EPTTL vs. Climate Change (Denial) - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
All.In
United States214 Posts
| ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
I don't own a car, i could but i chose to take the bus, even if i hate it during winter. so i'm doing my part, are you? | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
![[image loading]](http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/2011_precip_anon.gif) ![[image loading]](http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2011/2011_precip_records.png){kind=icon} Source | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 13 2011 07:59 TanGeng wrote: Ok well. One of the heuristics that I like to use is that theories that are purely academic has to survive a test of time. In this day and age, I'd say 30 years is the right amount of time for academics to flush out and discredit the garbage, and the length of the period has to do with the duration of influence certain academics may hold in universities and over a field of study. Much of climate science is younger than 30 years. The quicker alternative is applied science where theories have economic applications where the theory is tested and retest, and even if it is wrong (i.e. Aristotle's celestial motion theory), it still has merit in real world applications. On an academic basis, I'm willing to agree with climate scientists, but it's not going to get me to seriously change my behavior based on their prognostications. it is okay from a purely theoretical pov. the problem is, that the scientific base is settled since the 70s. the original prognosis for temperature rise for co2 doubling back then was 2.8-4 degrees, not to far away from current state of the art. the original prognosis has been supported by data (i.e. measurements). so you say, you need 40 years? 50 years? the problem is, that we as in well educated, rich country young folks will not bear the direct implicationsof CC. but I agreed to not go into policy recommendations, that is your own moral dilemma. but dont be fooled, the science in its most basic point (humans -> co2 -> warming) is settled since 40 years and more. | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 13 2011 08:01 All.In wrote: If carbon is one of the things affecting world climate wouldn't 1 giant volcanic eruption release more carbon into the atmosphere then all of the vehicles that run on gas have released to date? I heard a number somewhere that 1 large volcanic eruption would contain more harmful carbon and gases then 100 years of vehicles that burn regular fuel. its not true. the amount of volanic co2 is negligible, the carbon is usually big enough to settle soonish (years). volcanoes have immediate cooling effects in the order of 0.5 deg global (pinatubo) or even up to 5 degrees (yellowstone type explosion, we dont want that °. it is a well made point though, that strong volcanic eruptions could give us a few more decades time to adjust because warming would be slower for a while. | ||
|
SilverLeagueElite
United States626 Posts
| ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
In fact, even if the entire planet decided to go green, we still would struggle to prevent CO2 from rising. It would take a global economic depression at best to change the inevitable. In the meantime people can feel smug arguing about it on the internet while contributing to the problem with their computer and internet connection alone. | ||
|
Abraxas514
Canada475 Posts
On December 13 2011 07:48 Fruscainte wrote: Why do I need sources to say that water levels rising exponentially when over 2 billion people live near the coasts would have dire consequences? Do enlighten me. Because your whole position is based on emotional position. 1) show me a place where coastal levels have been rising and 2) link it to damage caused exclusively by this change. this is called science. thanks. Also, can I point out that before plants, there was no appreciable O2 in the atmosphere. | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On December 13 2011 08:07 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Deniers were those who sprung up when Global Warming started making claims that it would lead to world-wide catastrophes if not curtailed. Global warming has since soften it's position and is now climate change. The deniers label is a hold-over from this period. I doubt many people would consider themselves deniers now. No shit, climate changes. Now that the fervor is over, maybe we can have honest discussions on whether rising temps is actually a good/bad thing. Should we do anything at all/is it worth doing? Can you name one good thing about global warming? or climate change as you call it. | ||
|
InDaHouse
Sweden956 Posts
| ||
|
Abraxas514
Canada475 Posts
On December 13 2011 08:10 Nizaris wrote: Can you name one good thing about global warming? or climate change as you call it. Did you read page one? I named 3-4 things. | ||
|
Fruscainte
4596 Posts
On December 13 2011 08:09 Abraxas514 wrote: Because your whole position is based on emotional position. I fail to see how the displacement of 2 billion people being (usually) bad is an emotional position or a plea to fear. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Nonetheless, you're kind of missing my entire point of my original post, but nonetheless, keep arguing semantics. | ||
|
bonse
125 Posts
You tell me, what percentage of CO2 released daily in atmosphere comes from natural causes? | ||
|
QuXn
Germany71 Posts
ohhhh im, im loving what i find... | ||
|
EchoZ
Japan5041 Posts
| ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 13 2011 07:53 Buubble wrote: I don't care - our money is better spend on building infrastructure and eliminating disease. It is better for 2012 india to build a coal plant today than to build solar panels. Based on the precipitation of that wealth and well-being created today by building the coal plant, it is also better for 2112 india to build a coal plant today rather than solar panels. They will be much more wealthy in the future and able to deal with the +.0001 or whatever degree change caused by the coal plant. that is a complex topic and a justified way of thinking about it. the problem is, as some has mentioned, that the cost of strong climate change will most certainly not be linear (as in many people live close to coastlines, precipiation changes will influence agriculture on a global level). it is there not only a cost-benefit analysis but also a cost-benefit-risk analysis, that societies should do around the world. i agree that the amount of "staatlichkeit" (dont know the english word, something like strength of the state) is decisivie for the ability to cope with climate change. if we can increase that today, we should probably do it. it is still useful, from a risk point of view, to think that a combination of adaptation (your example) and mitigation (we prevent it from happening) and not a neither / or will be the optimal way for society. | ||
|
Abraxas514
Canada475 Posts
On December 13 2011 08:10 Fruscainte wrote: I fail to see how the displacement of 2 billion people being (usually) bad is an emotional position or a plea to fear. Seems pretty straight forward to me. Nonetheless, you're kind of missing my entire point of my original post, but nonetheless, keep arguing semantics. Semantics? "the displacement of 2 billion people" what the fuck? are you actually from foxnews? | ||
|
dabbeljuh
Germany159 Posts
On December 13 2011 08:11 QuXn wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agyjz9pZfB4&feature=related ohhhh im, im loving what i find... just a personal remark: I will not answer to Fox News level of information or queries ° | ||
|
Nizaris
Belgium2230 Posts
On December 13 2011 08:10 Abraxas514 wrote: Did you read page one? I named 3-4 things. they are so ludicrous that they aren't even worth mentioning. I mean come on, less ppl will die of cold ? afaik global warming would mean harsher winters. not to mention all the extra tournadoes in the summer. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10091 Posts
I have some questions but I don't have time to post now. I will ask sometime later tonight | ||
| ||
