|
|
On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: ![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/720px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png) Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming.
Even if it is proven, I still think the proper course of action would be to either
a) Don't combat climate change/warming. Instead, global investment in sustainability in resources and lifestyle. This allow cultures to survive through the adverse weather.
b) Combat the symptoms. There are ways in which we can cool the Earth that requires little change in lifestyles for anybody. This can be direct cooling, or we can speed up the process of CO2 absorption into the earth.
|
On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming.
Obviously nature plays a role, but you don't see how anything on that graph is alarming? It's like the picture of why it is scary. Look at how closely the temperature anomaly moves with the CO2 level and look at where the current CO2 level is. It totally throws any natural cycle out the window.
|
On September 25 2012 13:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming. Even if it is proven, I still think the proper course of action would be to either a) Don't combat climate change/warming. Instead, global investment in sustainability in resources and lifestyle. This allow cultures to survive through the adverse weather. b) Combat the symptoms. There are ways in which we can cool the Earth that requires little change in lifestyles for anybody. This can be direct cooling, or we can speed up the process of CO2 absorption into the earth.
What do the words "ecological crisis" mean to you?
More specifically, what particular human endeavor becomes much more difficult when this happens?
(it's not just about things sort of vaguely sucking because it's hot outside)
|
On September 25 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 13:46 aksfjh wrote:On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming. Even if it is proven, I still think the proper course of action would be to either a) Don't combat climate change/warming. Instead, global investment in sustainability in resources and lifestyle. This allow cultures to survive through the adverse weather. b) Combat the symptoms. There are ways in which we can cool the Earth that requires little change in lifestyles for anybody. This can be direct cooling, or we can speed up the process of CO2 absorption into the earth. What do the words "ecological crisis" mean to you? More specifically, what particular human endeavor becomes much more difficult when this happens?
Can you ask a full question? I'm tired and not quite getting at what you're asking.
|
On September 25 2012 13:57 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 13:53 sam!zdat wrote:On September 25 2012 13:46 aksfjh wrote:On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming. Even if it is proven, I still think the proper course of action would be to either a) Don't combat climate change/warming. Instead, global investment in sustainability in resources and lifestyle. This allow cultures to survive through the adverse weather. b) Combat the symptoms. There are ways in which we can cool the Earth that requires little change in lifestyles for anybody. This can be direct cooling, or we can speed up the process of CO2 absorption into the earth. What do the words "ecological crisis" mean to you? More specifically, what particular human endeavor becomes much more difficult when this happens? Can you ask a full question? I'm tired and not quite getting at what you're asking.
Ecosystems are incredibly complicated. They can come into crisis and fall apart rather easily. When this happens, agriculture becomes extremely difficult. Just ask the sumerians.
edit: before you say "yeah but they evolve and fix themselves" just let me tell you you do NOT want to be living in that ecosystem while it's happening, even if it reaches a steady state in the long run. Geological time, and evolutionary time, are most certainly not OUR time.
In the long run, there's nothing we can do to hurt the earth.
|
As to climate change I'm with xDaunt.
Now then on to other issues there's a discussion happening about education that NBC News is running this week called "Education Nation". I've been watching some of the videos of the event and it's an incredibly interesting event about how we can make our schools better. This should really be the focus of all of our political campaigns as education is the silver bullet that can help fix a lot of our issues long term.
I think the Republicans did a better job talking about this at their convention than the Democrats
http://www.educationnation.com/index.cfm?objectid=2D892700-F6A7-11E1-B7FE000C296BA163
|
Yes, education is the second most important activity in which a civilization can engage.
|
Ah, I see. Our engineering ability is quite supreme already in this matter. We have the logistics, equipment, and biology to "modernize" agriculture. We have the structures and technology to protect people from the weather and climate changes. If we "choose" this route, we'll begin building a true 21st century Earth.
|
On September 25 2012 13:33 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 10:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Global warming is a pain in the ass to discuss. There's too many separate issues lumped together:
How much is the planet warming and to what extent can we trust future predictions?
