[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

COVID-19 - black321 - Sep 24, 2020 - 7:14am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Sep 24, 2020 - 6:00am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - miamizsun - Sep 24, 2020 - 5:59am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - sunybuny - Sep 24, 2020 - 5:37am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - sunybuny - Sep 24, 2020 - 5:35am
 
Film & Video Production - rgio - Sep 24, 2020 - 5:11am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - VV - Sep 24, 2020 - 3:34am
 
Quotes: Your Favorite Comedians - Ohmsen - Sep 24, 2020 - 1:07am
 
Bluesound Sound Dropouts - michael16 - Sep 23, 2020 - 9:47pm
 
Questions. - whatshisname - Sep 23, 2020 - 7:10pm
 
American Justice - Steely_D - Sep 23, 2020 - 6:09pm
 
Trump - Red_Dragon - Sep 23, 2020 - 5:15pm
 
Your favourite conspiracy theory? - R_P - Sep 23, 2020 - 4:56pm
 
*** PUNS *** ASTRONOMY - buddy - Sep 23, 2020 - 4:24pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - buddy - Sep 23, 2020 - 4:22pm
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - buddy - Sep 23, 2020 - 4:21pm
 
Language - R_P - Sep 23, 2020 - 3:27pm
 
Supreme Court: Who's Next? - R_P - Sep 23, 2020 - 12:33pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - sirdroseph - Sep 23, 2020 - 12:21pm
 
2020 Elections - westslope - Sep 23, 2020 - 11:31am
 
Looting & vandalism isn't protest - westslope - Sep 23, 2020 - 10:57am
 
The Obituary Page - Ohmsen - Sep 23, 2020 - 10:56am
 
It's the economy stupid. - Red_Dragon - Sep 23, 2020 - 10:27am
 
how do you feel right now? - Steely_D - Sep 23, 2020 - 10:27am
 
WikiLeaks - Ohmsen - Sep 23, 2020 - 7:58am
 
Favorite Quotes - Coaxial - Sep 23, 2020 - 7:39am
 
Race in America - R_P - Sep 23, 2020 - 12:06am
 
The American Dream - kcar - Sep 22, 2020 - 11:49pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - GeneP59 - Sep 22, 2020 - 10:07pm
 
Australia has Disappeared - haresfur - Sep 22, 2020 - 9:16pm
 
Strips, cartoons, illustrations - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 8:57pm
 
Evolution! - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 8:50pm
 
Name My Band - Antigone - Sep 22, 2020 - 4:04pm
 
Trump Lies - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 2:45pm
 
Brazil - R_P - Sep 22, 2020 - 1:57pm
 
RP Daily Trivia Challenge - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 22, 2020 - 7:49am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Sep 21, 2020 - 9:29pm
 
Things I'd LIKE to find at my house. - Antigone - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:31pm
 
Lyrics that strike a chord today... - Steely_D - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:13pm
 
RP Main Mix on TuneIn unavailable? - DianaLipka - Sep 21, 2020 - 9:56am
 
Best Song Comments. - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Sep 21, 2020 - 5:37am
 
Trolls at RP - Steely_D - Sep 20, 2020 - 4:41pm
 
Facebook Tips - Ohmsen - Sep 20, 2020 - 2:37pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Sep 20, 2020 - 12:34pm
 
Environment - R_P - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:56am
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - oldviolin - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:16am
 
Lyrics That Remind You of Someone - oldviolin - Sep 20, 2020 - 9:15am
 
Is there any DOG news out there? - sirdroseph - Sep 20, 2020 - 7:29am
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - miamizsun - Sep 20, 2020 - 6:46am
 
Republican Party - sirdroseph - Sep 20, 2020 - 6:14am
 
FLAC Streaming - gsbaronnier - Sep 20, 2020 - 3:24am
 
Anti-War - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 4:57pm
 
How's the weather? - Antigone - Sep 19, 2020 - 3:48pm
 
Immigration - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 2:17pm
 
TV shows you watch - KurtfromLaQuinta - Sep 19, 2020 - 12:57pm
 
China - R_P - Sep 19, 2020 - 11:07am
 
Thank you, Bug. - miamizsun - Sep 19, 2020 - 6:53am
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - Sep 19, 2020 - 6:04am
 
