L0VE2FLY
Topic Author
Posts: 860
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2012 10:54 pm

Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:00 pm

If so, why did the Ice Ages ended?! There was no humans burning fossil fuels back then.

One fact we can all agree on is the Earth's climate is continually changing. Whether human activities are to blame for climate change that's where the debate begins, So what do you think?
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:05 pm

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):

One fact we can all agree on is the Earth's climate is continually changing.

True - but does it have to do with the "rate of change"?

Is the temp raising faster because of human activity?
Step into my office, baby
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Thu Apr 25, 2013 9:07 pm

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):
So what do you think?

The pace of the current change cannot be explained with natural phenomena.
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:43 pm

Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Probably not.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Thu Apr 25, 2013 10:44 pm

I think it comes down to what real scientists say because I highly doubt 90 some percent of them are in a conspiracy...

Then we got to see how much of an impact we make and if green measures do or don't help out, and the consequences are for not going green

Lastly, and this is a big turn off for many (and I can't blame people) is the politicalization of it all. On one side you bias energy companies funding anti-global warming stuff, then you have the other extreme which uses global warming to JUST increase taxes.

Politics seems to screw everything else and make steps 1 & 2 more meddled. I'm gonna go with the majority of climotologists on this one but at the same time, I'm gonna be very wary of exploitful governments...
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7700
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:23 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Probably not.

The only economic study I'm aware of says it's far cheaper than dealing with the consequences.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Thu Apr 25, 2013 11:51 pm

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):
If so, why did the Ice Ages ended?! There was no humans burning fossil fuels back then.

Hmm, so if it was natural back then it must be natural now? Like if a house burns down after a lightning strike then no other house can be burned down by a pyromaniac.

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):
One fact we can all agree on is the Earth's climate is continually changing. Whether human activities are to blame for climate change that's where the debate begins, So what do you think?

I don't think that is where it begins. Looking at history it is clear that humans have had no problem changing the environment. Thus the question shouldn't be if global warming is man-made but where it is going and if we should help it get there or work on keeping it closer to what we have today.

I am convinced the negative effects of higher average temperature will have very negative effects on humans and then it is clear we should work on stopping it. The only difference between man-made and natural is that it is easier to negate man-made effects.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:04 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 5):
The only economic study I'm aware of says it's far cheaper than dealing with the consequences.

And did you read this in Tree-Hugger Monthly by any chance?
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2591
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:05 am

Quoting Aesma (Reply 5):
The only economic study I'm aware of says it's far cheaper than dealing with the consequences.

Cheaper for whom? Depends on which country is responsible for the warming.

I sometimes get very annoyed at the "anti-science" people who deny global warming is happening despite the enormous weight of evidence to the contrary. I have little sympathy for those who question whether global warming is man made or not- to me it doesn't really matter; the question is what the effect will be and what we can do about it. Questioning its cause seems too much like abdication of responsibility.

But when you start getting into the question of what to do about it there comes a problem. Most proposed solutions involve forcing large numbers of people to do things they don't want to in a uniform manner, which is simply unrealistic, especially when there's no visible driver for change. The vast majority of the world couldn't care less about a few atolls in the ocean disappearing- they will continue to delude themselves until the water is lapping at their front gate.

Challenging the science is futile and nonsensical. Challenging policy and direction should be encouraged, and I don't believe we're doing that enough yet.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 3727
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:12 am

Global Warming thread alert!

Don the gas masks, man the turrets, it's here again!...
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
User avatar
DeltaMD90
Posts: 8245
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 11:25 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:19 am

Quoting francoflier (Reply 9):

Global Warming thread alert!

Don the gas masks, man the turrets, it's here again!...

I'm hoping we can learn from it, because honestly, there is a lot I do not know because it gets drowned out by politics. How much is indeed human? How much good can we do (or can't do?) Etc.

Not sure if that was the intention of the thread but I'd like to see it go there (for once.) And I don't want it to be one sided, I still like to see anti-GW info... unfortunately, a lot of that info isn't peer reviewed like the pro-GW stuff is
Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
 
flymia
Posts: 6810
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:34 am

It's happening. That's not much of a question what the question is, how much are we humans actually adding to climate change and do we really have an affect on changing something as unpredictable, huge and mysterious which earths climate is. Obviously not taking about weather or even climate over a few years I'm talking centuries. We have no idea what's going on with that and probably never will.

People talk about how strong hurricanes are yet some of the strongest happened in the 1920s and 1930s. People talk about polar ice but we have no idea how much sea ice there was 500 years ago.

Us adding in green houses gases has to do something I imagine but the actual impact is the question. A big impact? A little? Might take some time to figure out and then it might be too late but cities flooding by 2070 like showed in an inconvenient truth is not happening.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:02 am

After surviving Al Gore and other alarmist's barrages, my personal belief is that there probably is an impact on overall global climate via humanoids, however, the earth does not maintain the same distance from the sun at all times, and of course the earth tilts on its axis, which leads to getting warmer than "usual" and colder than "usual". Been that way for a zillion years and it will be that way for another zillion years (unless we blow ourselves up first).

