PDA

View Full Version : global warming is a hoax



grobblewobble
12-24-2009, 04:08 PM
Just let me tell you that this so-called global warming is a massive lie from a conspiracy of evil scientists who are out to destroy our civilization by letting you and me pay more taxes. Global warming doesn't exist. This is obvious, because clearly our globe has actually been cooling since july this year, and everyone knows that Greenland used to be green in the stone age. So it isn't even warming, and besides, that warming is caused by the sun and we can't do anything about it. We all know there is no evidence for global warming, other than manipulated data and unreliable computer models. Known laws of physics have absolutely nothing to do with it. Who cares about polar bears, anyway?

This is an experiment. I'm curious if this post is going to provoke even a fraction of the flames that result from stating that Treasure Hunter is AWESOME.

I hope I'm not stretching the tolerance limits of the forum too far.

gut
12-25-2009, 09:37 AM
Being from southeastern Kentucky, where a large percentage of
the populace rely on the coal industry for jobs, I'm quite sympathetic
to your views : )

Silfir
12-25-2009, 07:57 PM
I have to say that your theory makes a lot more sense than that "Treasure Hunter is somehow not awesome" drivel that's been polluting this forum since forever.

spectre
12-26-2009, 02:18 PM
You know, I have faith in scientific method, and all that. I don't even care too much about whether this whole global warming is "real." What I hate is jumping to conclusions with not enough definite data available.

What I hate even more is when such unfounded conclusions result in making inane agreements for carbon dioxide emission limits with taxpayers having to pay for them in the end.
Good show so far, let's throw real money at the imaginary problem, with a solution we're not really sure that will improve the situation.

Moeba
12-26-2009, 08:45 PM
I agree that there is not really a global warming, at least not a significant one through carbon dioxide emissions. But I do care about polar bears and I do think we should take care with nature. That's why they shouldn't have decided so hastily that there was a global warming, whether the politicians tell you to or not.
Found it quite stupid and funny that they decided that 'earth may not warm up more than 2 degrees' - I wonder what they're gonna do about it when it does happen? And how are they gonna see that it did warm up 2 degrees anyway? It's like deciding that the sun shouldn't shine more than 2 hours tomorrow. And meanwhile whole Europe was early covered with 20 cm snow... :D
I think we shouldn't be too hard on politicians and scientist when there indeed is no global warming, only when they knew that there was little basis or when they went really stupidly far with their green propaganda.

spectre
12-26-2009, 10:27 PM
When you look up how big man-made CO2 emmisions compared to the total, it get even more funny.

gut
12-27-2009, 10:21 AM
>What I hate even more is when such unfounded conclusions result in
> making inane agreements for carbon dioxide emission limits with
> taxpayers having to pay for them in the end. Good show so far, let's
> throw real money at the imaginary problem, with a solution we're not
> really sure that will improve the situation.

I agree so much with this. I am willing to help pay for something
I KNOW will work, but some of the ideas that are being forced to
pay for...

The current one in my home state (where the vast majority of our
energy is produced from coal), is to bury Co2 emisions. That's
right, I said bury them. As in: "Lets dig a great big hole in the
ground, and put all the Co2 in there!" They have already performed
many tests, and are nearly ready to impliment a full-scale, state
wide project that will possibly double many of our electric bills. All
for something we don't even know will work. Blah.

Silfir
12-27-2009, 10:32 AM
It certainly sounds way stupid, what with all the energy spent on pumping the gas down there. Energy that is generated in one of gut's reprehensible coal power plants.

gut
12-27-2009, 11:29 AM
Coal keeps the lights on : )

Evil Knievel
12-28-2009, 01:43 AM
I really feel like participating in this discussion. However, I have little to contribute: I do not have a clue, and probably you neither. They write and tell us so much shit. The ICCP (or whatever is the climate task force super squad called) consists of scientists and polititians, the latter ones probably only there to make sure that the former ones will find the truth ...
But hell, we need to get rid of our extreme need for fossil fuels very very soon.(yeah little off-topic, but not totally).

spectre
12-28-2009, 01:38 PM
Well, if nobody has a degree in the area, means we're just exchanging bullshit. We have it officially established so might as well enjoy the process.
Just kidding, you're right, unfortunately whenever there's big money involved there is a problem with honesty, and I too don't feel exactly comfortable when looking for good data, articles or whatnot.
(At best, you'll be called a GW denier, a rhetoric similar in my mind to holocaust-denier, which only pops up a red flag in my head, uh hunh, guess like someone's having an agenda to push.).