Canada - R_P - Sep 18, 2020 - 7:37pm
 
Tech & Science - R_P - Sep 18, 2020 - 6:20pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - miamizsun - Sep 18, 2020 - 1:59pm
 
Bad Poetry - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 11:05am
 
Private messages in a public forum - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 10:21am
 
honk if you think manbird and OV are one and the same ent... - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 10:14am
 
Buddy's Haven - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 9:14am
 
What The Hell Buddy? - oldviolin - Sep 18, 2020 - 8:10am
 
Drop the Puck! NHL Lockout Ends! - black321 - Sep 18, 2020 - 6:06am
 
Today in History - Ohmsen - Sep 18, 2020 - 5:26am
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 9:04pm
 
Signs o' the Apocalypse in the news... - Steely_D - Sep 17, 2020 - 6:57pm
 
Soliciting ideas to bring about a more humane world - miamizsun - Sep 17, 2020 - 5:06pm
 
Rock Movies/Documentaries - Steely_D - Sep 17, 2020 - 1:39pm
 
HALF A WORLD - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:57am
 
What are you listening to now? - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:53am
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Sep 17, 2020 - 11:49am
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Climate Change Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 93, 94, 95 ... 103, 104, 105  Next
Post to this Topic
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:53pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

First, I can't speak for anybody but myself, but this isn't an accurate representation of my concerns.

I want to make sure that when we attack a problem that we are actually doing more good than harm. Reducing carbon emissions isn't as easy as it looks. The problem has to be approached from first principles, not by grasping at the first straws we see.

Unless we want to go back to pre-industrial revolution ways of living we will use lots of energy. We aren't. So we need energy.

We fuel our modern age with fossil fuels because it works. We spend a certain amount of energy extracting it from the ground and get more (much, much more) back. This can be turned into an economic analysis, but let's leave it in terms of energy for now.

If you want a similar positive return on energy investment for other technologies you need to be very careful how you go about it. If you want to build windmills or solar panels to power our lives you have to look not just at the energy they make but the energy they cost. Building and erecting wind turbines takes energy—lots of it. If you put a windmill in the wrong spot (one where the wind isn't steady enough to reliably make power) you will never (in the useful life of the windmill) recover that energy. You will have gone backwards—burned more coal/petroleum than you could ever replace. The carbon footprint of that turbine is negative. It made things worse.

There are very few places that have positive energy ROI for wind power. They are being surveyed as fast as possible, but even the really good ones (like parts of North Dakota) start to look sketchy when you factor in the construction of power lines to distribute the energy harvested. Solar photovoltaic is even worse. At current efficiencies the only places that have a positive energy ROI are places that use very little and/or would take a ridiculous effort to connect to the grid.

For those of us capable of doing this math the constant demand to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy (ie solar and wind) is immensely frustrating. It's like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that there really is no such thing as a 200 mpg carburetor. To a lot of folks telling them they can't have the energy equivalent of a free lunch means you are just a tool of the oil companies frustrating their obviously pure and holy mission to save the earth.

The easiest way to account for all this is with money. Greenies like to remind us that saving scarce resources will make economic sense; that if you save energy you'll save money. They don't like to look at the other side of that coin: that if you aren't saving money you probably aren't saving energy. That if solar panels have to be subsidized then they probably aren't really, on balance, helping. Good intentions will not fool the laws of nature and they won't fool an honest accountant either.
 

Well, I short-handed it, for sure.

But, here's the thing: I don't disagree with you that we want something that works.  I mean, I doubt anyone disagrees with that.  And I also agree with you that we don't just accept any proposal or proposals just for the sake of doing something.    

I'm not sure what you meant back in your original post to which I responded when you said that what was being proposed was vastly expensive and intrusive.  What proposal is that?  Maybe I have not read enough (and I know I have not on this subject), but I thought we were at just the beginning of defining possible solutions.

 


islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:33pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

First, I can't speak for anybody but myself, but this isn't an accurate representation of my concerns.

I want to make sure that when we attack a problem that we are actually doing more good than harm. Reducing carbon emissions isn't as easy as it looks. The problem has to be approached from first principles, not by grasping at the first straws we see.

Unless we want to go back to pre-industrial revolution ways of living we will use lots of energy. We aren't. So we need energy.


We fuel our modern age with fossil fuels because it works. We spend a certain amount of energy extracting it from the ground and get more (much, much more) back. This can be turned into an economic analysis, but let's leave it in terms of energy for now.