When I opine that there probably is an impact as a result of advanced human endeavor, I do believe the impact is far down on the scale of importance versus the impact of, say, a couple of monumental volcanic eruptions. I guess we can help the environment a bit, but I am thinking natural phenomina will probably always win. Must stop here. all best...jack
all best; jack
 
NoUFO
Posts: 7397
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2001 7:40 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:37 am

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 12):
the earth does not maintain the same distance from the sun at all times, and of course the earth tilts on its axis, which leads to getting warmer than "usual" and colder than "usual".

It cannot be the sun for at least 2 reasons:

1) While it is getting warmer near ground, it is getting cooler higher up in the atmosphere. It is the same effect as putting a lid on a pot. Would it be the sun, temperatures would climb everywhere in the atmosphere.

2) Night temperatures near ground are climbing slightly faster than day temperatures.

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 12):
I do believe the impact is far down on the scale of importance versus the impact of, say, a couple of monumental volcanic eruptions.

But it is actually the other way around. Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

Your two arguments have long been outdated, sorry, and if people are interested in Al Gore, then they are Americans. Only Americans mention his name when discussing global warming.

[Edited 2013-04-25 18:38:17]
I support the right to arm bears
 
StarAC17
Posts: 3400
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2003 11:54 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:25 am

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Well if a few large cities are deemed inhabitable in the next century then we will know the answer to that question.

Quoting flymia (Reply 11):
People talk about polar ice but we have no idea how much sea ice there was 500 years ago.

Regarding Sea Ice that doesn't contribute to rising sea levels as an iceberg has already displaced that water. Also climatologists have a good idea of how much ice there was up to hundreds of thousands of years ago as well as the gas concentrations back then. They are alarmed because they cannot find historical evidence of this much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

Where sea ice is relevant also is that ice reflects heat and water absorbs it.

One of the things humans are doing besides emitting so much greenhouse gas is taking away a lot of the things that suck up the carbon such as trees (deforestation needs to be slowed) and farming practices can be changed that could do much more to reverse the trend than stopping all industry.

This TED talk gives some insight to a potential solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
But it is actually the other way around. Humans emit 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes.

Volcanoes would actually help to reverse the warming as SO2 reflects sunlight back into space and has a temporary cooling effect. It happened in 1992 after Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, and bigger eruptions such as Krakatoa also had this effect.
Engineers Rule The World!!!!!
 
trav110
Posts: 536
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2005 2:49 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:15 am

There is virtually no dispute among climatologists that anthropogenic climate change is happening. This is not political, it's scientific. I certainly don't consider myself very well-versed on the subject but I'll believe a scientist before I believe someone who is uninformed and who uses anecdotal evidence and personal experience to support their opinion.

[Edited 2013-04-26 00:28:14]
 
Mir
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 7:32 am

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Probably not.

If you think that changes in climate don't have significant economic and geopolitical costs, then you're very much mistaken.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18260
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:01 am

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 3):
Probably but is it economically worthwhile trying to stop/reverse it?

Probably not.

So - what - things like the Clean Air Act in London were a waste of time?

That all those pollutants pouring into the air from coal burning fires weren't really a problem, that buildings weren't really caked with soot because of them and that thousands of people didn't really die from the effects of the great smog of 1952?

Gosh.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 10:47 am

Quoting Mir (Reply 16):
If you think that changes in climate don't have significant economic and geopolitical costs, then you're very much mistaken.

First of all define "significant".

Secondly where have i ever stated there would not be costs?

The point i made is that the costs of climate change are unlikely to exceed the costs of preventing it.

Quoting mariner (Reply 17):
So - what - things like the Clean Air Act in London were a waste of time?

No because the Clean Air Act looks to be economically viable. Having a deadly smog in your capital city is probably worse for business than changing household fuel sources and relocating power plants out of cities.

However giving up fossil fuels is probably worse for business than a 3mm annual rise in sea levels.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18260
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 11:54 am

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
However giving up fossil fuels is probably worse for business than a 3mm annual rise in sea levels.

Not for those countries which will disappear under the sea.

There are already advanced plans for relocating people from some of the Pacific Islands to higher ground in other countries. Those resettlements won't be cheap.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
AF1624
Posts: 498
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2006 6:57 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:17 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
However giving up fossil fuels is probably worse for business than a 3mm annual rise in sea levels.

I recommend you watch the film called "The Island President" which covers in quite nice detail what would happen to the Maldives if this happened.
Cheers
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:22 pm

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
Quoting cptkrell (Reply 12):
the earth does not maintain the same distance from the sun at all times, and of course the earth tilts on its axis, which leads to getting warmer than "usual" and colder than "usual".

It cannot be the sun for at least 2 reasons:

1) While it is getting warmer near ground, it is getting cooler higher up in the atmosphere. It is the same effect as putting a lid on a pot. Would it be the sun, temperatures would climb everywhere in the atmosphere.

2) Night temperatures near ground are climbing slightly faster than day temperatures.

Agreed it is not the Sun. It's slightly variable, but not a Cepheid-type variable star. If it was, we wouldn't be here. If you take as true that the Sun's output is constant, and also accept as true that we have hugely depleted the ozone layer in the stratosphere, then:

- insulating ozone blanket no longer effectively absorbing solar energy in the stratosphere;
- solar energy therefore penetrating close to ground level;
- ergo average temperatures near the ground increasing (this is independent of CO2-induced temperature rising);
- night temps increasing more quickly due to large swathes of land 'baking out' during the day, re-radiating heat back to the lower atmosphere at night.

