Serious quesiton for people who deny human involvement in climate change/global warming

[♪alt13]

this pretty much demonstrates why people don't take it as seriously as they should. One time they hear about the earth's temperature will rise X degrees in the next 10 years .. then the models have proved so far from accurate that it's hard for a lot of people to believe how significant the changes are and potentially could be etc .. So much conflicting information

In Aust. the extreme view has really damaged the credibility of ration warming scientists being taken seriously. Everytime there is a fire or flood the hysterical "ooh it's because of climate change" really puts people off listening to hard facts properly. You get clowns who a few years back said it'd never rain again and all our dams would dry up and every bushfire is a result of colossal climate change etc and they wonder why people don't take them seriously.

I think you're still missing the point.

Human causes + Natural causes = Climate change

We know with a great deal of certainty the human causes part of the equation. We can infer from that the natural causes. We have been lucky thus far that the Natural causes part has been - in terms of temperature. If not we would have a much more immediate problem.(perhaps that would have been better as we would have acted by now)

What is really scary is that every year the data for the "Natural" causes part is increasingly coming back as a driver for warming. When that side of the equation becomes a positive in terms of temperature we are in deep ****. This is the tipping point you keep hearing about.

Even when there seems to be a bright spot, as with natural ocean sequestration of CO2, it comes with nasty side effects. In this case ocean acidification which is a hallmark of all 5 of earths mass extinction events.

It is true that we are beyond the point of preventing warming. The goal now is to prevent those nasty natural feedback loops from coming in to play. If they do we could see double the temperature of the IPCC estimates for climate change.

I don't like the idea of cap and trade/tax because I don't think the poorest should sacrifice for the right of the rich to pollute. I think this is a transcontinental railroad, panama canal ,man on the moon type moment. We all know what needs to be done but it's economically not feasible so the government needs to step in and build it.

 

[fishonjazz]

Sometimes people and their politics are so confusing.

Republicans are supposed to be the conservatives, but when it comes to global warming they are like, **** it, let's roll the dice and see what happens. What do we got to lose?

Why is gambling with the only inhabital planet we know of ok with these people?

I have to be honest. I'm not sure what's really going on. Whl really does? We have so many liars and and sometimes confused people relaying information. How is someone supposed to know for sure? What I do know is, when it comes to something so serious, you'd better take it serious. If the neighborhood prankster pulls a bad prank by telling you your child is choking, you'd still run to make sure it wasn't really happening right? Even if you were pretty sure it wasnt.

I'd hate to be bent over and taxed unnecessarily, and have the whole issue used as way to abuse your ignorance on the matter. But what are you gonna do? Both sides have to put some serious thought into it. You can't have one side acting like children and making it hard to get somewhere with it.

What is it gonna hurt to at least try?

Good post

 

[franklin]

 

[Deleted member 848]

I like you Siro, but this is the dumbassery that I was talking about.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Also, In order to meet the caps we need to tell those people in Bangladesh, "I'm sorry, no industrialization or modernization for you!" If you want to appeal you will need to be able to afford your own private jet to Davos.

or we can tell them "we're gonna keep ignoring climate change, and half of your country is gonna flood within the century-- dat rampant industrialization tho!"

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

You're confusing conservatives with conservativism. Conservatives are a political movement who in many ways don't reflect much in the way of holding on to the past. Other ways they cling to it like a tick.

Liberals are the exact same. In some ways they cling to the past with irrational fervor (climate change, antiquated tax law), others not so much.

So how does liberals' concern about climate change represent clinging to the past? Also, if a view is based on scientific consensus, how is this irrational? Irrational is, if anything, the direct opposite--holding a view that is contrary to scientific consensus.

I also dispute your contention about 'antiquated tax laws.' Progressive taxation is not antiquated by any stretch. It's not vogue in current political climate, but this is by no means settled for good, and views could quite feasibly swing back toward increased progressivity.

You need better examples than these to demonstrate your point.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

That is how you separate the sincere warmers from the idiots. "So you desire to have a clean, efficient power source that actually works. You must support nuclear energy, right?" Because if they say "No" then the danger isn't really all that bad. It's like someone telling you that they are starving to death but they don't want to eat broccoli. Hell, even France gets this. . .