If you want a similar positive return on energy investment for other technologies you need to be very careful how you go about it. If you want to build windmills or solar panels to power our lives you have to look not just at the energy they make but the energy they cost. Building and erecting wind turbines takes energy—lots of it. If you put a windmill in the wrong spot (one where the wind isn't steady enough to reliably make power) you will never (in the useful life of the windmill) recover that energy. You will have gone backwards—burned more coal/petroleum than you could ever replace. The carbon footprint of that turbine is negative. It made things worse.

There are very few places that have positive energy ROI for wind power. They are being surveyed as fast as possible, but even the really good ones (like parts of North Dakota) start to look sketchy when you factor in the construction of power lines to distribute the energy harvested. Solar photovoltaic is even worse. At current efficiencies the only places that have a positive energy ROI are places that use very little and/or would take a ridiculous effort to connect to the grid.

For those of us capable of doing this math the constant demand to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy (ie solar and wind) is immensely frustrating. It's like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that there really is no such thing as a 200 mpg carburetor. To a lot of folks telling them they can't have the energy equivalent of a free lunch means you are just a tool of the oil companies frustrating their obviously pure and holy mission to save the earth.

The easiest way to account for all this is with money. Greenies like to remind us that saving scarce resources will make economic sense; that if you save energy you'll save money. They don't like to look at the other side of that coin: that if you aren't saving money you probably aren't saving energy. That if solar panels have to be subsidized then they probably aren't really, on balance, helping. Good intentions will not fool the laws of nature and they won't fool an honest accountant either.
 
But let's define 'lots'.  On a per-capita basis Japan uses about half the electricity that we do. They use essentially the same amount of electricity that they used in 1940. And I don't think I'd call this:

The dark ages. They are just smart about energy usage. They have policies that reward smart use. When a new product is introduced, it has to be at least as efficient as the one it replaces (preferably more). Companies commit to annual REDUCTIONS in the amount of energy they use. They get credits and incentives for upgrading to more efficient gear (we are starting to do that here).

This stuff isn't that hard. When I have a few moments I'll post about some of the stuff we have done here. I run a facility that is now using a little more than a Megawatt of electricity. We are Scaling rapidly and connecting so that we will have 5MW available. But we have done things with the lighting, HVAC, Power distribution, and control systems to minimize our impact. On an apples to apples basis, we are 20-30% more efficient than the average data center, and 50%+ more efficient than data centers build 10 years ago. But we are no where close to the Japanese.  1940, think about that.

edit: couple more points,,,
Small scale solar can work on households because they are already grid connected. I personally know some one who just installed a rooftop system. His meter is consistently running backwards now (winter, Denver CO.). It's not cost effective, but it was barely subsidized. We currently subsidize oil, and have been for decades, maybe we shouldn't subsidize alternative either (I actually think we should - it's something we want to encourage), but we definitely shouldn't still be subsidizing big oil. Let's see the true cost for all sources.

It's not that I think there is *a* solution. But there are lots of things we can do to help with *the* solution. And Japan shows us that we can still live pretty well and use half of the electricity we do now. Imagine if we just cut back 1/3 or even 1/4. And we then added regional solar, tidal, wind, geothermal to the mix. We could reduce the number of new generation sources we need. We could not build another coal plant because we would have time to get reasonable nuclear online. We could build less nuclear.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:22pm

 steeler wrote:
My framework in approaching anything, however, is to first identify the problem — if there is one.  There are those denying that there is a problem.  So, we are stuck on that.  Only after a problem has been identified, can we be in position to try to find solutions. How does one find a solution to a problem one does not recognize as a problem?

That's why I find it frustrating to read stuff that assails those who are providing "evidence" of a problem, implying that their motives are nefarious and unpure.  

Now, I think Lazy8 and others are saying that even if there is a solution, which we have not yet determined, it may not be feasible in economic terms.  However, if the problem is the fate of the earth itself — or at least certain species on it, including humans — than can any cost be too great?  

What proof is there that there is no problem, or that if there is a problem, it is not worth trying to find a solution?
 
First, I can't speak for anybody but myself, but this isn't an accurate representation of my concerns.

I want to make sure that when we attack a problem that we are actually doing more good than harm. Reducing carbon emissions isn't as easy as it looks. The problem has to be approached from first principles, not by grasping at the first straws we see.

