|
This movement has NEVER been about facts or reality or numbers, it's about having an ideology which makes you feel smart and moral and better than other people. Anyone who took an honest and objective look at the facts would realize that even if global warming is entirely anthropogenic there is absolutely no way to reverse the trend without leaping towards the stone age.
So a few environmentalists are finally catching on to the fact after all these years that achieving their desires would necessarily bankrupt the planet and lead to widespread death, poverty, and suffering? You cannot reverse the carbon release. It's simply not possible without completely turning back industrialization, which would entail starvation, poverty, etc. There is zero doubt in my mind that a global economic collapse will lead to FAR more death and suffering than whatever a couple degree increase in temperature will bring.
Most people though will keep the delusional hope alive for "renewable energy," not so much as to provide a viable alternative as to provide a means to criticize the current system and people running it.
Edit: @Pandemona. Go read Alpino's post at the bottom of this page and tell me I am still being extreme or harsh on these people. lol.
|
Your entire article is premised on the argument that burning all those fossil fuels will cause a 6 degree rise in temperature. This is false, and thus your whole argument is moot. There is no Scylla and Charybdis that we are between. This is a false dichotomy that has been created because of believing these so-called "scientists" who make this claim. The fact is that CO2 plays a very minor role in the overall greenhouse effect on the planet. 90% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. The other greenhouse gases all compete to play a role in the other 10%. Climate is mostly determined by solar and cosmic radiation. Whether the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes up 0.025% or 0.037% is of little consequence.
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51485 Posts
On July 27 2012 02:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This movement has NEVER been about facts or reality or numbers, it's about having an ideology which makes you feel smart and moral and better than other people. Anyone who took an honest and objective look at the facts would realize that even if global warming is entirely anthropogenic there is absolutely no way to reverse the trend without leaping towards the stone age.
So a few environmentalists are finally catching on to the fact after all these years that achieving their desires would necessarily bankrupt the planet and lead to widespread death, poverty, and suffering? You cannot reverse the carbon release. It's simply not possible without completely turning back industrialization, which would entail starvation, poverty, etc. There is zero doubt in my mind that a global economic collapse will lead to FAR more death and suffering than whatever a couple degree increase in temperature will bring.
Most people though will keep the delusional hope alive for "renewable energy," not so much as to provide a viable alternative as to provide a means to criticize the current system and people running it.
Your taking it a bit extreme in your post though! I agree with you 90% but your argument seems bit to hate felt. Nothing wrong with helping out with renewable energy sources and changing the way things are run, eg cars from petrol to electric is a great step. Even if (which i agree with) humans are not effecting climate change, we still need to find different ways to run our everyday products due to say in 500 years there is suppsoidly going to be no "x" "y" or "z" left to use.
Totally agree with the rest of the post though xD enviromentalists live off the earth like they did in the stone ages, but still do the stupid things like travel to conventions on aeroplanes and take the goverments money etcetc its quite hilarious. Take the G8 summits, every 6-12months its hosted in some ridiculous location and half the world hop in their jets and fly to it and travel everywhere in huge limo's wtih crap Miles Per Gallon fuel ratios and think they are help changing the world, well you know theres a thing called a conference call or even skype ffs xD
|
On July 27 2012 02:59 Perdac Curall wrote:
Your entire article is premised on the argument that burning all those fossil fuels will cause a 6 degree rise in temperature. This is false, and thus your whole argument is moot. There is no Scylla and Charybdis that we are between. This is a false dichotomy that has been created because of believing these so-called "scientists" who make this claim. The fact is that CO2 plays a very minor role in the overall greenhouse effect on the planet. 90% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. The other greenhouse gases all compete to play a role in the other 10%. Climate is mostly determined by solar and cosmic radiation. Whether the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere makes up 0.025% or 0.037% is of little consequence. Why do you even post when you have no idea what you're talking about?
If not the people who actually study this field, the climatologists (and for your information, there is no dispute in this field that global warming exists and is manmade), then who do you trust? Random anti global warming blogs on the internet? Politicians? Your neighbors?
|
On July 27 2012 03:12 Thorakh wrote:
]Why do you even post when you have no idea what you're talking about?