While I support nuclear energy, or at least looking seriously at it, there is still, however, a risk to it, as we've seen in Russia and now Japan. Just because we may need alternative energy sources does not imply that we must, therefore, accept all alternative sources available without doing proper due diligence on the risk/return tradeoff.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

People fight against the notion of human caused global warming, or a significant role of humans in global warming, for both scientific and political reasons. Included are conspiracy theorists who will no longer trust Science as an institution regardless of the conclusions/warnings rendered by science. Science is as much distrusted as Big Government. And there are the more serious warriors in the battle, with front lines like oil drilling in the Arctic. Those front line battles are fought by attorney's, politicians, citizen groups, lobbyists for the energy giants.

People making good $$ off the very substance, fossil fuels, fingered as a leading cause of human generated global warming, have no incentive to acknowledge any such detrimental role in climate change, or even acknowledge the very existence of human caused global warming. Since many others feel dependence on fossil fuels is indeed feeding into climate change and helping to drive global warming, a political/cultural civil war has enveloped our body politic.

I'm not a "climate scientist", and I am not in a position to know where the truth lies without deferring to experts. And like lawyers where the stakes are high, both sides have credentialed scientists on their side to convince me yay or nay.

Whatever the truth of the matter, the energy wars have become a part of he more generalized civil war infecting our politics and national dialogue on way too many issues. I thought the Vietnam Era was divisive. Now it seems like nothing compared to the era of 24/7 cable news cycle and it's ability to demonize one side or the other and help make America more and more divided against itself.....

Although some scientists may dispute global warming, it is useful, first, to determine how credentialed they are and what expertise they possess on the relevant topic. For example, a scientist who specializes in, say, bioengineering, may not think global warming has a human cause, but then he/she's not really in a position to say one way or the other. I suspect that many of the scientists conservatives reference when claiming that this issue has not achieved scientific consensus are scientists without specialization in the topic (this might be true of the other side as well).

If the goal before acting on scientific evidence is universal, 100% agreement, then you'll almost always wait a long time, as even for the most scientifically settled issues, there may still be cranks out there who dispute it. It's a wise approach to try to ascertain what the scientific consensus is, and if this consensus weighs substantially on one side, then it's a safer bet than not to bet on them.

 

[Siro]

While I support nuclear energy, or at least looking seriously at it, there is still, however, a risk to it, as we've seen in Russia and now Japan. Just because we may need alternative energy sources does not imply that we must, therefore, accept all alternative sources available without doing proper due diligence on the risk/return tradeoff.

Two incidents stretched over half a century, and using ancient and outdated technology. The risk/return trade off is a no-brainer. Using modern techniques, the risks are minimal, and the rewards are astronomical. But like GMOs, it's an irrational fear with little scientific basis.

 

[Siro]

Another concern that I have regarding people's impulsive rejection of nuclear power is that we're likely close to achieving commercial fusion power. Although fusion is even safer than current fission technology, and although it produces little nuclear waste, I am sure there will be opposition based on the existence of the letters "n, u, c, l, e, a, r" in that particular order. Which is unfortunate, because fusion power would literally solve the world's energy needs safely and cleanly.

 

[franklin]

 

[Scat]

Please anything but wind mills, they destroy the scenic views.

I have heard that the building of a modern windmill adds more carbon to the atmosphere and uses more resources than what that windmill will ever compensate for in its lifespan.

 

[Deleted member 848]

I have heard that the building of a modern windmill adds more carbon to the atmosphere and uses more resources than what that windmill will ever compensate for in its lifespan.

source?

Don't worry, I'll post one:
https://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/AME MoreWind Report.pdf

In 2013, wind power displaced more than 132 million metric tons of carbon dioxide.
Since 2001, wind power has displaced more than 620 million metric tons of carbon dioxide – more than a year’s worth of CO2 emissions from the entire country of Canada.
After more than a decade of rapid growth, wind energy now accounts for 4 percent of total U.S. electricity generation.
Nine states – Iowa, South Dakota, Kansas, Idaho, Minnesota, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Colorado, and Oregon – now generate more than 12 percent of their total electricity production with wind power.
Wind power capacity in Iowa and South Dakota now supplies more than a quarter of all in-state electricity generation.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Two incidents stretched over half a century, and using ancient and outdated technology. The risk/return trade off is a no-brainer. Using modern techniques, the risks are minimal, and the rewards are astronomical. But like GMOs, it's an irrational fear with little scientific basis.

Well, I think I made it clear that I support the idea of nuclear energy.

It's not just the frequency of 'events' that figure into the cost/benefit calculation, it's the damage, or potential damage, of such events.