Unless we want to go back to pre-industrial revolution ways of living we will use lots of energy. We aren't. So we need energy.

We fuel our modern age with fossil fuels because it works. We spend a certain amount of energy extracting it from the ground and get more (much, much more) back. This can be turned into an economic analysis, but let's leave it in terms of energy for now.

If you want a similar positive return on energy investment for other technologies you need to be very careful how you go about it. If you want to build windmills or solar panels to power our lives you have to look not just at the energy they make but the energy they cost. Building and erecting wind turbines takes energy—lots of it. If you put a windmill in the wrong spot (one where the wind isn't steady enough to reliably make power) you will never (in the useful life of the windmill) recover that energy. You will have gone backwards—burned more coal/petroleum than you could ever replace. The carbon footprint of that turbine is negative. It made things worse.

There are very few places that have positive energy ROI for wind power. They are being surveyed as fast as possible, but even the really good ones (like parts of North Dakota) start to look sketchy when you factor in the construction of power lines to distribute the energy harvested. Solar photovoltaic is even worse. At current efficiencies the only places that have a positive energy ROI are places that use very little and/or would take a ridiculous effort to connect to the grid.

For those of us capable of doing this math the constant demand to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy (ie solar and wind) is immensely frustrating. It's like trying to convince a conspiracy theorist that there really is no such thing as a 200 mpg carburetor. To a lot of folks telling them they can't have the energy equivalent of a free lunch means you are just a tool of the oil companies frustrating their obviously pure and holy mission to save the earth.

The easiest way to account for all this is with money. Greenies like to remind us that saving scarce resources will make economic sense; that if you save energy you'll save money. They don't like to look at the other side of that coin: that if you aren't saving money you probably aren't saving energy. That if solar panels have to be subsidized then they probably aren't really, on balance, helping. Good intentions will not fool the laws of nature and they won't fool an honest accountant either.

Painted_Turtle

Painted_Turtle Avatar

Location: Land of Laughing Waters
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:13pm

 islander wrote:

{#Eek} OMFG.

I think my head just exploded from an ironic overload.

edit: I really want to say more, but I just don't know where to start....
 
I know just what you mean...I really had too bite my tongue on that one....{#Roflol}

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 3:08pm

 Beaker wrote:

Ah lookit the irony here.  An American "netroots subvertising agency", creates a video on behalf of an American activist group, using video depicting the terrorist tactics of Greenpeace protests who staged a protest for the media here recently, using protesters/activists who where almost exclusively non-Canadians, and none of whom were Albertans.

And the video is posted to RP by a Canadian.

Wow.  Chutzpah or what?  So Welly, you're okay with foreigners deliberately attempting to influence our policies (and economy) here in Canuckistan, is that correct? 

Can I count on you to support the inverse?  How about we send a bunch of Canadians down to the US and attempt to interfere with their energy policies?  Maybe we can get that softwood lumber deal that affects your province finally fixed while we're at it.

I love lefty logic.  Any means to an end.  No matter how illogical, factually challenged or offensive.
 
{#Eek} OMFG.

I think my head just exploded from an ironic overload.

edit: I really want to say more, but I just don't know where to start....

Welly

Welly Avatar

Location: Lotusland
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 2:23pm


Painted_Turtle

Painted_Turtle Avatar

Location: Land of Laughing Waters
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 12:33pm

 Zep wrote:

The Beeb has it too.

The differences appear to be whether to extend or abandon Kyoto; to what level of carbon cuts should developed countries commit; and a target date. Kyoto offers technical and financial assistance to developing countries, which is understandably why they want to continue it. The new text probably doesn't provide that; I can't tell just yet.

Edit - I'm not sure it really is a draft agreement; Yvo de Boer seems to be saying it was not, but that it was some sort of background sent out ahead of the meeting. Still, it doesn't look good if you're a delegate and on the second day, this thing appears.

 
Your correct, it isn't a Draft Agreement, just one of the many papers circulating & prepared before the Conference began by various diverse interest groups..  There are probably hundreds of different papers on all of the aspects of the problems & on the solutions.  None of them are the Offical UN or Copenhagen Summit papers.

Looks like the announcement by some Media of Disaray on the First Few Days is a way to try and invalidate the whole Conference Process.  Its the "No Hope, Nothing Here to See" scenerio that some groups are espousing.