There are of course many other factors involved: deforestation/reforestation, agricultural practices, solution of CO2 into the upper layers of the oceans, and so forth.

One thing seems clear: there is likely about 2 degC 'worth' of CO2 in the atmosphere working it's way up into the stratosphere now, and this is likely unstoppable. So over the next 50 or so years, we are going to see a much different Earth than we have now. Not quite like Venus, but taking a couple of steps down that road. And the effects on the human population and condition are going to be significant.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:30 pm

Quoting AF1624 (Reply 20):
I recommend you watch the film called "The Island President" which covers in quite nice detail what would happen to the Maldives if this happened.
Quoting mariner (Reply 19):
Not for those countries which will disappear under the sea.

There are already advanced plans for relocating people from some of the Pacific Islands to higher ground in other countries. Those resettlements won't be cheap.

mariner

Sorry but do you actually think that losing a few islands is going to be worse for the global economy than neutralising the release of carbons?

Really?
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:51 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 22):
Sorry but do you actually think that losing a few islands is going to be worse for the global economy than neutralising the release of carbons?

Do you think that by giving up a few islands we can forget about CO2 for all future? Sounds to me that you take a view that the problem can be pushed till after you're dead.
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:09 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 23):
Do you think that by giving up a few islands we can forget about CO2 for all future? Sounds to me that you take a view that the problem can be pushed till after you're dead.

Not at all. Unlike people who espouse spending our way out of our current economic problems i am against passing on our problems to future generations.

The amount of oil on the planet is finite. At some point price incentives will divert behaviour to carbon neutral fuel sources. It may even happen before if we discover new technologies like fusion.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 1:37 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
The point i made is that the costs of climate change are unlikely to exceed the costs of preventing it.

I see that you're focussing on monetary costs. That begs the question: do you think that the only relevant aspect of climate change is its financial effect?
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:02 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 25):
I see that you're focussing on monetary costs. That begs the question: do you think that the only relevant aspect of climate change is its financial effect?

What other effects do you believe exist?
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:12 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 26):
What other effects do you believe exist?

You must be joking.

off the top of my head and in no particular order: starvation, political upheaval, war, destruction of homelands and habitats, further loss of biodiversity, less resilience against (and hence greater impact of) natural disasters such as flooding
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
Mir
Posts: 19107
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:17 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
First of all define "significant".

The costs of Hurricane Sandy have been estimated in the $40-50 billion range, and those sorts of storms have been predicted to become more common as a result of climate change. That'll be significant.

Desertification will reduce prospective arable land, raising food prices around the glob. That'll be significant.

Increased water demands because of desertification will result in regional conflicts. That'll be significant.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 2:30 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 27):
You must be joking.

off the top of my head and in no particular order: starvation, political upheaval, war, destruction of homelands and habitats, further loss of biodiversity, less resilience against (and hence greater impact of) natural disasters such as flooding

But these things implicate economic problems. Starvation means a lack of ability to pay for food. Man made and natural disasters implicate negative economic costs.

We stopped using fossil fuels. You believe there would be no starvation? War? Mass poverty?

[Edited 2013-04-26 07:30:46]
 
cmf
Posts: 3120
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2011 11:22 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:05 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 24):
The amount of oil on the planet is finite. At some point price incentives will divert behaviour to carbon neutral fuel sources. It may even happen before if we discover new technologies like fusion.

Great, you agree there is a problem. SO why not start dealing with it?
Don’t repeat earlier generations mistakes. Learn history for a better future.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:10 pm

Quoting cmf (Reply 30):
Great, you agree there is a problem.

Where did i say there was a problem?

It's not necessary to put words in my mouth.
 
captaink
Posts: 3987
Joined: Wed May 23, 2001 10:43 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:12 pm

Climate Change (not global warming) is a fact. The earth´s climate patterns are responding to anthropogenic activities. The earth´s natural variation is being exacerbated by our activities. The planet is a system and all systems tend to equilibrium. It is fool hardy to think that our activities on the scale that we carry them out would have no effect on the climate. When regional and local climates responded to increased activity during the industrial revolution. So as the system (earth) tends to equilibrium, the changes might be more drastic.

We do not know what this change will include, and a warming of the earth might only be one result, if it is a result at all. But our activity is affecting the earths climate, one way or the other.

Problem is, the topic has been taken and corrupted by politics and greed. We all know how that is going to end.

[Edited 2013-04-26 08:14:30]
There is something special about planes....
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2724
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:29 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
The costs of Hurricane Sandy have been estimated in the $40-50 billion range, and those sorts of storms have been predicted to become more common as a result of climate change. That'll be significant.

This isn't factual. Hurricanes have occurred long before man was burning oil, and there has been no increase in Hurricane, Typhoon and Monsoon activity or severity in the last 50 years, in fact over the last 100 years the severity rating is on average down.

Quoting mariner (Reply 19):
There are already advanced plans for relocating people from some of the Pacific Islands to higher ground in other countries. Those resettlements won't be cheap.