If not the people who actually study this field, the climatologists (and for your information, there is no dispute in this field that global warming exists and is manmade), then who do you trust? Random anti global warming blogs on the internet? Politicians? Your neighbors?
“I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this.” Emo Philips
|
On July 27 2012 03:25 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 03:12 Thorakh wrote:
]Why do you even post when you have no idea what you're talking about?
If not the people who actually study this field, the climatologists (and for your information, there is no dispute in this field that global warming exists and is manmade), then who do you trust? Random anti global warming blogs on the internet? Politicians? Your neighbors? “I used to think that the brain was the most wonderful organ in my body. Then I realized who was telling me this.” Emo Philips
Oh wow. What a great quote  . I got a good laugh out of the first AGW denialist Thorakh was responding to, but you just doubled the fun 
Hmm.. also something meaningful to add. I am very confident that humans will find a way to flourish underground or through geo-engineering alter the climate. There's nothing like the threat of disaster to spur technological innovation and change. We just have too much technology and industry to be completely at the mercy of mother nature IMO. But who knows how bad it will be?
|
And for those fearmongering about the global economy crashing if we leave it in the ground, here's an article on what actually happens to profits from oil/gas extraction.
over half of profits continually buying back their own stock? (Which is then funneled back into stock-as-compensation for senior execs), yeah, I think we can do without more income disparity.
billions and billions spent on disinformation? Yeah, a misinformed population sure helps the economy run more efficiently.
The Big Five oil companies – BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell – are slated to announce their 2012 second-quarter profits later this week.
We can expect these companies, all of which rank in the top 10 of the “Fortune 500 Global Ranking,” to reveal billions of dollars more in profits, after earning $375 million in profits per day in 2011 ($261,000 per minute), and $368 million per day in the first three-months of 2012 — bringing their combined profits to $1 trillion from 2001 through 2011.
Below is a quick look at just how much these Big Oil companies are making, and where they are spending their billions in profits.
Big Oil’s Big Profits, In 24 Hours
The five biggest oil companies earned a combined profit of $375 million per day, or a record $137 billion profit for the year, in 2011, despite reducing their oil production.
In 60 seconds, these five companies earned $261,000 — more than 96 percent of American households make in one year.
These five oil companies received $6.6 million in federal tax breaks every day.
In 2011, the three largest domestic public oil companies spent $100 million of their profits each day, or over 50 percent, buying back their own stock to enrich their board, senior managers, and largest share holders.
The entire oil and gas industry spent on average $400,000 each day lobbying senators and representatives to weaken public health safeguards and keep big oil tax breaks, totaling nearly $150 million.
Each CEO of the Big Five companies received an average of $60,110 in compensation per day last year. On average, their pay jumped 55 percent in 2011. Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson’s compensation came close to $100,000 per day last year.
Millions in Political Contributions and Lobbying
Despite ranking as some of the most successful companies in the world, big oil and gas companies continue to receive $4 billion in tax breaks each year.
The oil and gas industry has already given over $30.5 million in federal campaign contributions this year, with a whopping 88 percent going to Republicans.
Big Oil has spent an additional $37 million on lobbying Congress this year, with the top spenders being Exxon, Shell, Chevron, Koch Industries and BP.
Their efforts are paying off. This is the most anti-environment Congress in history, with the House of Representatives averaging one anti-environment vote per day, or a total 247 votes through mid-June. The biggest beneficiary of these votes has been Big Oil. The House voted to enrich the oil and gas industry 109 times, a total 44 percent of its anti-environment votes.
The House is on track to collect a record amount of oil industry contributions this cycle, having already reached 2008 and 2010 levels. And these are direct donations only — it does not include Super PAC spending or other campaign assistance.
Outside Interests and Big Oil Allies Spending Tens of Millions More to Influence the Energy Debate
Fueled by Koch Industries and other Big Oil interests, the industry is spending hundreds of millions to fund false ads in this year’s elections. According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center, 85 percent of the dollars have funded false ad, during a season where most advertising have focused on energy.