To what extent is humanity responsible for the warming?
What are the best policies for dealing with the warming?
Even if we had an extremely concrete answer to the first two questions (and we don't) we'd still debate what the best policy response would be. That's why global warming is a terrible name. It is "global climatic disruption." You can't predict what will happen, that's the point of a chaotic system. That's why you A) stop pumping carbon out of sinks (i.e. fossil fuel deposits) and into the carbon cycle and B) get ready for the shit to hit the fan (i.e. get away from globally integrated economy susceptible to catastrophic failure in favor of multiply redundant/locally sustainable systems) There's absolutely no question as to what the best policy response is, which is to heavily tax fossil fuels and use the proceeds to subsidize localization and research into sustainability (including, critically, redesigning American cities away from the automobile).When the stakes are as high as they are, you don't sit around with your head in the sand because the data is "inconclusive" (which, by the way, it isn't, but even if it were you would still do exactly what I say). edit: There are, moreover, reasons to do all of these things totally independent of global climatic disruption.
I have to disagree with you there. Raising the price of energy dramatically will crush economies and hurt normal household budgets. Gas going from $1 to $4 has been painful enough.
The extent to which humans are responsible should have a huge impact on what the policy response should be since there are risk involved with an overkill response.
|
On September 25 2012 13:49 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 13:26 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 12:29 DoubleReed wrote:On September 25 2012 11:45 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On September 25 2012 11:06 DoubleReed wrote:Except that climate scientists, including former climate change skeptics, are realizing that the problem is might actually be worse than predicted before. Richard Muller, funded by the Koch Brothers and climate change skeptic, recently (this July) used much more accurate data and readings to discover that yes, global warming is happening AND that is almost entirely due to human causes. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html?pagewanted=all&_moc.semityn.wwwClimate change is real. It is manmade. And it is serious. Can you explain to me how they come to the conclusion that its mostly man-made? Just skimming through they seem to use CO2 as a proxy for mankind's contribution. Now, my understanding is that CO2 levels change naturally as well so I'm confused as to how they separated the natural change from the man-made change. From what I've seen the CO2 trends dramatically shift once industrialization starts and then accelerate rapidly as we become more industrialized. I think there might be more to it than just that though. I get that. But then I see graphs like this: Now, I don't doubt at all that industry pumping CO2 into the atmosphere contributes to global warming. But it seems that nature plays a role as well. Until someone can convince me that they can separate the two accurately, I find it difficult to support aggressive measures to fight global warming. Obviously nature plays a role, but you don't see how anything on that graph is alarming? It's like the picture of why it is scary. Look at how closely the temperature anomaly moves with the CO2 level and look at where the current CO2 level is. It totally throws any natural cycle out the window.
Sure, its worrisome. But if I'm not mistaken the temperature line is inferred from other data so it can be a bit incestual with regards to the CO2 / temperature correlation.
|
On September 25 2012 14:09 aksfjh wrote:
Ah, I see. Our engineering ability is quite supreme already in this matter. We have the logistics, equipment, and biology to "modernize" agriculture. We have the structures and technology to protect people from the weather and climate changes. If we "choose" this route, we'll begin building a true 21st century Earth.
Sure, we'll have to. But it's stupid to piss away our opportunity to mitigate the adverse effects with which we will have to cope in the future. It's just an entirely suboptimal line of play.
I actually believe that things will turn out well in the end (in fact, I even think that the necessity of dealing with the crisis will help to promote global solidarity and the unification of mankind - this is what I call the "lemonade" scenario).
What I'm worried about is what my life will be like, because I believe that I will live at least the final part of my life in the beginnings of the crisis. I am also very worried about any possible children I might have, because I feel that their lives will take place in the worst of it and I feel sad about what world I will leave for them.
