More global warming, please!

1988RedT2 wrote:

Beer Baron wrote:

1988RedT2 wrote: Most of us choose to believe that which is reported as fact. Others will question those reports and weigh the validity of opposing viewpoints. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2681812/Its-politics-not-science-driving-climate-change-mania-UN-predictions-subject-ridicule-stunning-failure.html

Dude... you just linked The Daily Mail. Not exactly a reputable source.

True enough. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/01/07/the-insiders-democrats-must-quit-denying-the-political-science-of-global-warming/

And that article is not disputing the legitimacy of climate change reports. It merely questions how much money the U.S. should be spending to fight climate change abroad when we are running such a deficit. Bit of a different question there.

I am impressed that this has gone four pages and remained civil.

yamaha wrote: In reply to mad_machine: Well berkeley it then, let mass extinction occur, hopefully they don't put a warning label on it so the stupid people all die first.

aaaaand just like that, we're screwed

Berkeley, CA said: The Berkeley City Council voted late Tuesday to draft a proposal by next spring that will put stickers on gas pumps citywide to warn consumers that burning fuel contributes to global warming.

article

I'm sorry, but the timing of it all was too good to pass up

On with the program

In reply to Hungary Bill:

Berkeley, CA has been the laughingstock of America for awhile now.

Hey, I was gonna let this thing sink to the bottom due to popular demand, but somebody keeps dredging it up!

Beer Baron wrote: . "How do They know?" Because they've berkeleying studied it.

So... What exactly were your qualifications to be a science teacher, and how does that make your opinion about the competency of scientists more valid than ours?

For the record, I completely disagree with you. I WORK in government r&d. The stuff we are working on has a lot less variables than the freaking earth's climate, and let me tell you, to do testing with any scientific/academic rigor is friggin hard.

I take our own data with a grain of salt, especially after seeing how phds operate.

People with doctorates are just people too. Not everyone with a phd is motivated by the purest of intentions; I find phds to have their heads further up their asses than anyone else due to the reasons you made (its MY field of study, how could I BE wrong?)

In reply to HiTempguy:

They certainly aren't perfect and do not have all the answers. That doesn't mean that the opinions of people who have not put the time and effort into doing the research get to speak with the same weight.

Scepticism is good. But our culture seems to have taken the concept beyond reason to the point of ignoring or denying things they can't be bothered to understand.

HiTempguy wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: . "How do They know?" Because they've berkeleying studied it.

So... What exactly were your qualifications to be a science teacher, and how does that make your opinion about the competency of scientists more valid than ours? For the record, I completely disagree with you. I WORK in government r&d. The stuff we are working on has a lot less variables than the freaking earth's climate, and let me tell you, to do testing with any scientific/academic rigor is friggin hard. I take our own data with a grain of salt, especially after seeing how phds operate. People with doctorates are just people too. Not everyone with a phd is motivated by the purest of intentions; I find phds to have their heads further up their asses than anyone else due to the reasons you made (its MY field of study, how could I BE wrong?)

This has been my experience as well.

HiTempguy wrote:

Beer Baron wrote: . "How do They know?" Because they've berkeleying studied it.

So... What exactly were your qualifications to be a science teacher, and how does that make your opinion about the competency of scientists more valid than ours? For the record, I completely disagree with you. I WORK in government r&d. The stuff we are working on has a lot less variables than the freaking earth's climate, and let me tell you, to do testing with any scientific/academic rigor is friggin hard. I take our own data with a grain of salt, especially after seeing how phds operate. People with doctorates are just people too. Not everyone with a phd is motivated by the purest of intentions; I find phds to have their heads further up their asses than anyone else due to the reasons you made (its MY field of study, how could I BE wrong?)

That's why there's peer review. When the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on something, it might be cause for concern. In this case, they're mostly just observing what is happening. It's a fact that the average temperature in the oceans has gone up. It's a fact that we're pumping a E36 M3 ton of CO2 into the atmosphere. It's a fact that CO2 is proven to be a greenhouse gas. Are these things related?

The real question is what the consequences will be. Is the increase in ocean temperatures enough to thaw the methane that's trapped on the ocean floor? Is there enough methane to kickstart a runaway greenhouse effect? It's happened before. We're smart enough to survive as a species, but things would definitely be different.

Here's my take, and I've said this here before, we have absolutely no idea what is causing it, and if it is normal. As someone that's worked around science and testing for a while, I can tell you the sample size we are looking at here is microscopic. You can make any conclusion you want from the data depending on how you look at it, and people are passionate on both sides.

And again, the problem the pro climate change people have, is their leaders only ways of dealing with it are, "give your money so I can give it to my wealthy friends." This will in no way correct or limit the amount of energy other than making it so difficult for the general population to purchase it, and thus removing it from the atmosphere. And this goes back to "where did the middle class go" argument. Well, it went away with the cheap energy.

