|
On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:btw: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/quaternary/holocene.phpread this, this is basic geology/geography. If you don't think the "average" temperatures of the entire earth climate is going to change after an ice age, and then a little ice age no more than 400 years ago, then you're sadly mistaking. Heres the thing about climatology: To "accurately" study a climate, they need weather data from 30 years in time, this could be 1920-1950, 1950-1980 and so forth. Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself.
The mods are going to get rid of you in about 5 minutes but I'll bite. Why are you so concerned with what geologists think of a complex issue of climatological nature? There isn't really any controversy among the people that actually study these things. But yeah, fuck them let's all listen to the geologists many of whom are employed by the petroleum industry.
|
On July 27 2012 01:38 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit Do you read what you're saying? And you didn't address the fact that NASA had an identical set of facts. Is NASA also trying to choke the oil companies dry with their regulations? For that matter, why on earth would the EPA care about oil profits? The EPA was founded by the executive order of Richard Nixon to regulate pollutants at a time when you couldn't actually drink the water in some of the worse US cities. If oil companies make a profit, good on them, the EPA doesn't care. Their only concern is the level of pollution and its impact on the environment and the well-being of US citizens. I don't think you realize how absurd you sound. But maybe I can quote your two paragraphs in reverse order with some bolding and you'll get an idea: Show nested quote +what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" Show nested quote +Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? Hmmm....
Oh, so never in the history of gov't agencies did they get set up for an original goal and then completely turn fucked up ? TSA, is the first that comes to mind.
give me one city that was in the american top 10 in population that couldn't drink their cities water, cause according to you guys the almighty google was unable to find any. If the population of NYC was unable to drink water it might be a big story, that shit happens in many areas today, so great job EPA is doing!
|
On July 27 2012 01:37 eits wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:34 HardlyNever wrote:On July 27 2012 01:31 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:30 HardlyNever wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit You forgot /tinfoilhat. the tinfoil hat comes from people like you who are uneducated in the field and your only argument boils down to you just saying /tinifoil? typical shithead liberal They: Gave you reliable sources and evidence that support a certain claim. You: Say those sources are wrong, give no sources of your own, and say you took some class at Texas State that proves it all wrong. Good job. Graduating from the best Geography department in the nation makes me a little more accredited to call bullshit on this than internet links, sorry if theres no link you don't have "proof" but linking me to fucking gov't agencies really doesn't make you an amazing "Researcher" rather than just typing nasa and epa in google and calling that facts, so your argument there is pretty dumb. www.whitehouse.govwww.fbi.govthere's 2 gov't agencies for you? amidoinrite you: just stick up for others, cause you don't have your own opinion? show me your badass internet links bro!
They: Gave you reliable sources and evidence that support a certain claim.
You: Say those sources are wrong, then give totally irrelevant sources and say you graduated from the "best" Geography department without any proof. Hey, didn't you know that I'm the king of the world?
|
On July 27 2012 01:40 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:21 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:18 Heh_ wrote:On July 27 2012 01:17 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:01 thrawn2112 wrote:
best just to ignore his posts at this point. in both this thread and the greenland one all he does is throw around insults without making any point whatsoever. the closest he came to contributing to the debate was posting a graph unrelated to the current discussion and then not make any claims based on said graph rofl and you weren't just doing the same? hipster hypocritical retard Lol. The pot calling the kettle black. Quoted so you can't edit it out. just saying what he said to me? good story katie holmes Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:10 thrawn2112 wrote:
you're a retro wannabe hipster faggot in response to Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:07 eits wrote:
look at a fucking scientific paper that tells me this please and not some retro wannabe hipster faggot writing on shit he has no clue about
what was the whole point of your detective work? I called the writer of an article some name and he got butt hurt like it's his boyfran, so good work carmen san diego
|
On July 27 2012 01:37 eits wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:34 HardlyNever wrote:On July 27 2012 01:31 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:30 HardlyNever wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit You forgot /tinfoilhat. the tinfoil hat comes from people like you who are uneducated in the field and your only argument boils down to you just saying /tinifoil? typical shithead liberal They: Gave you reliable sources and evidence that support a certain claim. You: Say those sources are wrong, give no sources of your own, and say you took some class at Texas State that proves it all wrong. Good job. Graduating from the best Geography department in the nation makes me a little more accredited to call bullshit on this than internet links, sorry if theres no link you don't have "proof" but linking me to fucking gov't agencies really doesn't make you an amazing "Researcher" rather than just typing nasa and epa in google and calling that facts, so your argument there is pretty dumb. www.whitehouse.govwww.fbi.govthere's 2 gov't agencies for you? amidoinrite you: just stick up for others, cause you don't have your own opinion? show me your badass internet links bro!