Pro-Romney outside interest groups spent $24.6 million on energy ads through June 24, according to Kantar Media CMAG data. This is more than ten-times the amount spent by pro-Obama groups, which spent $2.3 million on energy spots.
American Energy Alliance, Americans for Prosperity, American Future Fund, and Crossroads GPS – the top outside pro-oil and pro-Romney interest group spenders – have spent a total $24.9 million on deceptive ads, many of them energy-related, according to the Annenberg Public Policy Center.
Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity has devoted more than 90 percent of its ad spending to energy ads. Two of the Americans for Prosperity ads pushed patently false claims — roundly debunked by fact checkers — that the stimulus funded jobs overseas.
Fact checkers have thoroughly debunked these anti-clean energy ads. Both Politifact and the Washington Post Fact Checker have given the ad their worst ratings of “pants on fire” and four Pinocchios, respectively. Politifact found all three examples used to be false, with the ad stringing together “alarming” soundbites that are “ultimately ridiculous.”
source: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/24/574161/what-five-oil-companies-did-with-profits/?mobile=nc
|
On July 27 2012 02:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This movement has NEVER been about facts or reality or numbers, it's about having an ideology which makes you feel smart and moral and better than other people. Anyone who took an honest and objective look at the facts would realize that even if global warming is entirely anthropogenic there is absolutely no way to reverse the trend without leaping towards the stone age.
So a few environmentalists are finally catching on to the fact after all these years that achieving their desires would necessarily bankrupt the planet and lead to widespread death, poverty, and suffering? You cannot reverse the carbon release. It's simply not possible without completely turning back industrialization, which would entail starvation, poverty, etc. There is zero doubt in my mind that a global economic collapse will lead to FAR more death and suffering than whatever a couple degree increase in temperature will bring.
Most people though will keep the delusional hope alive for "renewable energy," not so much as to provide a viable alternative as to provide a means to criticize the current system and people running it.
http://i.usatoday.net/news/opinion/cartoons/2009/December/e091207_pett.jpg
There's absolutely no contesting that even if "global warming" isn't real, we're doing serious damage to our environment, in particular to our oceans, atmosphere, and farm land that will probably kill everyone. The changes needed to slow and in some cases reverse this damage won't "put us back to the stone age." How on earth is reducing the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with things that generate less CO2 and pollutants (nuclear, wind, solar, something else), going to put us back to the stone age?
How will more responsible fishing and farming and marketing methods put us back to the stone age? How will reducing waste and better recycling methods put us back to the stone age?
There's no downside to going green if you do it right.
|
On July 27 2012 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote:Oh wow. What a great quote . I got a good laugh out of the first AGW denialist Thorakh was responding to, but you just doubled the fun
+ Show Spoiler +I'm actually mocking the climate scientists who tell us climate scientist is the most important thing.
Also, I'd be remiss to let the 'every scientist agrees global warming is man-made' without posting:
ugh image formating, just click here
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a7/Climate_science_opinion2.png)
And then I ask a thought experiment, change the title to "Belief the Sun Revolves Around the Earth" in the early 1600s and which side Galileo would be.
|
And then I ask a thought experiment, change the title to "Belief the Sun Revolves Around the Earth" in the early 1600s and which side Galileo would be. My goodness, are you for real? You realise that the belief that the sun revolves around the earth came from religion and not science, right? The two cases are incomparable.
By use of the scientific method climatologists show that global warming is anthropogenic.
|
On July 27 2012 04:13 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +And then I ask a thought experiment, change the title to "Belief the Sun Revolves Around the Earth" in the early 1600s and which side Galileo would be. My goodness, are you for real? You realise that the belief that the sun revolves around the earth came from religion and not science, right? These two cases are incomparable. The scientific method shows that GW is anthropogenic.
Coupled with the fact that Galileo himself was a pretty religious guy (he wrote several philosophical/religious papers in addition to his scientific works) shows that it was a small, powerful, crazy minority of religious people who were repressing him.
|
On July 27 2012 04:07 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 02:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This movement has NEVER been about facts or reality or numbers, it's about having an ideology which makes you feel smart and moral and better than other people. Anyone who took an honest and objective look at the facts would realize that even if global warming is entirely anthropogenic there is absolutely no way to reverse the trend without leaping towards the stone age.