So where does this leave us. Until you get politics out of it, there will never be a correct path forward. There is no way this is settled science, and you can't correctly say either side has a valid argument at this point.

Everyone needs to take a step back, get rid of the anger and ridiculous claims on both sides, and truly study the issue. Look at the strides that have been made in the past 50 years in terms of cleaner air and energy. And as someone that works somewhat in the energy field, I can assure you there is absolutely NOTHING available to generate the energy needs of the planet right now beyond what we are currently using. You spout all the green energy you want, but as of now, it all has drawbacks and absurd costs, in additional to poor generation methods for high usages. Now, I believe there will be as time goes on, but you have to intelligently develop it and a plan to ease it in, in a controlled manner.

As it stands, this has turned into such a giant waste of an argument that it's a no win for anyone. The choices given to us are go back to the stone age and be hippies, or burn the plant and we all die. I don't believe in either. I think there happens to be a real scientific answer with real solutions other than taxing and relying on energy solutions that will not work.

racerdave600 wrote: And again, the problem the pro climate change people have, is their leaders only ways of dealing with it are, "give your money so I can give it to my wealthy friends."

I like how the climate debate can turn even the staunchest conservative into an Occupier.

Staying the course is the same deal, only with fossil fuel companies getting our money instead of renewable energy companies. This isn't an environmental policy problem.

Here's my unbiased, but also fairly uninformed take:

We have thermometers--- I trust science when they claim the oceans are getting warmer.

We (as a species) produce a lot of pollution---it's not crazy to think we may be contributing to climate change

Carbon Credits----- a scam to pump funds into the hands of cronies who lean to the left

Climate Change deniers--- will fight at any lengths to allow industry to roll forward unfettered (usually backed by industry $$)

It makes sense to live sustainably, and in harmony with the environment.

What needs to happen is the WORLD needs to view this as an issue---not just the U.S. and Europe. Unless India, China and other developing nations are on-board with regulations to limit greenhouse gasses / carbon pollution, it won't make a damn bit of difference what we do----or don't do.

I'm an environmentalist at heart, and I think no issue is more important. I don't like the idea of the U.S. losing it's competitive edge (or what's left of it) in the name of climate change---- unless the rest of the world is playing with the same rules.

I also live in Florida--- steps away from the water, and I'm not worried about being underwater anytime in my lifetime. Scare tactics are being used instead of reality--- on both sides.

But like I said--- I'm relatively uninformed. So maybe I should be full of panic. Somehow I don't think so.

Joe Gearin wrote: Here's my unbiased, but also fairly uninformed take: We have thermometers--- I trust science when they claim the oceans are getting warmer. We (as a species) produce a lot of pollution---it's not crazy to think we may be contributing to climate change Carbon Credits----- a scam to pump funds into the hands of cronies who lean to the left Climate Change deniers--- will fight at any lengths to allow industry to roll forward unfettered (usually backed by industry $$) It makes sense to live sustainably, and in harmony with the environment. What needs to happen is the WORLD needs to view this as an issue---not just the U.S. and Europe. Unless India, China and other developing nations are on-board with regulations to limit greenhouse gasses / carbon pollution, it won't make a damn bit of difference what we do----or don't do. I'm an environmentalist at heart, and I think no issue is more important. I don't like the idea of the U.S. losing it's competitive edge (or what's left of it) in the name of climate change---- unless the rest of the world is playing with the same rules. I also live in Florida--- steps away from the water, and I'm not worried about being underwater anytime in my lifetime. Scare tactics are being used instead of reality--- on both sides. But like I said--- I'm relatively uninformed. So maybe I should be full of panic. Somehow I don't think so.

I agree with most of this. Climate changes. Look at history, it's changed drastically many times through the millions of years this rock has been propelled through space. We've had ice ages, hot flashes etc.

Now... to think that humankind is the SOLE reason that climate does change is absolutely the dumbest and most arrogant thing you can think. Does humankind have ZERO influence? You'd be friggin' retarded to honestly believe it. So the truth lays somewhere in the middle.

What do we do? WEll, live within our means. Cut down on waste. Find more options for renewable energy. Stop reproducing like a den of rabbits snowed in for hte winter. But unless we get the entire world onboard (Im looking at all 4 billion of you China) it's not goingto have much impact.

If the change were completely natural, it wouldn't change the problem and it would only change the solution slightly. If in this hypothetical scenario the greenhouse effect is still a real thing, reducing CO2 emissions would still help reduce global warming. But I think we'd look more towards geoengineering as a solution, since we'd be outright trying to modify the climate instead of just undoing what we've done. It's kind of funny, because we've already been doing massive geoengineering unintentionally, so we shouldn't be afraid of doing it intentionally with a clear goal.