I just had to quote this bit of e-peen gold. The best Geography department in the nation, ehh? The system is corrupt, all government agencies are liars, but trust in my highly rated and systemically accredited education in Geography which privies me to a world of hidden information on climate change. Oh wait, I'm insane and a pathological liar.
|
On July 27 2012 01:43 eits wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:38 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit Do you read what you're saying? And you didn't address the fact that NASA had an identical set of facts. Is NASA also trying to choke the oil companies dry with their regulations? For that matter, why on earth would the EPA care about oil profits? The EPA was founded by the executive order of Richard Nixon to regulate pollutants at a time when you couldn't actually drink the water in some of the worse US cities. If oil companies make a profit, good on them, the EPA doesn't care. Their only concern is the level of pollution and its impact on the environment and the well-being of US citizens. I don't think you realize how absurd you sound. But maybe I can quote your two paragraphs in reverse order with some bolding and you'll get an idea: what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? Hmmm.... Oh, so never in the history of gov't agencies did they get set up for an original goal and then completely turn fucked up ? TSA, is the first that comes to mind. give me one city that was in the american top 10 in population that couldn't drink their cities water, cause according to you guys the almighty google was unable to find any. If the population of NYC was unable to drink water it might be a big story, that shit happens in many areas today, so great job EPA is doing!
Please address the fact that NASA has identical claims listed on its website.
Also, you provided this link a while back: http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/quaternary/holocene.php
You didn't read its Resources section, though, because the first one listed, http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#q1 does not make a claim that humans are causing the warming of the climate, but also makes the claim that the planet is warming not due to a natural shift but due to greenhouse gasses.
|
On July 27 2012 01:45 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:43 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:38 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit Do you read what you're saying? And you didn't address the fact that NASA had an identical set of facts. Is NASA also trying to choke the oil companies dry with their regulations? For that matter, why on earth would the EPA care about oil profits? The EPA was founded by the executive order of Richard Nixon to regulate pollutants at a time when you couldn't actually drink the water in some of the worse US cities. If oil companies make a profit, good on them, the EPA doesn't care. Their only concern is the level of pollution and its impact on the environment and the well-being of US citizens. I don't think you realize how absurd you sound. But maybe I can quote your two paragraphs in reverse order with some bolding and you'll get an idea: what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? Hmmm.... Oh, so never in the history of gov't agencies did they get set up for an original goal and then completely turn fucked up ? TSA, is the first that comes to mind. give me one city that was in the american top 10 in population that couldn't drink their cities water, cause according to you guys the almighty google was unable to find any. If the population of NYC was unable to drink water it might be a big story, that shit happens in many areas today, so great job EPA is doing! Please address the fact that NASA has identical claims listed on its website.