Still far cheaper than giving up all fossil fuels, which may not prevent the loss of those islands at this point anyways...
These islands aren't heavily populated either. Last time i checked if we relocated all populations from islands with the average terrain height of under 30m/ASL it would be less than 300,000 people total.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 24):
The amount of oil on the planet is finite. At some point price incentives will divert behaviour to carbon neutral fuel sources. It may even happen before if we discover new technologies like fusion.

People have been saying that one since the 70s, and there are STILL reserves for the current rate of consumption IN PRODUCTION to last over 100 years. Add in known but untapped reserves and it jumps to 150 years+.

If we stop using oil and coal for electrical generation that number goes up further still, and that is a possible and economic goal by 2050 if we don't go all anti-nuke (still using cleaner fossils like Natural Gas until 2100 as well).

My opinion:

If we dig through the hogwash from both sides...
The world isn't going to end tomorrow because of this. As humans we adapt, and we ARE adapting to changes all the time. We can slow our reliance on carbon conversion and move to a more ecologically balanced economy but we do NOT need to do it overnight at huge cost.

The world changes, we change, we survive, we evolve... it's that simple.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:38 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 29):
Starvation means a lack of ability to pay for food.

...or to produce it in the first place: "When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money." It's difficult enough as it is, we shouldn't be working towards the flooding of fertile coastal areas.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 29):
Man made and natural disasters implicate negative economic costs.

Are you really completely indifferent towards the deaths of other people?

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 29):
We stopped using fossil fuels. You believe there would be no starvation? War? Mass poverty?

If we stopped tomorrow, it would be a disaster, but nobody is even remotely hinting at such insanity. What we need to and can do is reduce the dependency on fossil fuels through all sorts of efforts. Oil is far too versatile a raw material anyway for it to be wasted "because you can".

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 31):
Where did i say there was a problem?

So you're saying that there isn't one? In that case, you're confusing your own disinterest in with irrelevance of the topic.

[Edited 2013-04-26 08:40:11]
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
cptkrell
Posts: 3186
Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 10:50 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:44 pm

I based my post (Rep 12) from memory, often the wrong thing to do, but will submit the following in reference to Siberian engineer Mulkin Milankovich's theory which, I believe, HAS been accepted in many professional circles after decades of speculation and following serious scientific study.

The prominent 100,000-year temperature cycle due to changes in the earth's ORBIT eccentricity had dominated climate change during the recent million years. During a long earlier phase of the Pleistone epoch, the rise and decay of ice sheets had followed a 41,000 year cycle related to shifts in the inclination of the earth's AXIS. That's my memory and my reason reason for Post 12, and I just accessed such on an interesting site (web address below). I've somewhat plagiarized some of the verbage because it's more precise than my writing.

Now for the caveat (for me, anyway)...if the timing of ice ages was set by variations in sunlight falling on a given hemisphere, why didn't the Southern Hemisphere get warmer when the Northern got colder and vice-versa? The changes in CO2 and methane gases linked the hemispheres physically warming or cooling the whole planet.

I'll quote here..."It (Antartic ice core records) strongly confirmed that the Milankovitch-cycle orbital changes initiated a powerful feedback loop The close of a glacial era came when a sunlight shift caused a slight rise of temperature, and that evidently raised the gas levels (CO2 and mmethane)...and so forth."

I think this is valid science...but if I think this is valid, I must agree with the following conclusions (that so many of you agree with) from the same paper and update my thinking that things are-a-changing and the current warming is mostly the result of adding of gases to the atmosphere.

"It's a tastey desert topping." "NO! It's a space-age floor wax." "STOP! You're ALL correct.!"

Perhaps not totally conclusive in many circles, but I found the following very interesting. It's a bit of a long read, but not entirely tedious if you are interested in the ice ages to global warming topic. Best regards...jack
wwww.aip.org/history/climate/cycles.htm
all best; jack
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 3:48 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 22):

Sorry but do you actually think that losing a few islands is going to be worse for the global economy than neutralising the release of carbons?
Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 33):

The world changes, we change, we survive, we evolve... it's that simple.

Why do anything then really? Why clean the water supply? Why not dump raw sewage on a river? I bet its more economical to sh*t in outside your doorstep that have your city maintain an entire sewage system. After all - how did cavemen do it?

Such a defeatist attitude.

Funny, how you say "evolution". Humans evolved to THINK and to find solutions, to make life better. You seem like you do not want to evolve,..
Step into my office, baby
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2724
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:10 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 34):
It's difficult enough as it is, we shouldn't be working towards the flooding of fertile coastal areas.

Even if sea levels go up by 30m we loose very little farmland.
If theres a 30m increase, it sucks for Bangladesh, Florida (but hey Disney World will get a real beach!) and Louisiana, but the effect on productive land in minimal, and a 30m increase is pretty much a doomsday scenario prediction.

And honestly, we would do alot of counteraction to prevent loss of anywhere valuable...
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:20 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 34):
or to produce it in the first place: "When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money." It's difficult enough as it is, we shouldn't be working towards the flooding of fertile coastal areas.

A lack of ability to produce food in sufficient quantities is one half of what causes a lack of ability to pay for it.

Quoting aloges (Reply 34):
Are you really completely indifferent towards the deaths of other people?

Obviously not, because I'm arguing that measures to address global warming would cause more starvation/poverty/war than the effects of global warming itself.

