we aren't talking about a basic foundational change in the way you live your life, it's all just that fancy technology you're asking for. But I'm curious: What are the changes you're going to have to make to your way of life?
Everything costs money. Your Thermodepolymerization plants cost money, not to mention it's still untested on a large scale, unlike many renewables, but either way it's all still a work in progress, and that's one of those things you seem to be decrying, your nuclear plants cost money, coal and coal fired plants cost money, everything does. I don't get your point about "even if you're right" still not having to change your life. GCC will rearrange your life for you, it won't be an option.
Suggestions I've made previously in this thread are all for non-GCC reasons that have the added benefit of helping to eliminate the man made contributions to global climate change. It's an argument we are FINALLY starting to see on the national stage, and one I've supported for quite some time. You seem to be arguing both sides however.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Nuclear power plants won't melt down to China. That's pure Hollywood. There is no reason not to be building nuclear plants all over the country. If GCC were the threat that you (GCC advocates) claim it is, you'd be clamoring for nuclear plants to save the planet.
I admit I haven't done so in this thread, but I do actually think that we should build nuclear power plants, and the more the better.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nitpick: it's "thermal depolymerization." [Added: I'm not to be pedantic, but I do have a chemical engineering degree and work experience in the petrochemical industry, including my current job. If I can't point things like that out, who can? ]
Also, I'm a proponent of nuclear energy as part of an overall strategy for reducing petrochemical usage. You forget, though, that uranium is an essentially finite resource just like petrochemicals; reducing energy usage would still be a good idea even if we could build enough nuclear plants to supply the world several times over.
The real question is how we solve the plastic problem. Nuclear power, fuel cells, solar power, wind power, and electric cars won't bring us any closer to resolving that one. It isn't clear from the reading I've done whether thermal depolymerization can make hydrocarbons light enough to re-polymerize for plastic manufacture.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr: In CA our power costs an ungodly amount because we don't have enough power plants. PG&E runs TV ads constantly begging us not to use their product. If we could build enough nuclear plants, the price would fall because the supply would meet the demand and PG&E could stop buying out of state power at Grey Davis prices.
If you think I'm arguing both sides, you need to reread what I said. I do not believe global warming is happening. If it is, we should be building more nuke plants. If it isn't we should still be building more nuke plants (because of the terrorism angle, but let's not bring that up.) EEStor batteries are way cool and the electricity is cheaper than gas, regardless of GCC. Thermal Depolymerization will save money in the long run regardless of environmental concerns. If for nothing else, buying the land for land fills.
Stop trying to sell me fear and conservation. Sell me on coolness, efficiently and frugalness.
Twinky: Damn, I even Googled it to make sure I spelled it right. LOTS of people are calling it Thermodepolymerization. I'll have to correct myself in the future.
KoM and Twink: I'm glad you're pushing nuclear power. I'd like to hear more of that. Pushing for solutions that have been around for 60 years will get you farther than telling people how awful they are and how they need to conserve because they're killing the planet. Last I heard, we hadn't built a new power plant here in CA in 30 years. We need them desperately.
As far as Uranium being finite, ya, but it will last us until cold fusion. And if not, we still have all that coal in the ground.
posted
I doubt workable cold fusion will happen anytime soon. It would likely last us until hot fusion, though.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not believe global warming is happening.
This is what I find strange about your position. You say you don't believe it's happening -- not because of any evidence, data, or scientific study, but because you don't like how non-scientists who believe in it ("GCC advocates in general") are asking you to change your lifestyle.
Don't you think you should decide what to believe based on the actual evidence being presented, rather than on the basis of your feelings about advocacy?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pixiest (and Twink and kom) -- concerning building more nuclear power plants -- that's two things we agree on today.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have the time to vet every snake oil salesman that comes along. Be they global warming, herbal suppliments, thigh cream, cortislim or any other scam.
I've heard about global warming for decades now and all they sell is fear and not solutions. The fact that they use their own version of Pascal's Wager to sell it leaves me cold too.
I've told you how to sell me on fixing it even if I don't buy there's a problem. I handed you a manual right here on this page.