you people believe everything the internet tells you. done here
|
On July 27 2012 01:45 eits wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:40 thrawn2112 wrote:On July 27 2012 01:21 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:18 Heh_ wrote:On July 27 2012 01:17 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:01 thrawn2112 wrote:
best just to ignore his posts at this point. in both this thread and the greenland one all he does is throw around insults without making any point whatsoever. the closest he came to contributing to the debate was posting a graph unrelated to the current discussion and then not make any claims based on said graph rofl and you weren't just doing the same? hipster hypocritical retard Lol. The pot calling the kettle black. Quoted so you can't edit it out. just saying what he said to me? good story katie holmes On July 27 2012 01:10 thrawn2112 wrote:
you're a retro wannabe hipster faggot in response to On July 27 2012 01:07 eits wrote:
look at a fucking scientific paper that tells me this please and not some retro wannabe hipster faggot writing on shit he has no clue about what was the whole point of your detective work? I called the writer of an article some name and he got butt hurt like it's his boyfran, so good work carmen san diego
what are you even saying
i think i'm done posting in tl general forums, i cant distinguish the trolls from the angry or stupid
|
On July 27 2012 01:48 eits wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:45 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:43 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:38 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit Do you read what you're saying? And you didn't address the fact that NASA had an identical set of facts. Is NASA also trying to choke the oil companies dry with their regulations? For that matter, why on earth would the EPA care about oil profits? The EPA was founded by the executive order of Richard Nixon to regulate pollutants at a time when you couldn't actually drink the water in some of the worse US cities. If oil companies make a profit, good on them, the EPA doesn't care. Their only concern is the level of pollution and its impact on the environment and the well-being of US citizens. I don't think you realize how absurd you sound. But maybe I can quote your two paragraphs in reverse order with some bolding and you'll get an idea: what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? Hmmm.... Oh, so never in the history of gov't agencies did they get set up for an original goal and then completely turn fucked up ? TSA, is the first that comes to mind. give me one city that was in the american top 10 in population that couldn't drink their cities water, cause according to you guys the almighty google was unable to find any. If the population of NYC was unable to drink water it might be a big story, that shit happens in many areas today, so great job EPA is doing! Please address the fact that NASA has identical claims listed on its website. you people believe everything the internet tells you. done here
You people don't believe anything anybody tells you unless it's in line with your beliefs. NASA is not "the internet." It's NASA. The EPA is not "the internet." It's the EPA.
You live somewhere that only vaguely resembles reality. Done here.
|
On July 27 2012 01:48 thrawn2112 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:45 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:40 thrawn2112 wrote:On July 27 2012 01:21 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:18 Heh_ wrote:On July 27 2012 01:17 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:01 thrawn2112 wrote:
best just to ignore his posts at this point. in both this thread and the greenland one all he does is throw around insults without making any point whatsoever. the closest he came to contributing to the debate was posting a graph unrelated to the current discussion and then not make any claims based on said graph rofl and you weren't just doing the same? hipster hypocritical retard Lol. The pot calling the kettle black. Quoted so you can't edit it out. just saying what he said to me? good story katie holmes On July 27 2012 01:10 thrawn2112 wrote:
you're a retro wannabe hipster faggot in response to On July 27 2012 01:07 eits wrote:
look at a fucking scientific paper that tells me this please and not some retro wannabe hipster faggot writing on shit he has no clue about what was the whole point of your detective work? I called the writer of an article some name and he got butt hurt like it's his boyfran, so good work carmen san diego what are you even saying i think i'm done posting in tl general forums, i cant distinguish the trolls from the angry or stupid
good, my work getting you off general worked
|
On July 27 2012 01:48 eits wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:45 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:43 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:38 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit Do you read what you're saying? And you didn't address the fact that NASA had an identical set of facts. Is NASA also trying to choke the oil companies dry with their regulations? For that matter, why on earth would the EPA care about oil profits? The EPA was founded by the executive order of Richard Nixon to regulate pollutants at a time when you couldn't actually drink the water in some of the worse US cities. If oil companies make a profit, good on them, the EPA doesn't care. Their only concern is the level of pollution and its impact on the environment and the well-being of US citizens. I don't think you realize how absurd you sound. But maybe I can quote your two paragraphs in reverse order with some bolding and you'll get an idea: what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? Hmmm.... Oh, so never in the history of gov't agencies did they get set up for an original goal and then completely turn fucked up ? TSA, is the first that comes to mind. give me one city that was in the american top 10 in population that couldn't drink their cities water, cause according to you guys the almighty google was unable to find any. If the population of NYC was unable to drink water it might be a big story, that shit happens in many areas today, so great job EPA is doing! Please address the fact that NASA has identical claims listed on its website. you people believe everything the internet tells you. done here
No one has believed a word you've said, and to us you are nothing more than a faceless bit of the internet. Therefore I deem your claim false.