So a few environmentalists are finally catching on to the fact after all these years that achieving their desires would necessarily bankrupt the planet and lead to widespread death, poverty, and suffering? You cannot reverse the carbon release. It's simply not possible without completely turning back industrialization, which would entail starvation, poverty, etc. There is zero doubt in my mind that a global economic collapse will lead to FAR more death and suffering than whatever a couple degree increase in temperature will bring.
Most people though will keep the delusional hope alive for "renewable energy," not so much as to provide a viable alternative as to provide a means to criticize the current system and people running it. http://i.usatoday.net/news/opinion/cartoons/2009/December/e091207_pett.jpgThere's absolutely no contesting that even if "global warming" isn't real, we're doing serious damage to our environment, in particular to our oceans, atmosphere, and farm land that will probably kill everyone. The changes needed to slow and in some cases reverse this damage won't "put us back to the stone age." How on earth is reducing the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with things that generate less CO2 and pollutants (nuclear, wind, solar, something else), going to put us back to the stone age? How will more responsible fishing and farming and marketing methods put us back to the stone age? How will reducing waste and better recycling methods put us back to the stone age? There's no downside to going green if you do it right.
Replacing things like engines to generate less CO2 does not decrease the amount of CO2. Cars still increase CO2. All that you are advocating is a decrease in the exponential INCREASE in CO2 in the atmosphere. And if you take even a glance at the numbers you will realize this makes no difference at all, especially when you consider that each plant that opens each day in China offsets thousands and thousands of hybrid cars.
You are fighting a losing battle. Even if the entire United States went into the stone age, China and other industrializing countries would still be increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is why reversing the trend would in fact require a global economic depression.
But you seem to think that using solar energy and recycling more is gonna fix the problem over time, which affirms my point that such people don't care about facts or numbers, only the feeling that they are impacting the world.
|
On July 27 2012 04:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 04:07 Bigtony wrote:On July 27 2012 02:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This movement has NEVER been about facts or reality or numbers, it's about having an ideology which makes you feel smart and moral and better than other people. Anyone who took an honest and objective look at the facts would realize that even if global warming is entirely anthropogenic there is absolutely no way to reverse the trend without leaping towards the stone age.
So a few environmentalists are finally catching on to the fact after all these years that achieving their desires would necessarily bankrupt the planet and lead to widespread death, poverty, and suffering? You cannot reverse the carbon release. It's simply not possible without completely turning back industrialization, which would entail starvation, poverty, etc. There is zero doubt in my mind that a global economic collapse will lead to FAR more death and suffering than whatever a couple degree increase in temperature will bring.
Most people though will keep the delusional hope alive for "renewable energy," not so much as to provide a viable alternative as to provide a means to criticize the current system and people running it. http://i.usatoday.net/news/opinion/cartoons/2009/December/e091207_pett.jpgThere's absolutely no contesting that even if "global warming" isn't real, we're doing serious damage to our environment, in particular to our oceans, atmosphere, and farm land that will probably kill everyone. The changes needed to slow and in some cases reverse this damage won't "put us back to the stone age." How on earth is reducing the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with things that generate less CO2 and pollutants (nuclear, wind, solar, something else), going to put us back to the stone age? How will more responsible fishing and farming and marketing methods put us back to the stone age? How will reducing waste and better recycling methods put us back to the stone age? There's no downside to going green if you do it right. Replacing things like engines to generate less CO2 does not decrease the amount of CO2. Cars still increase CO2. All that you are advocating is a decrease in the exponential INCREASE in CO2 in the atmosphere. And if you take even a glance at the numbers you will realize this makes no difference at all, especially when you consider that each plant that opens each day in China offsets thousands and thousands of hybrid cars. You are fighting a losing battle. Even if the entire United States went into the stone age, China and other industrializing countries would still be increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is why reversing the trend would in fact require a global economic depression. But you seem to think that using solar energy and recycling more is gonna fix the problem over time, which affirms my point that such people don't care about facts or numbers, only the feeling that they are impacting the world.