But it's not about fixing it. It's about keeping the research money flowing because if GCC gets fixed lots of people are out of a job.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Pixiest (and Twink and kom) -- concerning building more nuclear power plants -- that's two things we agree on today.
Between last night's command that I go to grad school and KOM's statement today that we should build more nuclear power that too is two things we agree on.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually Pix, you just sound a bit self centered.
"I don't believe in you because then I'll be inconvienced."
Sadaam did not believe the US had the guts to invade, because if he did, he'd have to change his lifestyle.
The people in the time of Noah did not believe in what Noah was preaching, for if they did they'd have to change their life styles. And hey, it would really hurt the dagger and poison industries if all that murdering and such was truly frowned upon by God.
Bin Laden didn't believe that people would retaliate in such drastic fashion, or that God would let his Taliban lose, because such a belief would force him to change his lifestyle.
Since then, each has been proven wrong, and had changes of lifestyles forced on them that were much worse.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
1) It is, and often, by many of the same scientists that work on climate change. Sure their voices get over whelmed by others, but it is out there.
2) Chernobyl still is a ghastly picture in peoples memory.
3) Having a nuclear reactor melt its way to China is not a fear. Having it blow up? Now there is a worry. Sure its not likely, or even close to probable, but its a worry that keep a lot of people saying, "Nuclear Power is great, anywhere else but here."
4) You brush away nuclear waste disposal as if it were a simple thing. You've got a big hole in the back yard--lets fill it up. However, one accident with a truck carrying the waste will contaminate a large area, so the concerned people are not just those near the big nuclear dump in AZ, but people along every route that leads to it.
5) Nuclear material will attract terrorists, extortionists, and black marketers from around the world. As we've watched them increase the terrorist security at the Bowling Hall of Fame (a natural target to bring down America), you can only imagine the fear that having a nuclear reactor, nuclear fuel, or nuclear waste near your house will cause.
6) You distrust the GCC people because it will change your lifestyle. Imagine the people who use, have invested in, or work for coal and petroleum based energy systems. Going Nuclear will be a direct attack on their jobs. They will do much to make sure it doesn't happen.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't have the time to vet every snake oil salesman that comes along.
I'm curious, though, how you determine between "snake oil salesman" and "legitimate scientist".
What gets by without needing to be "vetted", to use your phrasing?
What is "science" and what is "snake oil"? It seems you've "vetted" nuclear power, but outright reject climate change because you "don't have time to vet" it.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lyr: In CA our power costs an ungodly amount because we don't have enough power plants. PG&E runs TV ads constantly begging us not to use their product. If we could build enough nuclear plants, the price would fall because the supply would meet the demand and PG&E could stop buying out of state power at Grey Davis prices.
If you think I'm arguing both sides, you need to reread what I said. I do not believe global warming is happening. If it is, we should be building more nuke plants. If it isn't we should still be building more nuke plants (because of the terrorism angle, but let's not bring that up.) EEStor batteries are way cool and the electricity is cheaper than gas, regardless of GCC. Thermal Depolymerization will save money in the long run regardless of environmental concerns. If for nothing else, buying the land for land fills.
Stop trying to sell me fear and conservation. Sell me on coolness, efficiently and frugalness.
You leave me convinced you don't really know what you are talking about if THAT is the argument you want to make. First of all, I'm not selling you fear and conservation, I'm selling you a booming economy, job creation and energy independence. I'm sorry it's not something you want to buy.
I have no problem with some nuclear plants to help us out of our rut until we can get onto full renewables, but there's little point in using them forever and creating a nuclear waste mess when there are totally clean sources of energy out there with an almost limitless source of energy.
I guess I don't understand your problem with renewable energy sources. You want to have cheap energy, put some solar panels on the roof of your house and eliminate your power bill entirely, or move to a building with solar heating, efficient design, and solar panels to reduce all your utilities. How is all that going to change the way you live, except to make it easier?