|
On July 27 2012 01:49 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:48 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:45 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:43 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:38 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit Do you read what you're saying? And you didn't address the fact that NASA had an identical set of facts. Is NASA also trying to choke the oil companies dry with their regulations? For that matter, why on earth would the EPA care about oil profits? The EPA was founded by the executive order of Richard Nixon to regulate pollutants at a time when you couldn't actually drink the water in some of the worse US cities. If oil companies make a profit, good on them, the EPA doesn't care. Their only concern is the level of pollution and its impact on the environment and the well-being of US citizens. I don't think you realize how absurd you sound. But maybe I can quote your two paragraphs in reverse order with some bolding and you'll get an idea: what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? Hmmm.... Oh, so never in the history of gov't agencies did they get set up for an original goal and then completely turn fucked up ? TSA, is the first that comes to mind. give me one city that was in the american top 10 in population that couldn't drink their cities water, cause according to you guys the almighty google was unable to find any. If the population of NYC was unable to drink water it might be a big story, that shit happens in many areas today, so great job EPA is doing! Please address the fact that NASA has identical claims listed on its website. you people believe everything the internet tells you. done here You people don't believe anything anybody tells you unless it's in line with your beliefs. NASA is not "the internet." It's NASA. The EPA is not "the internet." It's the EPA. You live somewhere that only vaguely resembles reality. Done here.
and you vaguely resemble someone who is really upset that they have to get all their facts off gov't websites, when the gov't has never lied before.
reality sucks, get used to it
|
On July 27 2012 01:50 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:48 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:45 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:43 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:38 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit Do you read what you're saying? And you didn't address the fact that NASA had an identical set of facts. Is NASA also trying to choke the oil companies dry with their regulations? For that matter, why on earth would the EPA care about oil profits? The EPA was founded by the executive order of Richard Nixon to regulate pollutants at a time when you couldn't actually drink the water in some of the worse US cities. If oil companies make a profit, good on them, the EPA doesn't care. Their only concern is the level of pollution and its impact on the environment and the well-being of US citizens. I don't think you realize how absurd you sound. But maybe I can quote your two paragraphs in reverse order with some bolding and you'll get an idea: what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? Hmmm.... Oh, so never in the history of gov't agencies did they get set up for an original goal and then completely turn fucked up ? TSA, is the first that comes to mind. give me one city that was in the american top 10 in population that couldn't drink their cities water, cause according to you guys the almighty google was unable to find any. If the population of NYC was unable to drink water it might be a big story, that shit happens in many areas today, so great job EPA is doing! Please address the fact that NASA has identical claims listed on its website. you people believe everything the internet tells you. done here No one has believed a word you've said, and to us you are nothing more than a faceless bit of the internet. Therefore I deem your claim false.
but you sure believe those nasa and epa scientist you hang out with everday!
|
On July 27 2012 01:12 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:10 HardlyNever wrote:
I think the "obvious" answer is that we dump the carbon fuels, and part of that 20 trillion dollars comes from investment in alternatives. How much of that could come from alternatives? I have no clue.
The problem is, no one will care, or even worse, have the real authority to do anything about this on the scale that needs to be done. This is one of the first truly global problems humanity is facing, and we are ill organized and equipped to deal with it right now. Does that mean we shouldn't try at all? No, I don't think so.
I don't think this is something that most of us that are alive now will really suffer for, or not in a major ways. However, 4 or 5 generations after us very well might be at that "well, we might be fucked" point, and they won't have a way out. Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:07 Bigtony wrote:
I think climate change is real and the solutions are already present. Nuclear power is the biggest avenue for drastically reducing carbon fuel consumption. To reduce CO2 that's already in the air, I'm positive there's a way for us to do it, people just don't do it. The issue that this ignores is that we've got a lot of money (20 trillion) invested in carbon futures. Which is to say - a lot of our nation's wealth is based on the fact that people believe we're going to dig up and burn that carbon in the future. If the winds shift away from that, that 20 trillion basically just evaporates. And to put that in perspective, the current size of the US economy is around 15 trillion. So basically envision a world where the US's wealth evaporates. I'm in agreement with you, just want to make sure you understand the implications to what you're saying.
There are other uses for oil and probably coal too that don't depend on them being burned for energy. In fact, oil/coal are quite cheap right now. As they become more scarce, shouldn't their value increase, regardless of the application?