Quoting aloges (Reply 34):
If we stopped tomorrow, it would be a disaster, but nobody is even remotely hinting at such insanity. What we need to and can do is reduce the dependency on fossil fuels through all sorts of efforts. Oil is far too versatile a raw material anyway for it to be wasted "because you can".

How do we stop global warming then? Or do you just want to curtail it enough for your own sensibilities. If so then i'm glad you appreciate there's an economic threshold, so we're really just disagreeing where that point lies. I'm arguing that the threshold probably doesn't register. Maybe your threshold is around the area of a token gesture but i'll let you expand if you wish.

Quoting aloges (Reply 34):
So you're saying that there isn't one? In that case, you're confusing your own disinterest in with irrelevance of the topic.

It's unfortunate that there's a side effect of our actions. But if the benefits of our actions are greater than the losses of climate change then i don't think there's a problem per se.

Quoting mt99 (Reply 36):
Why do anything then really? Why clean the water supply? Why not dump raw sewage on a river? I bet its more economical to sh*t in outside your doorstep that have your city maintain an entire sewage system.

I've already addressed a similar argument with the London smog example. Well you can apply the same argument here because London used to be a city where people shat on their doorstep. Guess what, people don't want to live in a city with shit everywhere so installing a sewage system was economically beneficial.

Would you stop a hospital being built because it involved cutting down a tree?

[Edited 2013-04-26 09:20:35]
 
aloges
Posts: 14842
Joined: Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:38 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:20 pm

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 37):
it sucks for Bangladesh

You're talking about a country of more than 150 million people. "Sucks for them" is completely inappropriate.

Apart from that, you seem completely oblivious to the locations of most large metropolitan areas: near the ocean. Just try finding new homes the inhabitants of Kobe, Kyoto, Osaka and Tokyo; Japan is mostly coastal plains and mountain ranges.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 38):
A lack of ability to produce food in sufficient quantities is one half of what causes a lack of ability to pay for it.

OK, here's a simple yes or no question: Do you agree that there are some problems that even unlimited amounts of money cannot solve?

[Edited 2013-04-26 09:29:51]
Don't cry because it's over, smile because it happened.
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:28 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 38):

Would you stop a hospital being built because it involved cutting down a tree?

Of course not. But why wouldn't you want to plan another tree some other place to replace it?
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
zkojq
Posts: 2319
Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 12:42 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:33 pm

For those interested in the Geopolitical consequences, I would suggest you have a read a book by Gwynne Dyer. It is called Climate Wars. Otherwise, I've posted links to some of his presentations/talks below. For the benefit of those who think that the geopolitical consequences of climate change are somehow unsubstantial, I have written a not-so-brief summary of a potential scenario outlined in Climate Wars. I apologize for this post being substantially longer than I originally intended.

The premise for this book is that when talking to various sources as a journalist, Mr Dyer became aware that various militaries around the world were starting to take note of climate change and beginning to to analyse (or have studies done) to assess this 'emerging threat to security'. The militaries want to know, how it might affect them and the role they will likely play and how they should prepare. In the book he discusses potential security scenarios that warming (and its secondary effects create).

Briefly I will talk about the science, and I will go on to the geopolitical stuff later.
The problem with global warming is that there is an expected 'point of no return' estimated to be at 3 degrees celsius or so. Once the temperature rises exceed that value (or thereabouts), the additional warmth causes its own natural reactions (called feedbacks) whose effects are such that they will cause warming on their own (similar principle to compound interest, I guess).

One such feedback is the melting of the permafrost around the Arctic - this is problematic because under the permafrost there is lots of methane (a far worse 'greenhouse gas' than carbon dioxide) which would be released into the atmosphere having a significant effect on warming. Anyway, point being that while the carbon emissions from human activities are the primary cause of the 'greenhouse' effect, we as the human race theoretically have control - we could stop the warming if we stopped all of our emissions (incredibly unlikely and not something I would advocate by any means). Once natural feedbacks, such as the melting the permafrost kick in, we don't have control. The effects likely become irreversible. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release

Anyway, over to geopolitics. Where I'll jot down a few points and then give a quick scenario of the effect warming could have on a certain part of asia.
- The world's human population is rising.
- Grain production is starting to fall. http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C54
- Grains are generally sensitive to temperature changes. IE if the temperature rises too much, yield starts to fall significantly. Genetic Modification can hopefully help in this area. Food Security is a big issue.
- A warmed earth produces less grain as, while some parts (such as the siberian plain) become more productive, many others produce much less because of drought.
- Governments don't have legitimacy when their populations are starving and are at significant risk of being ousted, often by extremists - eg the famine of 1916-1917 in Russia was one of the causes of the Bolshevik Revolution. More recently the Wollo famine in Ethiopia influenced the rise of Derg in the 1970s.
- Governments will protect the interests of their population before that of their neighbours.
- People do desperate things in times of famine.