Carbon sequestration is an argument used to promote reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere, but it also extends the life of (some) oil fields when pumped into fields in a near liquid state, and then capping them off keeps it there. It's also in use in algae farms, where it produces more fuel for the power plant, and commercially viable products, while creating artificial carbon sinks. You seem to think that anything Green is environmentally friendly but unfriendly to business and the public, and if that's true, you couldn't be more wrong. Think Green is in the color of money and the color of pro-environment.
Where is the fear and conservation argument in all that?
quote:But it's not about fixing it. It's about keeping the research money flowing because if GCC gets fixed lots of people are out of a job.
Actually, if we fix it through renewables pioneered in the US, then thousands, perhaps millions of people will get a job. As far as jobs go, we'll be in the plus by leaps and bounds. Climatologists won't go away because we "fix" global warming, they'll still have jobs.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
FC: If they're selling fear, they're probably snake oil salesmen. Legitimate science stands the test of time and doesn't have Doom constantly on the horizon. Legimitate science doesn't have 6 different news stories a day with Weekly-World-News-like headlines like "global climate change COULD cause massive death to the children." Yeah, anything COULD happen and it COULD be because GCC because GCC COULD be happening. zomg.
DR: No one lives near the giant hole of nuclear waste. We transport dangerous chemicals across country all the time. Some of them are at least as deadly as nuclear waste. But you're right. We don't build nuclear plants out of fear. But it's an irrational fear. Chernobyl was, what, 40 yr old soviet technology? We can build them safer now.
I distrust the GCC advocates because they sell fear. I think the energy companies would be just as happy to build nuclear plants as they are to drill for oil, except for the environmentalists standing in their way. I heard somewhere (but can't back it up with a link) that the most expensive part of building a nuclear plant is the lawyers. Might be a myth, but it makes sense to me.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually, if we fix it through renewables pioneered in the US, then thousands, perhaps millions of people will get a job. As far as jobs go, we'll be in the plus by leaps and bounds. Climatologists won't go away because we "fix" global warming, they'll still have jobs.
While this is true overall, they wouldn't be the same people. So the people who have jobs now, but wouldn't under the new scheme, have a vested interest in keeping things as they are.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: I don't have the time to vet every snake oil salesman that comes along. Be they global warming, herbal suppliments, thigh cream, cortislim or any other scam.
Then you have no right to an opinion on the subject. Sit down and be quiet.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Pix seemed to be suggesting that the people who wanted to keep the status quo were the researchers who would be out of a job if we fixed GCC.
GCC advocates don't much seem to care about whether or not oil rig workers have jobs, but then, with the job market we have right now, no one in charge really cares who gets hired and fired, so long as the numbers still look good over all.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be honest, I don't particularly care myself whether oil rig workers have jobs or not. Skilled manpower will always be in demand. As for the GCC researchers, that's ridiculous; it's funding agencies, not scientists, that decide who gets funding, and the agencies are run by bureaucrats. Climate research we'll always have with us, global warming or none.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I'd like to request a response to my post if you can spare it. I'm curious to see what your argument is for someone who isn't "selling fear."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
It's not the scientists who are making the "doom and gloom" statements. It's the media intepreting the scientific findings. If a scientist discovers that a baby's carseat is dangerous in side collision if not properly installed, the news is going to headline it as "Could your carseat kill your child?!? What is the company not telling you?!? Is *your* child in danger?!? Find out what you must do to protect your loved ones at 11!!!!"
It's sensationalism. Does it mean that the scientist's discovery that the carseat can be dangerous if not installed properly is wrong, just because it's been sensationalized?
You know, there are doomsday news stories about hurricanes, earthquakes, blizzards, heat waves, and all manner of things. Does that mean they're not dangerous, just because they're on the news a lot?
Your litmus test leaves a lot to be desired. Publicity and sensationalism do not invalidate science. I understand that they may make one skeptical - but skepticism does not automatically invalidate science, either.
It seems to me that as soon as your skeptic alarm goes off, then you label the cause of it a "snake oil salesman" without caring to spend any more time on it.
Skepticism should invite further inquiry to see if your skepticism is warranted - not simply denial out of convenience.
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
]