But I think mankind will make it through and craft a beautiful civilization in its wake.
|
On September 25 2012 14:15 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 14:09 aksfjh wrote:
Ah, I see. Our engineering ability is quite supreme already in this matter. We have the logistics, equipment, and biology to "modernize" agriculture. We have the structures and technology to protect people from the weather and climate changes. If we "choose" this route, we'll begin building a true 21st century Earth. Sure, we'll have to. But it's stupid to piss away our opportunity to mitigate the adverse effects with which we will have to cope in the future. It's just an entirely suboptimal line of play. I actually believe that things will turn out well in the end (in fact, I even think that the necessity of dealing with the crisis will help to promote global solidarity and the unification of mankind - this is what I call the "lemonade" scenario). What I'm worried about is what my life will be like, because I believe that I will live at least the final part of my life in the beginnings of the crisis. I am also very worried about any possible children I might have, because I feel that their lives will take place in the worst of it and I feel sad about what world I will leave for them. But I think mankind will make it through and craft a beautiful civilization in its wake.
Well, regardless, the stuff we've already screwed up on will supposedly peak 30 years later or something. While going back to the source of the problem and eliminating it there seems like the logical first step, I think the long term challenge of creating a 21st century civilization that can withstand nature is the best investment.
|
On September 25 2012 14:28 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 14:15 sam!zdat wrote:On September 25 2012 14:09 aksfjh wrote:
Ah, I see. Our engineering ability is quite supreme already in this matter. We have the logistics, equipment, and biology to "modernize" agriculture. We have the structures and technology to protect people from the weather and climate changes. If we "choose" this route, we'll begin building a true 21st century Earth. Sure, we'll have to. But it's stupid to piss away our opportunity to mitigate the adverse effects with which we will have to cope in the future. It's just an entirely suboptimal line of play. I actually believe that things will turn out well in the end (in fact, I even think that the necessity of dealing with the crisis will help to promote global solidarity and the unification of mankind - this is what I call the "lemonade" scenario). What I'm worried about is what my life will be like, because I believe that I will live at least the final part of my life in the beginnings of the crisis. I am also very worried about any possible children I might have, because I feel that their lives will take place in the worst of it and I feel sad about what world I will leave for them. But I think mankind will make it through and craft a beautiful civilization in its wake. Well, regardless, the stuff we've already screwed up on will supposedly peak 30 years later or something. While going back to the source of the problem and eliminating it there seems like the logical first step, I think the long term challenge of creating a 21st century civilization that can withstand nature is the best investment.
I agree with you to some extent, but we're neglecting some really obvious ways to integrate sustainability into the development, because our market doesn't get any signals from ecological costs; so even if the market really were as rational as economists love to claim it is it still wouldn't be making the right choices.
What we need to do is plan our development with an ecological end-game in mind, and there are good strategic investments for the overall plan that we are currently missing due to undervaluation of ecological concerns both economically, in terms of the lack of representation of negative externalities in the market system, and ideologically, in terms of the cultural prejudice against a respect for nature and cyclical time more generally (western culture is oriented linearly - myths of progress and the like [note that "myth" here is not used in a necessarily negative connotation]).
For example, we should not be building any more cities around automobiles, and we should be turning the cities that are into modern cities with efficient and well-maintained public transit. Anyway, who wants to sit around in traffic all the time? It blows. And it [public transit] is FAR, FAR CHEAPER.
Also, even without worries about carbon cycles, burning fossil fuels is bad for air quality. Cities with bad air pollution have much higher rates of asthma - as someone grew up in a polluted city and had asthma, I'm kind of against this. We could have nice air to breathe everywhere and it would rock!
And any reduction we could do in carbon emissions would be good, because you are lowering the magnitude of what you are inputting into the turbulence of the global climate, which can affect the outcome in entirely nonlinear ways.
Another important topic is agriculture - we are going to have a crisis there due the unsustainable nature of monoculture. Also, there's things like the fact that America throws away something like half of its food - simply no reason to do that, we could feed everybody in our country well if we would stop doing that.
There's a bunch of other shit we could be doing - if you want more detail you should check out Amory Lovins - he writes books on sustainability for a business crowd, lots of charts and things I don't totally understand but I'm sure you'll love it.
edit: how do you compete with a civilization that is doing this??: http://thomasallison.com/image/28745440682
|
It's been a huge culture shock to move from the UK and Japan, where public transport is regular, safe and reliable, to Michigan, where...they have the People Mover, which flits between two streets downtown, and that's about it.