I think my point is similar to someone elses that followed up - that money won't evaporate. Some of it will be lost surely, but if we were actually trying to fix that problem, I'm sure there is a workaround.
|
On July 27 2012 01:50 eits wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:49 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:48 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:45 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:43 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:38 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit Do you read what you're saying? And you didn't address the fact that NASA had an identical set of facts. Is NASA also trying to choke the oil companies dry with their regulations? For that matter, why on earth would the EPA care about oil profits? The EPA was founded by the executive order of Richard Nixon to regulate pollutants at a time when you couldn't actually drink the water in some of the worse US cities. If oil companies make a profit, good on them, the EPA doesn't care. Their only concern is the level of pollution and its impact on the environment and the well-being of US citizens. I don't think you realize how absurd you sound. But maybe I can quote your two paragraphs in reverse order with some bolding and you'll get an idea: what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? Hmmm.... Oh, so never in the history of gov't agencies did they get set up for an original goal and then completely turn fucked up ? TSA, is the first that comes to mind. give me one city that was in the american top 10 in population that couldn't drink their cities water, cause according to you guys the almighty google was unable to find any. If the population of NYC was unable to drink water it might be a big story, that shit happens in many areas today, so great job EPA is doing! Please address the fact that NASA has identical claims listed on its website. you people believe everything the internet tells you. done here You people don't believe anything anybody tells you unless it's in line with your beliefs. NASA is not "the internet." It's NASA. The EPA is not "the internet." It's the EPA. You live somewhere that only vaguely resembles reality. Done here. and you vaguely resemble someone who is really upset that they have to get all their facts off gov't websites, when the gov't has never lied before. reality sucks, get used to it
Sounds good. NASA's a bunch of liars. The whole "mecca for engineers" thing is a total sham. It's actually just a bunch of lying bureaucrats who occasionally rocket technology forward in the process of attempting a previously unthinkable feat. Glad we've cleared that up.
|
On July 27 2012 01:51 eits wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:50 farvacola wrote:On July 27 2012 01:48 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:45 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:43 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:38 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit Do you read what you're saying? And you didn't address the fact that NASA had an identical set of facts. Is NASA also trying to choke the oil companies dry with their regulations? For that matter, why on earth would the EPA care about oil profits? The EPA was founded by the executive order of Richard Nixon to regulate pollutants at a time when you couldn't actually drink the water in some of the worse US cities. If oil companies make a profit, good on them, the EPA doesn't care. Their only concern is the level of pollution and its impact on the environment and the well-being of US citizens. I don't think you realize how absurd you sound. But maybe I can quote your two paragraphs in reverse order with some bolding and you'll get an idea: what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? Hmmm.... Oh, so never in the history of gov't agencies did they get set up for an original goal and then completely turn fucked up ? TSA, is the first that comes to mind. give me one city that was in the american top 10 in population that couldn't drink their cities water, cause according to you guys the almighty google was unable to find any. If the population of NYC was unable to drink water it might be a big story, that shit happens in many areas today, so great job EPA is doing! Please address the fact that NASA has identical claims listed on its website. you people believe everything the internet tells you. done here No one has believed a word you've said, and to us you are nothing more than a faceless bit of the internet. Therefore I deem your claim false. but you sure believe those nasa and epa scientist you hang out with everday!
Read this, troll, http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/mp-repsc.htm I dare you.
|
On July 27 2012 01:52 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:12 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:10 HardlyNever wrote:
I think the "obvious" answer is that we dump the carbon fuels, and part of that 20 trillion dollars comes from investment in alternatives. How much of that could come from alternatives? I have no clue.
The problem is, no one will care, or even worse, have the real authority to do anything about this on the scale that needs to be done. This is one of the first truly global problems humanity is facing, and we are ill organized and equipped to deal with it right now. Does that mean we shouldn't try at all? No, I don't think so.
I don't think this is something that most of us that are alive now will really suffer for, or not in a major ways. However, 4 or 5 generations after us very well might be at that "well, we might be fucked" point, and they won't have a way out. On July 27 2012 01:07 Bigtony wrote:
I think climate change is real and the solutions are already present. Nuclear power is the biggest avenue for drastically reducing carbon fuel consumption. To reduce CO2 that's already in the air, I'm positive there's a way for us to do it, people just don't do it. The issue that this ignores is that we've got a lot of money (20 trillion) invested in carbon futures. Which is to say - a lot of our nation's wealth is based on the fact that people believe we're going to dig up and burn that carbon in the future. If the winds shift away from that, that 20 trillion basically just evaporates. And to put that in perspective, the current size of the US economy is around 15 trillion. So basically envision a world where the US's wealth evaporates. I'm in agreement with you, just want to make sure you understand the implications to what you're saying. There are other uses for oil and probably coal too that don't depend on them being burned for energy. In fact, oil/coal are quite cheap right now. As they become more scarce, shouldn't their value increase, regardless of the application?