Is it really as simple and straightforward as you argue?

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

Nice straw man. I'm not going to burn it down for you as I don't see the point. You seem to be more disturbed by my classification of 'liberal' than anything. Guess what, political types exist and liberals are indeed stuck in antiquated tax law. Nothing you wrote disputes that but only speaks from inside that generalization that a type would.

How so strawman? I don't think this word means what you think it means.

I dispute your argument that liberals are stuck in an antiquated tax law. (I assume you are referring to some form of progressive taxation.) You seem to think that the term 'antiquated' is well defined and has universal consensus as to its meaning. I disagree. So, tell me, just how progressive taxation is antiquated, particularly given that it is still practiced all over the developed world outside the US?

 

[Deleted member 848]

jimmy eat jazz has totally had frank's number these last couple of months.

 

[JAZZGASM]

I have seen over and over again proof that scientists have skewed data. Does that prove global warming is not real? No, it just proves you can't trust scientists with an agenda (to get paid). "Normalized data" being used instead of raw data but compared to raw data in years past to show warming does not compute and a fair comparison to me. I do think humans have an impact on warming, but it is hard to determine what the actual impact is based on the data reported.

What I do know is that humans have a massive impact on the planet. And the mass pollution we put in the oceans imho, is much worse that global warming. Many countries dump all of their unprocessed waste directly into the ocean. Over time this is going to have a massive impact.

History shows that humans prosper in periods of warmth, and suffer in periods of cooling (dark ages). An ice age or mini ice age would wreck much more havoc than a few degrees of warming. Over polluting our oceans will wreck havoc on the food supply.

I would much rather spend the money on global warming research to go towards the lowering of pollution in general.

In regards to wind and solar power, while helpful, it is not a complete solution. Solar power only works during the day, and human peak demand is in the evening. So unless we change to a DC power plan with batteries (which will cause more pollution as they wear out, and the cost to change structures would be too high) solar is not all it is cracked up to be. Wind power works while there is wind (some areas are obviously better for wind power than others). Thermal energy and hydro are good, but we have limited resources in this country, and the creation of dams creates other environmental issues. At this stage, nuclear energy is probably the best bet until other forms of renewal energy can be efficiently harnessed. The problem is most people are OK with nuclear energy, they just don't want it in their backyard...

 

[moevillini]

I have heard that the building of a modern windmill adds more carbon to the atmosphere and uses more resources than what that windmill will ever compensate for in its lifespan.

source?

Don't worry, I'll post one:
https://www.environmentamerica.org/sites/environment/files/reports/AME MoreWind Report.pdf

OK, maybe I'm just confused, but displacing carbon or CO2 means moving it from one spot to another - - that's not the same as a net addition of carbon or CO2, is it?

Two incidents stretched over half a century, and using ancient and outdated technology. The risk/return trade off is a no-brainer. Using modern techniques, the risks are minimal, and the rewards are astronomical. But like GMOs, it's an irrational fear with little scientific basis.

perhaps I'm wrong, but I think part of the fear has less to do with nuclear accidents and more to do with a fear of unstable/unfriendly foreign powers stockpiling reactor grade material and turning it into weapons grade material and then creating nuclear weapons
(at least if considering it as a world-wide power source)

Plus areas that still depend on coal production are not going to favor something that may impinge upon their livelihood

 

[Siro]

Well, I think I made it clear that I support the idea of nuclear energy.

It's not just the frequency of 'events' that figure into the cost/benefit calculation, it's the damage, or potential damage, of such events.

Is it really as simple and straightforward as you argue?

Shouldn't there be a risk/reward calculation for everything? Coal power plants have the reward of cheap and abundant energy source, versus the risk of increased CO2 emissions. Solar Panels require energy storage infrastructure and take up vast swaths of land (which why Japan is struggling to meet its power need. Not enough surface area). Why is this risk versus reward only brought up when discussing nuclear power? It's curious is all.

 

[Siro]

perhaps I'm wrong, but I think part of the fear has less to do with nuclear accidents and more to do with a fear of unstable/unfriendly foreign powers stockpiling reactor grade material and turning it into weapons grade material and then creating nuclear weapons
(at least if considering it as a world-wide power source)

Plus areas that still depend on coal production are not going to favor something that may impinge upon their livelihood

Those are entirely separate concerns. Nuclear Power in developed countries typically have NIMBY opposition, mainly from liberals.