Interesting point about the forward planning of cities from Samizdat, and honestly a little more forward thinking for pretty much everything wouldn't go amiss. Climate change is pretty much agreed to be happening, and most scientists agree that man is playing a large part in making it much quicker than climate change has been in the past. Unfortunately current politics, where planning involves only the next year or two, is incompatible in dealing with a problem of this scope - action needs to be concerted, it needs to be rigorous and it needs to be bi-partisan, otherwise the next president will simply tear up any agreements and go for the quick fix. Dealing with the problem will take a lot of time, and a lot of money, something the average voter doesn't like to hear.
|
On September 25 2012 14:44 sam!zdat wrote:
For example, we should not be building any more cities around automobiles, and we should be turning the cities that are into modern cities with efficient and well-maintained public transit. Anyway, who wants to sit around in traffic all the time? It blows. And it [public transit] is FAR, FAR CHEAPER.
Investing in sustainable transportation infrastructure is an excellent way to create more jobs, give the lower classes who can't afford a car the mobility they need to get to work and save money, accelerate gentrification and improve property value, improve local and small business, and improve the environment. It should be a no-brainer.
I'm glad I live in a city that prioritizes sustainable urban planning and development. Not that it effects me that much. I literally live a five-minute walk away from where I work.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 25 2012 15:57 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 14:44 sam!zdat wrote:
For example, we should not be building any more cities around automobiles, and we should be turning the cities that are into modern cities with efficient and well-maintained public transit. Anyway, who wants to sit around in traffic all the time? It blows. And it [public transit] is FAR, FAR CHEAPER.
Investing in sustainable transportation infrastructure is an excellent way to create more jobs, give the lower classes who can't afford a car the mobility they need to get to work and save money, accelerate gentrification and improve property value, improve local and small business, and improve the environment. It should be a no-brainer. I'm glad I live in a city that prioritizes sustainable urban planning and development. Not that it effects me that much. I literally live a five-minute walk away from where I work.
The automobile and oil industries would not be pleased. It's hard to get anything logical done around here with so much money in politics.
|
On September 25 2012 10:37 SnK-Arcbound wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 10:22 Souma wrote:On September 25 2012 10:18 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 25 2012 10:04 Souma wrote:On September 25 2012 09:53 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 25 2012 09:41 SkyCrawler wrote:On September 25 2012 09:39 SnK-Arcbound wrote:On September 25 2012 09:29 Souma wrote:Not believing in global warming when the vast majority of climatologists tell us otherwise is pretty  as well. Well people don't believe in buddha even when the vast majority of buddists tell us otherwise. But climatologists telling us the world is warming has nothing to do with whether it has a statistically significant casuational relationship correlation to carbon dioxide. Statisical correlation is really fucking easy too. That they have to use laughable science like the IPCC doesn't help their cause either. Please describe this laughable science you speak of. Normally in statistics you get a data set, you put it into your calculator, select the proper test for what you're measuring, and you get an answer. Then after that, if it's statistically significant, you try and show which of the two populations is the independent variable, and which is the dependent variable. The IPCC gets a group of scientists, who all think global warming is happening, and then they take data sets, which they choose, and assign the statistical significance to it. At they end, they then look at their assigned statistical significance, and decide how statistically significant it is. Amazing, the panel who all think global warming is real, and looked at data they choose to use and assume the statistical significance of, found that it was statistically significant that CO2 causes global warming. That's some brilliant science right there. To give an example, I want to find out what 4+4 is. I think the answer is 6. Now I could just calculate it and let the answer be what it is, or I could get people to form a panel, and poll them to declare a consensus for what the answer is. I also pick people who think the answer is around 5 and 7, but definately not 8. The IPCC discarded other normal statistical practices that are used to safeguard the integrity of their calculations, if you want me to keep going though. wot. The IPCC does not do their own original research, they merely build on and replicate research from other leading scientists in the field (and god are there a lot). If I remember correctly, that's what science