you're right, oil and coal prices are just going to fluctuate for years like they have been, but when it gets bad in about 30-40 years when people think oil prices and coal prices will be through the roof if we still consume these fuels at the same rate then we could possibly see oil easily going for $1000 a barrel. If we don't come up with alternative energy resources OTHER than oil/coal being 2 huge ones, then we might be screwed in the long run for our cars.
here's hoping electric cars or magnetic cars are in our future, cause i do not argue that oil rigs can cause environmental damage, but to say we are warming up the entire earth due solely to human fossil fuel consumption after the last little ice age is silly in my book.
|
On July 27 2012 01:55 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:51 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:50 farvacola wrote:On July 27 2012 01:48 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:45 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:43 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:38 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:28 eits wrote:On July 27 2012 01:23 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:14 eits wrote:
Earth has been here 4.6 BILLION YEARS, what the fuck are you trusting Al Gore and Rolling Stone for? None of my teachers at TXST geography department ever cared about global warming cause they all thought it was fucking bullshit. Hell, one of my classes was completely over debunking "An Inconvenient truth", which is a perfect example of someone just using this shit for their personal agenda (see running for president, and making fucking millions"). He would go to specific places during summer time, take pictures, then go back in winter time, and compare the 2 and be like HERP DERP THEY ARE DIFFERENT DO YOU SEE? that's what you get for letting a POLITICIAN do you research, and you not do it for yourself. This is the straw man that people like to present - that people who aren't climate change denialists are just getting all their research from Al Gore. http://climate.nasa.gov/http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/Show me how these were written by Al Gore, please. lol, you believe what EPA tells you? Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? I love how people say "im a denialists", what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" This is all due to coming out of the last little ice age 400 years ago, of course our "Average" temperatures are going to go up if we just came out of an age that is cold as shit. If you think 30 years of research is worth basing 4.6 billion years of earth time for a scientific experiment and call it "Truth" is just bullshit Do you read what you're saying? And you didn't address the fact that NASA had an identical set of facts. Is NASA also trying to choke the oil companies dry with their regulations? For that matter, why on earth would the EPA care about oil profits? The EPA was founded by the executive order of Richard Nixon to regulate pollutants at a time when you couldn't actually drink the water in some of the worse US cities. If oil companies make a profit, good on them, the EPA doesn't care. Their only concern is the level of pollution and its impact on the environment and the well-being of US citizens. I don't think you realize how absurd you sound. But maybe I can quote your two paragraphs in reverse order with some bolding and you'll get an idea: what is it with people having to belong on one side and the other side is always "the bad guy", cause you always have to categorize others to make yourself feel more important by being on the "good side" Those people are just trying to completely choke oil companies dry with their retarded ass regulations they add every year that effectively just cost companies (big and small) millions of dollars in fees that wouldn't have been here 10 years ago? Hmmm.... Oh, so never in the history of gov't agencies did they get set up for an original goal and then completely turn fucked up ? TSA, is the first that comes to mind. give me one city that was in the american top 10 in population that couldn't drink their cities water, cause according to you guys the almighty google was unable to find any. If the population of NYC was unable to drink water it might be a big story, that shit happens in many areas today, so great job EPA is doing! Please address the fact that NASA has identical claims listed on its website. you people believe everything the internet tells you. done here No one has believed a word you've said, and to us you are nothing more than a faceless bit of the internet. Therefore I deem your claim false. but you sure believe those nasa and epa scientist you hang out with everday! Read this, troll, http://www.missouriwestern.edu/orgs/polanyi/mp-repsc.htm, I dare you.
can you fix link? it says 404 when i go there
|
The problem here is: None of us want to turn off our things. Because that's what it takes.
None of us want to give up our car.
None of us want to get more efficient computers.
None of us want to give up air conditioning.