Anyway, to the potential conflict. India and Pakistan (and further downstream Bangladesh) are fed by rivers that originate in glaciers in the Tibetan Plateau. The glaciers freeze in winter, melt in spring/summer and the flow of melted glacier down the river helps each nation grow food to feed their respective populations. Pakistan gets most of its water from the Indus river which actually originates in India. There was a treaty signed several decades ago between the two nations, agreeing to how the water in the Indus River's tributaries should be shared. Apparently, India gets a fixed volume and the remainder goes to Pakistan which uses the river support a population of over 150 million people. At the moment this is all well and good; the river's flow is supposedly going to increase in the immediate future as the Tibetan Plateau melts quicker and quicker. Once the glaciers have melted however, the flow of the river is going to decrease. India is still entitled to a fixed volume of water, which means that Pakistan will be getting less and less. Currently, India's fixed volume equates to about 30% of the river's current flow, so Pakistan gets 70% (this will reduce). Pakistan will have to make do with this significantly reduced volume, despite a population expected to be higher than what it is today. What happens from here? India too will have many more mouths to feed, so it is unlikely to just give water to Pakistan. If a mass famine hits Pakistan there is the risk of an ultra extremist government gaining power. Does this mean war? Something has to give. Both India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons so there is the potential for things to get very messy.

The above is just an example of a potential conflict caused by warming and subsequent famine, however there are many others around the globe. China, for example gets most of its water from the Tibetan Plateau as well. When there is a famine and food supply decreases, everyone else has to pay more for their food. Great for countries like New Zealand which is still expected to be bread-baskets, even after a moderate warming (and through supply and demand will likely prosper from it), but it really sucks for poor non-agriculturally productive countries.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK5l_0bm6ko
http://youtu.be/LVjQnaXAi6k?t=13s
I would recommend that people listen to the first several minutes of the second video, at least.

As a (reasonably) young person, I have to note that policy makers today are unlikely to be alive in 50 years time when things really will start to bite and consequences of their actions will be felt. Whereas I (and my generation) probably will. Unfortunately, this is one of those issues that can really only be dealt with on the global scale. Also, it should be noted that I was very much a 'denier' of climate change until 2008 or so.

Quoting Aesma (Reply 5):
The only economic study I'm aware of says it's far cheaper than dealing with the consequences.

  

Quoting cptkrell (Reply 12):
of course the earth tilts on its axis, which leads to getting warmer than "usual" and colder than "usual"

Isn't that called seasons?

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 14):
It happened in 1992 after Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, and bigger eruptions such as Krakatoa also had this effect.

   Yeah, weirdly an eruption like that could actually be rather handy, despite its undesirable humanitarian effects.

Quoting StarAC17 (Reply 14):

There is virtually no dispute among climatologists that anthropogenic climate change is happening. This is not political, it's scientific. I certainly don't consider myself very well-versed on the subject but I'll believe a scientist before I believe someone who is uninformed and who uses anecdotal evidence and personal experience to support their opinion.

  

Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
The costs of Hurricane Sandy have been estimated in the $40-50 billion range, and those sorts of storms have been predicted to become more common as a result of climate change. That'll be significant.

At the very least, people will be paying higher insurance premiums.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 37):
If theres a 30m increase, it sucks for Bangladesh

What is the geopolitical effect of 160,000,000 Bangladeshi refugees? Particularly considering that a massive border fence has just been completed between the two nations. If there comes a day when there is no food production in bangladesh, there will be a lot of Bangladeshis competing for food elsewhere.

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 37):
30m increase is pretty much a doomsday scenario prediction.

  
First to fly the 787-9 with Air New Zealand and ZK-NZE (2014-10-09, NZ103)
 
northstardc4m
Posts: 2724
Joined: Fri Apr 28, 2000 11:23 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:35 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 39):
You're talking about a country of more than 150 million people. "Sucks for them" is completely inappropriate.

Nice cherry pick and ignore the point of the sentence... I was speaking of lost farmland, nothing more... relocations of coastal cities is a different problem, and again dykes, coastal modification and other forms of engineering can be used to protect cities and areas of value.

Quoting aloges (Reply 39):
Apart from that, you seem completely oblivious to the locations of most large metropolitan areas: near the ocean. Just try finding new homes the inhabitants of Kobe, Kyoto, Osaka and Tokyo; Japan is mostly coastal plains and mountain ranges.

Arguments about Japan get complicated. Much of the (massive) port areas of the country are built on landfills at the optimal height for their functions, those should be excluded.

Average height of Greater Tokyo (port areas excluded) is ~38m ASL
Kobe 31m/ASL
Kyoto 32m/ASL
Greater Osaka 34m/ASL
Nagoya would actually be in the biggest trouble, as it's only 15m/ASL

However again a few dykes and those cities are all protected.

Now PARTS of those cities would be in trouble at 30m rise (again that is a doomsday unlikely scenario). Parts of Japan would be in trouble, but that can be said of any coastal nation. It is pointless to look at OMG this city will flood in isolation. Again we can and will adapt.


Lets use Tokyo as an example to use for what we can do to counteract the rise:

1) Flood control dyke at the entry to Tokyo Bay (Uraga Channel)
2) Dykes along the shore of Tokyo itself
3) Just raise the port areas to the new sea level.

Not insurmountable, the Netherlands have been doing it for centuries.

Relocation of the populations of Bangladesh etc is difficult but not impossible. And it wouldn't be overnight, we are talking a 40-50 YEAR migration, not a 2-3 week evacuation. Over 40-50 years many things change, just look where we were in 1973 and 1963.