Well no fucking shit if China just does its own thing and fucks everyone it won't work, amazing logical conclusion there.
There's also other parts of this discussion that you completely ignore. CO2 has to do with things in addition to "global warming." Reversing the trend doesn't require a depression, because doing nothing still wouldn't reverse the trend. You have to do something to clean up the environment and lower the amount of man made CO2 per year. Doing stuff = jobs, work, etc. Once it's down to a certain point natural mechanisms can get back to doing what they're supposed to.
|
On July 27 2012 04:13 Thorakh wrote:
By use of the scientific method climatologists show that global warming is anthropogenic.
The great scientific method which gives us stuff like this.
|
On July 27 2012 04:32 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 04:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 27 2012 04:07 Bigtony wrote:On July 27 2012 02:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This movement has NEVER been about facts or reality or numbers, it's about having an ideology which makes you feel smart and moral and better than other people. Anyone who took an honest and objective look at the facts would realize that even if global warming is entirely anthropogenic there is absolutely no way to reverse the trend without leaping towards the stone age.
So a few environmentalists are finally catching on to the fact after all these years that achieving their desires would necessarily bankrupt the planet and lead to widespread death, poverty, and suffering? You cannot reverse the carbon release. It's simply not possible without completely turning back industrialization, which would entail starvation, poverty, etc. There is zero doubt in my mind that a global economic collapse will lead to FAR more death and suffering than whatever a couple degree increase in temperature will bring.
Most people though will keep the delusional hope alive for "renewable energy," not so much as to provide a viable alternative as to provide a means to criticize the current system and people running it. http://i.usatoday.net/news/opinion/cartoons/2009/December/e091207_pett.jpgThere's absolutely no contesting that even if "global warming" isn't real, we're doing serious damage to our environment, in particular to our oceans, atmosphere, and farm land that will probably kill everyone. The changes needed to slow and in some cases reverse this damage won't "put us back to the stone age." How on earth is reducing the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with things that generate less CO2 and pollutants (nuclear, wind, solar, something else), going to put us back to the stone age? How will more responsible fishing and farming and marketing methods put us back to the stone age? How will reducing waste and better recycling methods put us back to the stone age? There's no downside to going green if you do it right. Replacing things like engines to generate less CO2 does not decrease the amount of CO2. Cars still increase CO2. All that you are advocating is a decrease in the exponential INCREASE in CO2 in the atmosphere. And if you take even a glance at the numbers you will realize this makes no difference at all, especially when you consider that each plant that opens each day in China offsets thousands and thousands of hybrid cars. You are fighting a losing battle. Even if the entire United States went into the stone age, China and other industrializing countries would still be increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is why reversing the trend would in fact require a global economic depression. But you seem to think that using solar energy and recycling more is gonna fix the problem over time, which affirms my point that such people don't care about facts or numbers, only the feeling that they are impacting the world. Well no fucking shit if China just does its own thing and fucks everyone it won't work, amazing logical conclusion there. Reversing the trend doesn't require a depression, because doing nothing still wouldn't reverse the trend. You have to do something to clean up the environment and lower the amount of man made CO2 per year. Once it's down to a certain point natural mechanisms can get back to doing what they're supposed to.
Clearly you didn't understand my argument, because your response doesn't make sense. I'm saying even if you were to completely eliminate 100% of the CO2 emission in the US, meaning shut down every single plant, car, engine everywhere, the global CO2 concentration would still be INCREASING, just at a slower rate.
I'm saying even in a completely impossible environmental dream scenario, things would not be getting better. The only way things could be better would be to go back to a time before industrialization, which would entail mass deaths like the world has never seen. It can't be called anything other than delusion to think that buying some solar panels and recycling and driving more efficient cars is going to "save the planet."
|
Some addictions are rewarded by how our society is configured right now, oil addiction, power addiction, money addiction, those addictions affect the world badly. Other addictions like alchol addiction, porn addiction, cigarrette addiction are seen as devils by our society, those addictions affect mostly only the person involved but with a much more palpable outcome.