I'd rather remember this quote by Al Gore

"The road to the signing of an agreement in Copenhagen will not be easy, but the world has traveled this path before. More than twenty years ago the US signed the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we banned most of the major pollutants that created the hole in the ozone over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support: President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill joined hands to lead the way.

We can do it again and solve the climate crisis, protecting our planet for future generations."


{#Daisy}



Zep

Zep Avatar



Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 12:15pm

 Beaker wrote:
Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after 'Danish text' leak

Developing countries react furiously to leaked draft agreement that would hand more power to rich nations, sideline the UN's negotiating role and abandon the Kyoto protocol
 
The Beeb has it too.

The differences appear to be whether to extend or abandon Kyoto; to what level of carbon cuts should developed countries commit; and a target date. Kyoto offers technical and financial assistance to developing countries, which is understandably why they want to continue it. The new text probably doesn't provide that; I can't tell just yet.

Edit - I'm not sure it really is a draft agreement; Yvo de Boer seems to be saying it was not, but that it was some sort of background sent out ahead of the meeting. Still, it doesn't look good if you're a delegate and on the second day, this thing appears.


steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 12:12pm

 edieraye wrote:


What?  You mean I'm not always perfectly clear and painstakingly precise? {#Lol} I do have a response but am going to blow you off (no dirty snickers from the peanut gallery) for a hot date.  Look for a response in a couple of hours.  Or if things go well, tomorrow morning! {#Wink}

  

I'll expect a full report on your, er, choices. {#Wink}   
Painted_Turtle

Painted_Turtle Avatar

Location: Land of Laughing Waters
Gender: Female


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 12:03pm

 edieraye wrote:
Painted_Turtle wrote:
I think it matters to the people living on low lying islands or in coastal regions.  There could be a massive loss of life in those areas if all of the polar water melts & they lose their place to live.

There is also the problem of the glaciers melting all over the earth.  What will happen to all the people in Europe who depend on them to keep their rivers flowing and provide drinking water?

But is that the reason we need to act responsibly toward the environment?  Because there is a problem?  I disagree.  I think we ought to be responsible stewards because it is the right thing to do.
 
For example, let's say that I could litter with no repercussions.  I would not get caught, there would be no negative consequences to myself or to anyone else.  It would still be wrong.  I'd like to see the global discussion move away from problems and solutions.  If everyone listened to me, we would frame the discussion in terms of respect, responsibility, and doing what is right not because doing otherwise would have negative consequences but simply because it is the right thing to do.

 
That would work quite well if every one on the planet shared the same sense of morality regarding what is the "right" thing to do as you do. 

Some times when one own' life is threatend by a problem, it serves as a greater motivator to make changes neccessary for survival, than having a fine tuned sense of morality.  But, you're correct that it would be great if everyone shared the view that being good stewards was the right thing to do.

I guess some groups, individuals, don't seem to mind "dirtying their own nest".  Clean or dirty is not a question or moral of right or wrong to them.  Nest destruction brings the issue more to the forfront

I find survival of humans and most of the animals & plants to be as good, or better, than using moral right as the reason for good environmental stewardship. (although that really would be wonderful if it was the basis).  Simply because the survival instinct is more immediate in getting a response (survival is the most basic human motivator) & if the science for the last 20 years is correct, we need a more immediate response.  Of course denial could be seen as one of the responses humans might have to a survival situation.  Fight, flight, freeze in place.


edieraye

edieraye Avatar



Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:57am

 steeler wrote:
I do not understand what you mean by that sentence. 
 

What?  You mean I'm not always perfectly clear and painstakingly precise? {#Lol} I do have a response but am going to blow you off (no dirty snickers from the peanut gallery) for a hot date.  Look for a response in a couple of hours.  Or if things go well, tomorrow morning! {#Wink}
steeler

steeler Avatar

Location: Perched on the precipice of the cauldron of truth


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:32am

 edieraye wrote:

Oh see I hate living my life that way.  Of course, there are times I fall into that trap.  Reacting to whatever most urgently needs tending to.  But it isn't a good place to operate from.  I much prefer when I am making choices in my life.  I would argue that addressing the environment from the standpoint of best practices would garner more good will and better results than the band aid approach. My two cents.

 

I do not understand what you mean by that sentence. 

I do agree that issues should be framed as positively as possible.  