is about, isn't it? Replicating results to prove accuracy and validity. The example you should be giving is, you read a textbook that tells you 4+4 = 8, but instead of blindly believing the textbook, you do the math yourself. In the end, you get the same result: 4+4 = 8. So 4+4 must be 8. The IPCC is not a good argument against global warming. Except that's not what the IPCC did. They didn't recalculate anything, they assinged what the significance was without calculating it. It even has the guidelines in which values they are allowed to assign. And even if they did, their entire body of work can be thrown out for failing scientific guidelines that mandate you must attempt to disprove your theory, not prove it, in order to avoid the self fulfilling prophecy fallacy. I don't think you've actually read their work. Disprove WHAT theory? It's not THEIR theory. Once again the qualm you hold towards the IPCC is not a point against global warming. If you want to make the argument against global warming you'll have to disprove every single scientist's contribution to the existence of global warming. Scientists all over the world are publishing these reports and doing scientifically valid research, the IPCC is merely a body of volunteers. I see you're ignoring the part where you're wrong, and just focusing on the second part, where even if the IPCC aren't manipulating thing statistically, they still are failing scientific standards. As if it's ok to consider nonscientific research. Your thinking is brilliant. I don't have to be all inclusive in every single one of my posts about all the failings of any science. I have a third layer of failure that the IPCC didn't provide. The IPCC doesn't shitty, unscientific work, that fails simple and rigorous guidelines. Some of them can't be over come because of the people who are doing the work. If you want I'll just bust out my old psych book and start quoting all the requirements of a scientific theory, and how you gather evidence for it. Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 10:33 Souma wrote:On September 25 2012 10:30 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Global warming is a pain in the ass to discuss. There's too many separate issues lumped together:
How much is the planet warming and to what extent can we trust future predictions?
To what extent is humanity responsible for the warming?
What are the best policies for dealing with the warming?
Even if we had an extremely concrete answer to the first two questions (and we don't) we'd still debate what the best policy response would be. I'll be content with everyone just agreeing that the phenomenon exists. What we do from thereon out is another debate. The phenomenon obviously exists. The world is constantly warming and cooling. We are talking about the obfuscation of data and definitions and scientific standards that are required for anything that people don't have an emotional attachtment to being correct about.
Climate science is a huge public relations blunder by the scientific community. All the time scientists of every type are researching highly esoteric hypotheses with funds from the general public and "trust us" is not good enough of an explanation to get cash in the bank. So the various communities take insanely complex realities like evolution and climate change and construct a simple fantasy that the average person can understand. The positive of this is that good science gets funded but the bad side is a hit to the community's sterling reputation (which is well earned btw) takes a hit and people on fox news will talk about how evolution is a "theory" and all climate scientists are conspiring in an ivory tower to steal your money. Climate scientists just went too far as a whole with this simplification, especially coining the term "global warming" which will be thrown in their face any time it is unusually cold anywhere in the world.
As for the idea that there are some unscrupulous or untrustworthy scientists out there, all I have to say is "of course". If you let some rogue organizations here and there make you disregard the overwhelming academic consensus then you are unreasonably biased.
|
On September 25 2012 16:13 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 15:57 Defacer wrote:On September 25 2012 14:44 sam!zdat wrote:
For example, we should not be building any more cities around automobiles, and we should be turning the cities that are into modern cities with efficient and well-maintained public transit. Anyway, who wants to sit around in traffic all the time? It blows. And it [public transit] is FAR, FAR CHEAPER.
Investing in sustainable transportation infrastructure is an excellent way to create more jobs, give the lower classes who can't afford a car the mobility they need to get to work and save money, accelerate gentrification and improve property value, improve local and small business, and improve the environment. It should be a no-brainer. I'm glad I live in a city that prioritizes sustainable urban planning and development. Not that it effects me that much. I literally live a five-minute walk away from where I work. The automobile and oil industries would not be pleased. It's hard to get anything logical done around here with so much money in politics.