[Edited 2013-04-26 09:39:42]
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 4:55 pm

Quoting aloges (Reply 39):
OK, here's a simple yes or no question: Do you agree that there are some problems that even unlimited amounts of money cannot solve?

Yes, of course, look at the Weimar Republic, unlimited amounts of money didn't solve that. Same as QE isn't solving today's problems. Money is just a medium of exchange.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 41):
The above is just an example of a potential conflict caused by warming and subsequent famine, however there are many others around the globe. China, for example gets most of its water from the Tibetan Plateau as well. When there is a famine and food supply decreases, everyone else has to pay more for their food. Great for countries like New Zealand which is still expected to be bread-baskets, even after a moderate warming (and through supply and demand will likely prosper from it), but it really sucks for poor non-agriculturally productive countries.

All of that may be true but think of the shit that'll kick off in the Middle East when they find out they can't sell oil any more. And think of the shit that'll kick of in China and India when they find out 2 billion people have to hault their growth because only now, after centuries of the west burning oil like there's no tomorrow are they are not allowed to do it themselves.

[Edited 2013-04-26 10:01:27]
 
User avatar
DarkSnowyNight
Posts: 1797
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2012 7:59 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:29 pm

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):
Whether human activities are to blame for climate change that's where the debate begins, So what do you think?

Short answer, yes.

Long answer, hell yes.
Be A Perfectionst, You're Nothing If You're Just Another; Something Material, This Isn't Personal...
 
AM744
Posts: 1437
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 11:05 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:01 pm

Quoting L0VE2FLY (Thread starter):
If so, why did the Ice Ages ended?! There was no humans burning fossil fuels back then.

One fact we can all agree on is the Earth's climate is continually changing. Whether human activities are to blame for climate change that's where the debate begins, So what do you think?

To the best of our knowledge at this point the answer is yes. We can think whatever we want, but science doesn't work that way. For example, there are lots of evidence that point to the validity of the Theory of Evolution, same thing in this case. We can either accept it and believe the educated guess scientists are providing us, or dismiss their hypotheses by publishing our own models and results, all the while earning a PhD in atmospheric sciences or whatever.
 
User avatar
mariner
Posts: 18260
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2001 7:29 am

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:38 pm

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 22):
Sorry but do you actually think that losing a few islands is going to be worse for the global economy than neutralising the release of carbons?

I would see the low lying islands as the canary in the mine shaft.

If they go under, quite a few of the big port cities are in trouble.

mariner
aeternum nauta
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:42 pm

Quoting northstardc4m (Reply 33):
Quoting Mir (Reply 28):
The costs of Hurricane Sandy have been estimated in the $40-50 billion range, and those sorts of storms have been predicted to become more common as a result of climate change. That'll be significant.

This isn't factual. Hurricanes have occurred long before man was burning oil, and there has been no increase in Hurricane, Typhoon and Monsoon activity or severity in the last 50 years, in fact over the last 100 years the severity rating is on average down.

I wouldn't go so far as to assert that it isn't factual. Hurricane frequency and intensity appear to depend on a phenomenon called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation). This is not 100% accepted, but is the current "state of the art". This appears to be linked to sea surface temperatures, which ae known to be rising.

AMO itself may also be correlated to a more global effect called THC, "ThermoHaline Circulation" which combines the effects of both temperature and salinity, and could be the principal driver of what we call the Gulf Stream. As ice melts into the northern and southern oceans, salinity will decrease, perturbing the periodicity of this effect (thought to be of the order of 1,500 years or so), More info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermohaline .

Enough perturbation in THC could pinch off the Gulf Stream, but there currently isn't enough data to really make a definitive statement. About 700-800 years ago there was a partial pinch off. Sea ice increased greatly, the Vikings had to abandon Greenland, people could skate on the Thames in London during the winter, and Europe was generally fucked for quite a while. A complete shut off of the Gulf Stream would be catastrophic, in terms of food supply certainty, economically, and politically.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
something
Posts: 1239
Joined: Fri May 13, 2011 5:29 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:04 pm

Quoting Aesma (Reply 5):
The only economic study I'm aware of says it's far cheaper than dealing with the consequences.

Benjour mon ami!

There is a fairly comprehensive study conducted by a leading economic council for Hamburg, Germany. Unfortunately it is available only in German, but maybe a Google Translate will do a good enough job to convey the main points?

http://www.hamburg.de/contentblob/38...ischen-folgen-des-klimawandels.pdf

There are more studies (in English as well) to be found here:

http://www.ecologic.eu/eu/publications

Quoting trav110 (Reply 15):

There is virtually no dispute among climatologists that anthropogenic climate change is happening.

If you travel a bit, you will find that the only dispute about climate change exists in countries that happen to have privately owned and corporately funded media. The USA, the UK and to some extent Australia are notorious for this. You will be very hard pressed to find people in continental Europe or South America that hold such views. Asia is interesting because the idea of political participation and their understanding of democracy is different from ''ours''. As a result, many (most?) people will not concern themselves with such issues. I have yet to meet Asians though that deny the existence of man-made climate change.

People of a certain level of intelligence and/or education don't deny the existence of man-made climate change worldwide. How could they though? The evidence leaves very little room for interpretation.

Quoting RomeoBravo (Reply 18):
The point i made is that the costs of climate change are unlikely to exceed the costs of preventing it.