These are not issues of whether littering is wrong.  One of the issues being debated is whether human consumption (specifically, carbon emissions) are contributing significanlty to climate change.  So, I'm kind of at a loss as to how you would propose addressing that as simply a challenge to our stewardship of the earth.  To cut down on carbon emissions, for example, would entail more than just reinforcing to each individual that he or she must act in a way that better fosters a cleaner earth.    

As for life approaches: It is true that choosing to put out a particular fire first is not a pleasant choice, but it still is a choice. Could just let it burn and suffer the consequences — whatever they might be.  People do choose to do just that.  Is making the tougher, unpleasant choice a trap?  Sometimes, I do feel that way.  Other times, I see it as avoiding the trap.               


edieraye

edieraye Avatar



Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:23am

 steeler wrote:
Personally, I do think the degree of the "problem" matters in terms of the urgency in finding a solution. This is true in almost all aspects of our lives.  We priortize based upon which fire needs to be put out first. So, defining a problem also entails estimating the degree of the threat if the problem remains unresolved.    
 
Oh see I hate living my life that way.  Of course, there are times I fall into that trap.  Reacting to whatever most urgently needs tending to.  But it isn't a good place to operate from.  I much prefer when I am making choices in my life.  I would argue that addressing the environment from the standpoint of best practices would garner more good will and better results than the band aid approach. My two cents.
edieraye

edieraye Avatar



Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:18am

Painted_Turtle wrote:
I think it matters to the people living on low lying islands or in coastal regions.  There could be a massive loss of life in those areas if all of the polar water melts & they lose their place to live.

There is also the problem of the glaciers melting all over the earth.  What will happen to all the people in Europe who depend on them to keep their rivers flowing and provide drinking water?

But is that the reason we need to act responsibly toward the environment?  Because there is a problem?  I disagree.  I think we ought to be responsible stewards because it is the right thing to do.
 
For example, let's say that I could litter with no repercussions.  I would not get caught, there would be no negative consequences to myself or to anyone else.  It would still be wrong.  I'd like to see the global discussion move away from problems and solutions.  If everyone listened to me, we would frame the discussion in terms of respect, responsibility, and doing what is right not because doing otherwise would have negative consequences but simply because it is the right thing to do.
Coaxial

Coaxial Avatar

Location: 543 miles west of Paradis,1491 miles eas
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:12am

 Beaker wrote:

It amuses me that I irritate you so — and you never fail to show it at every possible opportunity.


 

I'm the only one T.{#Good-vibes}
islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:12am

 Coaxial wrote:


If it doesn't will you STFU?

 
Doubtful.

islander

islander Avatar

Location: Seattle
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:08am

 Monkeysdad wrote:

That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling" if you will, to wind up 36-37 years later in a situation where the sky is falling. In my lifetime I've watched cars go from pure Internal Combustion Engines to having smog pumps, fuel injection, PCV valves, catalytic converters, 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies, all spurred on by science that said: "If we don't do this, we're doomed", all these years later we still seem to be doomed, are we to believe that the same science that was supposed to save us then is going to save us now?! A good question I think, because when I look at the staggering cost of what is being proposed I'd like to know that it's really going to do the trick....yet no one can say for sure that all these actions will indeed reverse the warming trend. Aerospace...airliners in particular are currently being vilified as one of the major polluters of the planet, when I do the math for an aircraft flying from L.A. to NYC a 757 dollar-for-dollar is one of the most efficient ways to move a person across the country, but you'd never know that to listen to the "experts"(and I won't go into Nancy Pelosi's carbon footprint) and the public just laps it up without sitting down and doing a couple of simple equations.
I have a hard time keeping it all straight to be quite honest, for every statement from a colleague or media pundit about the perils of climate change I can almost catatgorically give a "yeah, but..." retort. I'm all for the argument that we do as a planet need to clean it up and preserve our resources but this all seems like a knee-jerk response to quasi-substantiated issues from my perspective.
 
A couple of points. Per capita efficiency of an airliner doesn't mean anything about it's overall impact. It's the full system we have created and it's impact on the environment that we need to look at.

Quasi-substantiated? Science is never absolute. If it is, it is not science. A significant majority of legitimate peer reviewed science (the method we use to give merit to such things) says we are having an impact. It will always be open to challenge, but that doesn't mean it's not a legitimate point that we should operate from. We elect leaders w/ less than a 1% majority, and we rally behind them as a country (or at least we agree not to riot over the inauguration). We should be able to rally around a 75%+ majority of scientific opinion.