Things are wrong.
Human mentality needs to change, right now. Or we unite as human beings(not countrymen or other egoistical shit) and save humanity(the planet will survive even if we are trying our best to kill it, what will go away is the human parasite) or we make our individualistic fortresses and die each of us alone knowing we were part of yet another generation who could have changed things for the best.
People are blinded by "economics", money and imaginary lines in maps. We have all the resources in this planet we need for everyone to live decent lifes but we spend it all on getting fat and not being efficient with our raw materials. Raw materials aren't worth shit of money and this is the most bullcrap there is in this world, we have knowledge of science of technology, they are an intellectual fortune possible for anyone who dives in science but what happens is the following: technology and scientific work adds up to the price of something, it's like creating shit out of nothing! I understand why it needs to have a higher price but in practice this shows how our society is hellbent on destroying the planet and not using its resources efficiently. What we have physically and a lot of time is not renewable(raw materials) we put a low price like it's not worth its time, this raw material is what makes us grow, if we shared technology and scientific knowledge we could develop phones that are not supposed to last 2 months. We could have less things but ones that are well-built and supposed to last because raw materials won't last forever. We live in a word of consumerism in which a good product means "works awesome but doesn't last". This is not smart use of our resources, I mean that's not smart use of our resources if we are not thinking about gaining money. AND that's the problem, monetary systems are not adequate to the technology and knowledge we have, we can have everything if we work for it the right way, but right now some people get "everything" easy(a lot of times not the scientists who make wonderful products). "
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - If we shared our technological gains scientists would have so much to work with that not only science would advance faster but we would be able to use that technology to solve a lot of problems. In a monetary system we wouldn't because the scientists are not working for the common good, they are working for their paychecks in a company whose goal is not common good, it is to get a CEOs paycheck bigger by the end of the year(and if it all caused global crysis it matters not they just get fired from the company with their 400mil bonuses already accounted for). The monetary system corrupted our culture and right now I think we are doomed. + Show Spoiler +I'm pretty sure some guys will be able to profit exponentially and proportinally more as closer we get to complete depletion of earth's resources and subsequent crysis.
+ Show Spoiler +
"I later calculated that all the destruction and wasted resources spent on WWII could have easily provided for every human need on the planet. Since that time I've watched humanity set the stage for it's own extinction. I've watched as the precious finite resources are perpetually wasted and destroyed in the name of profit and 'free' markets. I've watched the social values of society be reduced into a base artificiality of materialism and mindless consumption, and I have watched as the monetary powers control the political structure of supposedly free societies. - I'm 94 years old now, and I'm afraid my disposition is the same as it was 75 years ago: This $hit's got to go! " - Jacques Fresco
I'm not gonna address the denialism because that's just laughable. Change today, trash your car.