Naaaaaahhhhh ... I mean, it shouldn't. People that can afford cars love them, and will continue to buy cars. Oil companies have more than enough markets to sell their products to. Every industrial process needs oil.
At worst, it will force the car industry to produce more affordable, more fuel-efficient cars. And if by some miracle oil consumption decreases to the point where there are less car use in North America, you sell your oil to every other developing country that needs it.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 25 2012 16:29 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 16:13 Souma wrote:On September 25 2012 15:57 Defacer wrote:On September 25 2012 14:44 sam!zdat wrote:
For example, we should not be building any more cities around automobiles, and we should be turning the cities that are into modern cities with efficient and well-maintained public transit. Anyway, who wants to sit around in traffic all the time? It blows. And it [public transit] is FAR, FAR CHEAPER.
Investing in sustainable transportation infrastructure is an excellent way to create more jobs, give the lower classes who can't afford a car the mobility they need to get to work and save money, accelerate gentrification and improve property value, improve local and small business, and improve the environment. It should be a no-brainer. I'm glad I live in a city that prioritizes sustainable urban planning and development. Not that it effects me that much. I literally live a five-minute walk away from where I work. The automobile and oil industries would not be pleased. It's hard to get anything logical done around here with so much money in politics. Naaaaaahhhhh ... I mean, it shouldn't. People that can afford cars love them, and will continue to buy cars. Oil companies have more than enough markets to sell their products to. Every industrial process needs oil. At worst, it will force the car industry to produce more affordable, more fuel-efficient cars. And if by some miracle oil consumption decreases to the point where there are less car use in North America, you sell your oil to every other developing country that needs it.
I think if all the urban centers were equipped with good, efficient public transit, car sales would plummet. There are a lot of low-income families who buy cars because it's the only plausible way to get to work and back without having to spend hours on the bus. If car sales plummet and the U.S. has a much lower need for oil, oil companies can say goodbye to subsidies. They can export the oil, but I'm sure they'd rather just maintain the status quo (pure guess though).
|
On September 25 2012 16:56 Souma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 16:29 Defacer wrote:On September 25 2012 16:13 Souma wrote:On September 25 2012 15:57 Defacer wrote:On September 25 2012 14:44 sam!zdat wrote:
For example, we should not be building any more cities around automobiles, and we should be turning the cities that are into modern cities with efficient and well-maintained public transit. Anyway, who wants to sit around in traffic all the time? It blows. And it [public transit] is FAR, FAR CHEAPER.
Investing in sustainable transportation infrastructure is an excellent way to create more jobs, give the lower classes who can't afford a car the mobility they need to get to work and save money, accelerate gentrification and improve property value, improve local and small business, and improve the environment. It should be a no-brainer. I'm glad I live in a city that prioritizes sustainable urban planning and development. Not that it effects me that much. I literally live a five-minute walk away from where I work. The automobile and oil industries would not be pleased. It's hard to get anything logical done around here with so much money in politics. Naaaaaahhhhh ... I mean, it shouldn't. People that can afford cars love them, and will continue to buy cars. Oil companies have more than enough markets to sell their products to. Every industrial process needs oil. At worst, it will force the car industry to produce more affordable, more fuel-efficient cars. And if by some miracle oil consumption decreases to the point where there are less car use in North America, you sell your oil to every other developing country that needs it. I think if all the urban centers were equipped with good, efficient public transit, car sales would plummet. There are a lot of low-income families who buy cars because it's the only plausible way to get to work and back without having to spend hours on the bus. If car sales plummet and the U.S. has a much lower need for oil, oil companies can say goodbye to subsidies. They can export the oil, but I'm sure they'd rather just maintain the status quo (pure guess though).
Yeah, but good, comprehensive transportation infrastructure takes decades to plan, build and develop, and it happens in phases. And it's not every city will magically become green all at once. All the more reason to start now. Oil cars and companies have thirty to forty years to evolve and adapt. By then, hopefully we'll have fuel cell technology anyways.
We use Oil to manufacture and transport every single thing around us. Oil companies have nothing to worry about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