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4039
^This looks interesting, and, well, supports my viewpoint: know your shit first before you start pushing it as absolute truth, so yeah, I would agree with the guy more than with anybody else.

Cash
12-28-2009, 08:19 PM
Just let me tell you that this so-called global warming is a massive lie from a conspiracy of evil scientists who are out to destroy our civilization by letting you and me pay more taxes. Global warming doesn't exist. This is obvious, because clearly our globe has actually been cooling since july this year, and everyone knows that Greenland used to be green in the stone age. So it isn't even warming, and besides, that warming is caused by the sun and we can't do anything about it. We all know there is no evidence for global warming, other than manipulated data and unreliable computer models. Known laws of physics have absolutely nothing to do with it. Who cares about polar bears, anyway?

This is an experiment. I'm curious if this post is going to provoke even a fraction of the flames that result from stating that Treasure Hunter is AWESOME.

I hope I'm not stretching the tolerance limits of the forum too far.

haha love it.

but if this were true then independent scientists would not back the concept.

gut
12-29-2009, 10:13 AM
... or oppose it.

Grey
12-29-2009, 12:55 PM
As so very many do.

Nobbse
12-29-2009, 01:28 PM
Global Warming DOES exist!

Instead of measuring medium temperature and medium humidity at a certain point over some years you can also watch Nature itself how she reacts on the migrating climate. One of the best examples are the suisse glaciers. These were tourist attractions since over 100 years ago and there are many photos over a large amount of time which show the same glaciers in different length.

But it can also be seen in my home (Germany, palatinate) where the winemakers that were used to the same grape varieties over the decades have to plan carefully now which grape varieties they have to plant at which places for the future. They already have to take into account the climate shift!

But while some germans may find it nice that Germany is getting warmer ("only" some more deaths in July at the nursing homes for the elderly, some more crop losses, ... ) , the situation for other countries is horrible. States like Egypt and Bangla Desh lose a lot of ground (literally) to the sea at their coastline - each year! And for some Island States the narrow-minded reactions of a certain U.S. president in the past felt like a war declaration! But even living in a country like germany that could feel like a "climate change winner" I have to take into account, that there will be soon millions of people migrating from "climate change losers" states to the "climate change winner" states...

It's absolutely clear that nature reacts when You put ALL the carbon based fossil fuels that were taken out of the biological cycle million years ago in a very short time of 200 years back into the nature cycle again.

Some american hoax media will sell You it's about conspiracies and taxes, but no, it's not about that - it's about changing the american way of life - The truth is: You simply cannot afford going on with your american lifestyle anymore. The way this is paid for (whether taxes or whatever) is irrelevant, but the change of lifestyle has to be paid - somehow. And this truth they don't dare to sell you, because of ... well ... Just look f.e. what european, korean, japanese car builders have done the last 20 years to reduce the gasoline consumption of their cars. And then look at what GM has done...

At all Americans here: please stop reading american media only, You have to read media from all over the world to see what is really happening...

Just as an example (there are millions) :

There are 5 big german glaciers
1. N?rdlicher Schneeferner
2. S?dlicher Schneeferner
3. H?llentalferner
4. Watzmanngletscher
5. Blaueisgletscher (am Hochkalter)

Their surface area has been reduced from 329 to 98 hectares in the last 150 years, because of a temperature shift of 2 degrees in the alpes. 30 or 40 years from now on there won't be any more german glaciers. Its saddening though it's not that important for germany because we have enough fresh water resources, but there are a lot of countries where the glaciers are important resources of fresh water...

Evil Knievel
12-29-2009, 02:30 PM
Global Warming DOES exist!

Instead of measuring medium temperature and medium humidity at a certain point over some years you can also watch Nature itself how she reacts on the migrating climate. One of the best examples are the suisse glaciers. These were tourist attractions since over 100 years ago and there are many photos over a large amount of time which show the same glaciers in different length.

Only the most extremist people would deny that there is global warming, since there is a lot of indication. Global warming has always been there in the past naturally, even very recently, hence the question boils down to what can we do about it and to what extent do we already influence climate. The article mentioned by spectre gives a balanced opinion I think.
Unfortunately, about this particular question nothing is absolutely clear. It's just too complex. Scientists are trying to give an "educated guess" here and even more unfortunate is that politians and media bias everything to the extreme, towards their interests, so we really only know, that we do not really know how educated that guess is. It would be important to know though, since I think, we do not need to be completely sure in order to act if so much is at stake.