If you argue that going from now to zero emissions would be economically unfeasible, then I agree with you. Unless of course, every country did it. The UK and other industrialized nations need oil and cheap coal to drive their economies. The cost of radically changing the way we do business would in any way exceed the cost of putting up with the anticipated effects that climate change will have in those regions.

But you have to look at this from a global perspective. The Maledives are going to sink in the ocean, people in Somalia will be plagued by even more droughts, etc. The poorer nations never got to benefit from the emission of green house gases to the extent the ''western world'' has, yet they'll feel the effects just as much if not more.

Personally, I don't quite understand why pollution is legal to begin with. The energy we create is only cheaper than sustainable alternatives because of the way energy is traded. Oil has no intrinsic value so therefore, following the simple dynamics of supply and demand economics, it will per definition never exceed the price people are willing to pay for it. But that is all the price of oil is really - some arbitrary value that seems affordable relative to the incomes of people. But that is not how the economy works.

In ''the free market'', externalities have to be priced into every product. If you want to release carbon into the atmosphere, you should have to pay for the clean up of it. Imagine a factory would dump their waste into the ocean, the next river or offload it into the next village because disposing of the waste would render their product unaffordable. And that is analogous to what we are doing with oil and coal - it is cheap because the price of it does not include the removal of the dirt we are leaving behind using it.

Which is why I don't understand why pollution is legal. It defies common sense, our sense of justice and every economic principle. If we produced all of our energy from renewable energy sources, the price of energy would increase compared to today's levels. But that in and of itself does not represent anything more than inflation - which is happening anyway. If every economically relevant country in the world were to change their energy production, there'd be no economic disadvantage either.

Quoting aloges (Reply 34):
...or to produce it in the first place: "When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money." It's difficult enough as it is, we shouldn't be working towards the flooding of fertile coastal areas.

Most people don't understand what money is. Or what value is. Money is not more than human labor. People produce goods or services and want to trade their goods or services with those of others. Money is what we use to make those goods and services of different natures tradeable.

The problem with climate change is that human labor cannot ''repair'' damages to the environment. Of course you could argue that New Orleans benefited from 5 cents per kw/h energy, make a calculation how much more they would have spent on energy had it come from renewable energy sources, and see if that saving outweighs the cost of the re-build. Of course any intelligent person would argue that those events are caused by people who don't even live in New Orleans and that it is unfair that your personal CO2 emissions will affect others but not necessarily vice-versa. But that aside, some aspects of global warming are nothing but an economic calculation. Some. Others, like melting polar caps on the other hand, not so much.

Or, RomeoBravo, who are you gonna pay and send up to the North Pole to re-build the ice layer there? Or what magician will you hire to bring back extinct species which cause biological imbalances with all the resulting effects in nature?

Renewable energy is not that expensive. Wind power from off-shore windparks costs about 25-30 cents per kw/h. But apparently it is more important that people - who already live in abundance - can afford just as much as they can today tomorrow without being punished by higher costs of energy. People don't want to make economic concessions. They think they somehow have a right to cheap energy - without realizing that energy is only ''cheap'' if you make others pay for it. We have all the solutions to cut down our CO2 today. Plaster the deserts in solar panels, build windparks off-shore. But why invest in that when we can also spend billions of dollars in the military, no?

Maybe we should also bring back slavery. What a boon that would be to the economy.
..sick of it. -K. Pilkington.
 
romeobravo
Posts: 1440
Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2013 8:37 pm

RE: Global Warming, Is It Really Man-Made?

Fri Apr 26, 2013 9:18 pm

Quoting something (Reply 48):
Personally, I don't quite understand why pollution is legal to begin with.

Yes it's a negative externality that has been grandfathered in of which the costs are near impossible to calculate and apportion. Certainly a pigouvian tax would be the most sensible way to address it if you were going to.

Quoting something (Reply 48):
If every economically relevant country in the world were to change their energy production, there'd be no economic disadvantage either.

No relative disadvantage but the disadvantage that we all face would be absolutely staggering.

Quoting something (Reply 48):
The energy we create is only cheaper than sustainable alternatives because of the way energy is traded.

Nonsense

Quoting something (Reply 48):
Oil has no intrinsic value

It most certainly does have intrinsic value.

Quoting something (Reply 48):
Or, RomeoBravo, who are you gonna pay and send up to the North Pole to re-build the ice layer there? Or what magician will you hire to bring back extinct species which cause biological imbalances with all the resulting effects in nature?

Why is anyone being charged to bring back a specie or re-build ice layers? The UK used to be completely forested. Who's paying to bring back those trees? Who's paying to bring back the Do do? Who's paying the pig for the ham sandwich you had for lunch? I don't condone wiping out species but everything has a price.

Quoting something (Reply 48):
But that in and of itself does not represent anything more than inflation - which is happening anyway.

Actually, it doesn't cause inflation. Inflation is only caused by an increase in the money supply

Quoting something (Reply 48):
They think they somehow have a right to cheap energy - without realizing that energy is only ''cheap'' if you make others pay for it.

Even if others aren't paying for it - and the whole premise of my argument has been that they aren't to any great extent - it's still dirt cheap.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CXB77L, EA CO AS, L410Turbolet and 6 guests