Knee-jerk?  Nothing of this scale will ever be knee-jerk. It may be wrong, but it's hardly knee-jerk. That is just a label you are applying because you disagree with it.

Legacy. I have no children. But I do care what this place will look like in 100+ years. Even if the majority opinion is wrong on the cause, don't you think it's wise to address the problem? Or should we just wait and hope that some one will start to proclaim another ice age to worry about?  I'd be happy if we could just stop peeing upstream on the river.

Coaxial

Coaxial Avatar

Location: 543 miles west of Paradis,1491 miles eas
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:08am

 Beaker wrote:
.
I predict that the CRU kerfluffle will result in the exposure of exactly the above scenario.  Early evidence appears to be pointing that way.
 

If it doesn't will you STFU?
black321

black321 Avatar

Location: An earth without maps
Gender: Male


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:07am

 Monkeysdad wrote:

That there is a "problem" is what I find so vexing. It only seems like yesterday(1973) to me that I was given a Scholastic Weekly Reader telling us of the coming ice age..."global cooling" if you will, to wind up 36-37 years later in a situation where the sky is falling. In my lifetime I've watched cars go from pure Internal Combustion Engines to having smog pumps, fuel injection, PCV valves, catalytic converters, 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies, all spurred on by science that said: "If we don't do this, we're doomed", all these years later we still seem to be doomed, are we to believe that the same science that was supposed to save us then is going to save us now?! A good question I think, because when I look at the staggering cost of what is being proposed I'd like to know that it's really going to do the trick....yet no one can say for sure that all these actions will indeed reverse the warming trend. Aerospace...airliners in particular are currently being vilified as one of the major polluters of the planet, when I do the math for an aircraft flying from L.A. to NYC a 757 dollar-for-dollar is one of the most efficient ways to move a person across the country, but you'd never know that to listen to the "experts"(and I won't go into Nancy Pelosi's carbon footprint) and the public just laps it up without sitting down and doing a couple of simple equations.
I have a hard time keeping it all straight to be quite honest, for every statement from a colleague or media pundit about the perils of climate change I can almost catatgorically give a "yeah, but..." retort. I'm all for the argument that we do as a planet need to clean it up and preserve our resources but this all seems like a knee-jerk response to quasi-substantiated issues from my perspective.

 

cooling or warming regardless...they were saying back in '73 that the burning of fossil fuels was a bad idea for a clean/healthy planet. 

and re., " 9-10 mpg to 20-30 mpg,efficiencies" - that some great advancement.


samiyam

samiyam Avatar

Location: Moving North


Posted: Dec 8, 2009 - 11:07am

 Beaker wrote:
Here's a few thoughts I've had percolating for a while now. I'm putting it out here for your amusement and derision:
  • Global warming is a populist topic that politicians can attach to with little fear of criticism.  All populist topics go through a "fad" phase.  This topic just happens to have reached that phase.
  • Politicians hold most of the purse strings to funding and grants for research into global warming / climate change.  Somebody's got to be the scrivener.  If not them, then who?
  • Climate scientists recognize their field of expertise is a hot topic of much public interest.  Unless they're fools.
  • Scientists have long recognized the need to 'publish or perish'.  Sure... your point being?
  • Research in the field of climate change/global warming has attracted huge sums of money to the scientists and institutions conducting investigations into global warming / climate change. OK, yeah... here's an interesting point.
  • Scientists are people just like you and me.  They are subject to the same lures of corruption and profit motive.  I'm still dreaming about that condo on St. Lucia, yeah, so what?
  • The personal economic well-being of the global warming / climate change scientists is directly linked to their ability to bring in large amounts of funding to their institutions. Unfair, but true.
  • This is a scenario that is ripe for corruption and personal greed.  Let me teach you a new trade, son.
  • This scenario suggests some scientists may be inclined to skew their work to produce a product that will please their institutional and political masters, thus ensuring their ongoing job security and enhancing their personal influence.  Scientist are capable of cheating?  No!  Say It's Not So!

I predict that the CRU kerfluffle will result in the exposure of exactly the above scenario.  Early evidence appears to be pointing that way.
 
I predict that larger and larger storms will mess with your health and electrical connections.

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 93, 94, 95 ... 103, 104, 105  Next