These are the things that cause the problem; our use of energy. So, there's a lot of talk about "What do we do? WHAT DO WE DO?" and watch, as it becomes more and more frantic. As the masses shout, louder and louder, to wonder what should "we" do to save the planet.
Well, the answer is, cut back your own consumption. You're part of the "we". If this is really something you believe in, it's time to man up and cut back. Buying a hybrid car doesn't mean anything. Buying an electric car means very little. Public transportation, people. Get used to it. Riding a bike and walking. These are what is required to hit that 2C target you want.
Cutting down on energy consumption is one way of going about it, but definately not the only way or even the best way to do it. Energy comes from different sources in different countries. If your energy is coming from burning of coal or oil and to a lesser degree natural gas, yes, cutting down on consumption will help. If your energy comes from wind-energy, solar energy and biogas, hell, go nuts in energy consumption. Surplus of power is a thing of the devil (it is a complete waste)! To some degree aquatic technologies are also good energy where consumption is less problematic.
The problems arise as soon as you start using the carbon sinners in combination with the others. Then you more or less have to assume that the consumption is problematic. That theory is even further supported by burnings having the best stability of production, compared to solar energy, windpower and to some degree the aquatic.technologies.
The real solutions are pretty simple: You can make gasoline from plant material for about 3 $/liter, coal from trees is not a problem in energy production, algae might be possible to produce in amounts and qualities, where you can burn the drywieght for energy, a lot of crop-leftovers can be used for biogas/burning and so on. There are plenty of reliable ways to produce this energy without turning down consumption. It might hurt the meat-prices and the price of furnitures and it definately would make electricity/heat a lot more expensive, but it is completely possible and even plausible without making legislative tricks to turn down the use of energy. Make it illegal to use coal and oil in production of heat/electricity and we are getting somewhere fast. Make it illegal to collect oil from the underground and the whole problem is solved. Reducing energy consumption in itself is not a good long-term solution. Give people the incentive through a ban on carbon-emitting energy production and the reduced energy consumption will come automatically for economic reasons!
|
On July 27 2012 01:52 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 01:12 Vega62a wrote:On July 27 2012 01:10 HardlyNever wrote:
I think the "obvious" answer is that we dump the carbon fuels, and part of that 20 trillion dollars comes from investment in alternatives. How much of that could come from alternatives? I have no clue.
The problem is, no one will care, or even worse, have the real authority to do anything about this on the scale that needs to be done. This is one of the first truly global problems humanity is facing, and we are ill organized and equipped to deal with it right now. Does that mean we shouldn't try at all? No, I don't think so.
I don't think this is something that most of us that are alive now will really suffer for, or not in a major ways. However, 4 or 5 generations after us very well might be at that "well, we might be fucked" point, and they won't have a way out. On July 27 2012 01:07 Bigtony wrote:
I think climate change is real and the solutions are already present. Nuclear power is the biggest avenue for drastically reducing carbon fuel consumption. To reduce CO2 that's already in the air, I'm positive there's a way for us to do it, people just don't do it. The issue that this ignores is that we've got a lot of money (20 trillion) invested in carbon futures. Which is to say - a lot of our nation's wealth is based on the fact that people believe we're going to dig up and burn that carbon in the future. If the winds shift away from that, that 20 trillion basically just evaporates. And to put that in perspective, the current size of the US economy is around 15 trillion. So basically envision a world where the US's wealth evaporates. I'm in agreement with you, just want to make sure you understand the implications to what you're saying. There are other uses for oil and probably coal too that don't depend on them being burned for energy. In fact, oil/coal are quite cheap right now. As they become more scarce, shouldn't their value increase, regardless of the application?
Well, this is kinda true in some situations.
But the issue is that there is so much coal/oil that we will have basically screwed over the globe long before they become scarce-- this is much much more the case for coal.
Sadly, coal production has starting to increase again in the past few years after a long period of stagnation-- partly due to demand and production from China, and partly due to increases in the cost to extract oil reserves.
It's really important to discourage this-- we don't want ANY investment into more infrastructure for coal burning, because that makes is much more difficult to transition away from it. If a politician just voted on approving a coal plant, it's going to be very difficult to convince him to decommission it.
We need to encourage investment in renewables infrastructure--- better power grids to accomodate microgeneration, and programs that encourage individual investment in things like wind/solar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