GameboyRMH wrote: If the change were completely natural, it wouldn't change the problem and it would only change the solution slightly. If in this hypothetical scenario the greenhouse effect is still a real thing, reducing CO2 emissions would still help reduce global warming. But I think we'd look more towards geoengineering as a solution, since we'd be outright trying to modify the climate instead of just undoing what we've done. It's kind of funny, because we've already been doing massive geoengineering unintentionally, so we shouldn't be afraid of doing it intentionally with a clear goal.

I vote we take this whole geoengineering initiative(it still scares the E36 M3 out of me) to the next level, as the most immediate results can be had in a hurry.......all in favor of nuking China?

Hey, China's where all the solar panels come from and they're building more nuclear plants than anyone else! Plus where will do the cheap manufacturing that spews pollution all over the place?

rotard wrote: That's why there's peer review.

Peer review has been proven to have its own issues. On top of that, some of the most highly acclaimed studies of climate change have been shown to fudge the numbers/models. My biggest issue is being honest about all of this.

I don't think anyone unequivocally denies that humans might be causing climate change. I also don't think ANYONE does not think we should strive to be better stewards of our planet.

But when Keystone XL gets shot down because of our "dirty oil" while the US keeps buying ALL OF THE THINGS from China, like f*&k off. That is how you know this is all BS in the grand scheme of things. Or how the US is still going ahead with coal fired power plants, which are the largest polluter above and beyond anything else (all coal fired emissions worldwide are 30% of C02 output globally).

Humanity has always careened from one crisis to the next, and will continue to do so. Carbon capture is a legitimate technology, but nobody gives a E36 M3 about it even though its a great stop-gap measure until renewable resources become economically feasible and 3rd world countries are brought on board. And yet there is only ONE FACILITY in the world currently doing it, which SURPRISE, the company I work for did lots of the initial R&D on.

So yea. Cause for concern? Absolutely. Will we get to the solution? Yes. If something else doesn't happen (I'm more afraid of the singularity theory than climate change, one we can easily survive as a species, the other not so much)

In reply to HiTempguy:

I'd be more worried about fusion experiments going awry.....

yamaha wrote: In reply to Hungary Bill: Berkeley, CA has been the laughingstock of America for awhile now.

The Walking Dead pulled double the viewers than election coverage.

I don't think Berkeley being a laughing stock would actually offend anyone that actually lives in Berkeley.

But what do I know. I have a nick name from jumping my truck across railroad tracks and into a intersection.

I'm very confidence in their calculations!

HiTempguy wrote: If something else doesn't happen (I'm more afraid of the singularity theory than climate change, one we can easily survive as a species, the other not so much)

Can you elaborate? I'm truly curious and all I can find are mathematics definitions.

Flight Service wrote:

yamaha wrote: In reply to Hungary Bill: Berkeley, CA has been the laughingstock of America for awhile now.

The Walking Dead pulled double the viewers than election coverage. I don't think Berkeley being a laughing stock would actually offend anyone that actually lives in Berkeley. But what do I know. I have a nick name from jumping my truck across railroad tracks and into a intersection.

I jumped my truck across railroad tracks and into a Buick Grand National

In reply to Nick_Comstock:

I had a friend that caged a Ford Tempo just to jump a big railroad track here(elevated 9-10ft).....the results were spectacular, well.....spectacular that the cage held up and saved his life. That thing came down hard on the nose and flipped close to a dozen times.

GameboyRMH wrote:

racerdave600 wrote: And again, the problem the pro climate change people have, is their leaders only ways of dealing with it are, "give your money so I can give it to my wealthy friends."

I like how the climate debate can turn even the staunchest conservative into an Occupier. Staying the course is the same deal, only with fossil fuel companies getting our money instead of renewable energy companies. This isn't an environmental policy problem.

Except I'm not the staunchest conservative, and nowhere did I mention staying the course. The problem is, nothing the pro climate people want to do is sustainable like they imagine. I work in this industry, and there is nothing readily able to fill our energy needs. Unless you want nuclear and most people do not. We've been working a lot with solar lately, and trust me, it is still very inefficient, even for smaller devices that we want to power. And depending upon where you live, it gets even worse. Out west, it would be a better alternative, but marginally so. It simply isn't reliable enough.

Several years ago, we looked into producing solar panels, and concluded its not a very good model for business profitability nor good for our customer's needs. All the solar companies coming and going seem to bear this out. There is still much R&D to do to make them function anywhere near efficiency and cost levels to make them worthwhile alternatives.

My long, rambling point I was trying to make is that until you remove the politics there will never be real progress on this front. I don't think anyone wants to abuse the planet, but to kill your country in doing something like said previously, will do not good whatsoever, is crazy. But then, most people that live in the DC zip code are crazy.

On the positive front, the work on the automotive front is very promising. Look at the Volt and Leaf, and the fuel cell cars that are forthcoming. I think we will see steady growth in these types of cars, until they take most of the market over completely in the years to come.