|
On July 27 2012 04:57 Alpino wrote:Some addictions are rewarded by how our society is configured right now, oil addiction, power addiction, money addiction, those addictions affect the world badly. Other addictions like alchol addiction, porn addiction, cigarrette addiction are seen as devils by our society, those addictions affect mostly only the person involved but with a much more palpable outcome. Things are wrong. Human mentality needs to change, right now. Or we unite as human beings(not countrymen or other egoistical shit) and save humanity(the planet will survive even if we are trying our best to kill it, what will go away is the human parasite) or we make our individualistic fortresses and die each of us alone knowing we were part of yet another generation who could have changed things for the best. People are blinded by "economics", money and imaginary lines in maps. We have all the resources in this planet we need for everyone to live decent lifes but we spend it all on getting fat and not being efficient with our raw materials. Raw materials aren't worth shit of money and this is the most bullcrap there is in this world, we have knowledge of science of technology, they are an intellectual fortune possible for anyone who dives in science but what happens is the following: technology and scientific work adds up to the price of something, it's like creating shit out of nothing! I understand why it needs to have a higher price but in practice this shows how our society is hellbent on destroying the planet and not using its resources efficiently. What we have physically and a lot of time is not renewable(raw materials) we put a low price like it's not worth its time, this raw material is what makes us grow, if we shared technology and scientific knowledge we could develop phones that are not supposed to last 2 months. We could have less things but ones that are well-built and supposed to last because raw materials won't last forever. We live in a word of consumerism in which a good product means "works awesome but doesn't last". This is not smart use of our resources, I mean that's not smart use of our resources if we are not thinking about gaining money. AND that's the problem, monetary systems are not adequate to the technology and knowledge we have, we can have everything if we work for it the right way, but right now some people get "everything" easy(a lot of times not the scientists who make wonderful products). " "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime." - If we shared our technological gains scientists would have so much to work with that not only science would advance faster but we would be able to use that technology to solve a lot of problems. In a monetary system we wouldn't because the scientists are not working for the common good, they are working for their paychecks in a company whose goal is not common good, it is to get a CEOs paycheck bigger by the end of the year(and if it all caused global crysis it matters not they just get fired from the company with their 400mil bonuses already accounted for). The monetary system corrupted our culture and right now I think we are doomed. + Show Spoiler +I'm pretty sure some guys will be able to profit exponentially and proportinally more as closer we get to complete depletion of earth's resources and subsequent crysis.
"I later calculated that all the destruction and wasted resources spent on WWII could have easily provided for every human need on the planet. Since that time I've watched humanity set the stage for it's own extinction. I've watched as the precious finite resources are perpetually wasted and destroyed in the name of profit and 'free' markets. I've watched the social values of society be reduced into a base artificiality of materialism and mindless consumption, and I have watched as the monetary powers control the political structure of supposedly free societies. - I'm 94 years old now, and I'm afraid my disposition is the same as it was 75 years ago: This $hit's got to go! " - Jacques Fresco
I'm not gonna address the denialism because that's just laughable. Change today, trash your car.
And after you trash your car, trash your computer. The internet and video games require energy too you know!
I calculated that all the nonsense and wasted time spent on your rant could have easily provided for every person on TL to reach GrandMaster by next season.
|
On July 27 2012 04:45 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 04:32 Bigtony wrote:On July 27 2012 04:21 jdseemoreglass wrote:On July 27 2012 04:07 Bigtony wrote:On July 27 2012 02:56 jdseemoreglass wrote:
This movement has NEVER been about facts or reality or numbers, it's about having an ideology which makes you feel smart and moral and better than other people. Anyone who took an honest and objective look at the facts would realize that even if global warming is entirely anthropogenic there is absolutely no way to reverse the trend without leaping towards the stone age.
So a few environmentalists are finally catching on to the fact after all these years that achieving their desires would necessarily bankrupt the planet and lead to widespread death, poverty, and suffering? You cannot reverse the carbon release. It's simply not possible without completely turning back industrialization, which would entail starvation, poverty, etc. There is zero doubt in my mind that a global economic collapse will lead to FAR more death and suffering than whatever a couple degree increase in temperature will bring.
Most people though will keep the delusional hope alive for "renewable energy," not so much as to provide a viable alternative as to provide a means to criticize the current system and people running it. http://i.usatoday.net/news/opinion/cartoons/2009/December/e091207_pett.jpgThere's absolutely no contesting that even if "global warming" isn't real, we're doing serious damage to our environment, in particular to our oceans, atmosphere, and farm land that will probably kill everyone. The changes needed to slow and in some cases reverse this damage won't "put us back to the stone age." How on earth is reducing the use of fossil fuels and replacing them with things that generate less CO2 and pollutants (nuclear, wind, solar, something else), going to put us back to the stone age? How will more responsible fishing and farming and marketing methods put us back to the stone age? How will reducing waste and better recycling methods put us back to the stone age? There's no downside to going green if you do it right. Replacing things like engines to generate less CO2 does not decrease the amount of CO2. Cars still increase CO2. All that you are advocating is a decrease in the exponential INCREASE in CO2 in the atmosphere. And if you take even a glance at the numbers you will realize this makes no difference at all, especially when you consider that each plant that opens each day in China offsets thousands and thousands of hybrid cars. You are fighting a losing battle. Even if the entire United States went into the stone age, China and other industrializing countries would still be increasing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is why reversing the trend would in fact require a global economic depression. But you seem to think that using solar energy and recycling more is gonna fix the problem over time, which affirms my point that such people don't care about facts or numbers, only the feeling that they are impacting the world. Well no fucking shit if China just does its own thing and fucks everyone it won't work, amazing logical conclusion there. Reversing the trend doesn't require a depression, because doing nothing still wouldn't reverse the trend. You have to do something to clean up the environment and lower the amount of man made CO2 per year. Once it's down to a certain point natural mechanisms can get back to doing what they're supposed to. Clearly you didn't understand my argument, because your response doesn't make sense. I'm saying even if you were to completely eliminate 100% of the CO2 emission in the US, meaning shut down every single plant, car, engine everywhere, the global CO2 concentration would still be INCREASING, just at a slower rate. I'm saying even in a completely impossible environmental dream scenario, things would not be getting better. The only way things could be better would be to go back to a time before industrialization, which would entail mass deaths like the world has never seen. It can't be called anything other than delusion to think that buying some solar panels and recycling and driving more efficient cars is going to "save the planet."
1. Doesn't read what I wrote.
2. Responds to arguments I didn't make.
3. Assumes I don't understand what he meant.
A+ post.
No, I understand your post perfectly, it's just stupid.
Why are you focusing only on the US? Clearly in any dream scenario change wouldn't just be in the USA. Why do you ignore the fact that there are ways to actively reduce the amount of CO2 already in the environment, not just reduce the amount we produce? Why do you ignore the fact that there are other environment issues besides CO2?
And what happens if we're wrong? Nothing bad at all. We develop more efficient energy sources, make our drinking water cleaner, the air we breath cleaner, and our soil less polluted. We waste less stuff.
Where's the downside to improving efficiency and alternative energy? Where is it?
|
On July 27 2012 05:16 Bigtony wrote:
Where's the downside to improving efficiency and alternative energy? Where is it?
It's all about how it's done and with whose money.
Here's an example: http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/03/51077
The NAS said that between 1,300 and 2,600 fatalities and at least 97,000 injuries were caused by auto size reduction ushered in by fuel standards.
I'm sure it's nice to believe we are all viciously unfairly oppressed by Evil Big Oil and the Evil Super Rich but the truth is solar power has been hyped as the great savior for over half a century now and it is LESS EFFICIENT than what we already have now. The first electric cars were made in the Nineteenth century and even today they remain LESS EFFICIENT than what we already have now.
When their time comes it will be their time but until them throwing away hundreds of billions of dollars on an egostroke that you are doing good things to save the world is a luxury we shouldn't indulge in.
|
On July 27 2012 05:44 dvorakftw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 27 2012 05:16 Bigtony wrote:
Where's the downside to improving efficiency and alternative energy? Where is it? It's all about how it's done and with whose money. Here's an example: http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2002/03/51077Show nested quote +The NAS said that between 1,300 and 2,600 fatalities and at least 97,000 injuries were caused by auto size reduction ushered in by fuel standards. I'm sure it's nice to believe we are all viciously unfairly oppressed by Evil Big Oil and the Evil Super Rich but the truth is solar power has been hyped as the great savior for over half a century now and it is LESS EFFICIENT than what we already have now. The first electric cars were made in the Nineteenth century and even today they remain LESS EFFICIENT than what we already have now. When their time comes it will be their time but until them throwing away hundreds of billions of dollars on an egostroke that you are doing good things to save the world is a luxury we shouldn't indulge in.
How much research has been put into fossil fuel power generation? I'd guess a lot more than electric/solar cars. Look at the advances made in just the last 10 years, in BOTH areas! We see fuel efficiency numbers in petrol powered cars no one ever dreamed of and electric cars that aren't scrap. The fact is fossil fuels are a brute force answer to energy, one that we have refined to be very efficient. The harsh truth however, is that they will run out eventually. Isn't it better to research an alternative now, while we still are in a good place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