Completely off topic is probably another thing: Can you imagine how much good could be done with the money that battling climate change is going to cost us? There are people already in misery at present without possibly changing sea levels and helping them should be quite cheap in comparison.

That we do not act here indicates to me that nothing will be done about drowning people on fiji islands in the future either. The rest is dreams.

gut
12-29-2009, 04:27 PM
> At all Americans here: please stop reading american media

I'll agree with that, having gotten rid of my TV over 2
years ago, and not touching newspapers with a 10 foot
pole. I couldn't be happier.

> You have to read media

No I don't, and stop telling me what I have to do. That's
why I got rid of my TV.

> 30 or 40 years from now on there won't be any more german glaciers

30 or 40 years ago, people were scared out of thier gourds
that the 'global cooling' was going to end us all. Google it.
They were arguing over the legitimacy of data back then,
the same as we are now.

Grey
12-30-2009, 12:42 AM
There's a lot more scientific evidence, and in particular scientific consensus now. The only scientists who argue with global warming are hacks after media attention or are in the pocket of certain influential parties. Of course global warming evidence has its problems in that hippy idiots tend to overstate things a little and the media likes to play it up for its usual drama, but the long-term effects are well-understood by modern science and are taken seriously by almost every government in the world (apart from some crackpots like the Venezualens).

vogonpoet
12-30-2009, 08:15 AM
If only governments were any good at doing stuff apart from fighting to remain in power.


Global warming/climate change: not a hoax. Lots of data, really, but I am not going down the graphs road here. Why bother flogging more dead horses?
Are humans solely responsible? No. See climate history.
Are humans partially responsible? Probably. See endlessly discredited then recredited hockey stick graph.
Does the whole stupid climate change debate get in the way of solving other important problems related to the environment? Yes, yes indeed.
Is the earth screwed anyway? Probably.
Does that mean we should give up? Nah.

As for the money required to battle climate change being more usefully spent elsewhere, yeah, we could probably spend it on all sorts of cool stuff, solve world poverty, make sure no kids anywhere die just cos they are hungry, etc etc, but that wouldn't actually happen, it seems we developed countries prefer to spend most of our money on bribing farmers to do less work, and most importantly, making lots of bombs and weapons and lethal stuff. Frankly, I would rather give it to the scientists, see if they can come up any new cool crap.

/utterly biased environmental scientist in a quite badly polluted fairly poor country.

Dudley
12-30-2009, 09:17 AM
Just a thing

IF global warmin is a hoax, and we're not responsible..... well, earth will adapt anyways.
if it isn't. Well, animals will be more adapted to humanity. Which is good.

So.... why bother?

gut
12-30-2009, 10:19 AM
> The only scientists who argue with global warming are hacks

One side calls the other hacks, the other calls the one wackos.
I think they are all in it for the money.

These 'scientists' who do venture to the icecaps, glaciers,
whatever, to 'study' them, from where do they get the
money? Think about it, funding an expedition would be
quite expensive. You have to buy the boats, equipment,
staff, food, fuel, media coverage (accomodations at least),
and so on? The best way to gather hordes of money from
a people is to create two sides, the 'good' ones, and the
'bad' ones. Seperate them by geography, political leaning,
skin color, whatever. Just make sure both sides have
plenty of money, and a stake in what you are saying. This
means you should threaten the regular opperation of
their buisinesses, theaten to besmirch people's images,
you know, the regular tactics used by mobster all over the
world for generations. Now, tell both sides that we are all
on the brink of disaster because of the other side. Tada!
Now you are funded.

You think these people go pan-handling to people on the
street, saying "We think we might have a problem. Would
you like to share your paycheck with us?" They wouldn't
raise a nickel. I wonder how many expeditions are lead
by the best scientist, and how many are lead by the best
fundraiser? Politicians get to say "I'm the one who REALLY
cares about the Earth!" and so they don't mind spending a
hunk of (your) money to buy that image for themselves.
For private funders, they may use their own money to buy
their image, but I'm sure there are tax incentives to make
it well worth their while, which comes back to tax payers
footing the bill once more.

If you have money, and an agenda, there will be plenty of
'scientists' lining up to say whatever you wish. 'Scientists'
are like anyone else, they'll go where the money is. You
wanna a 'scientist' to say that tobaco isn't addictive, just
fund him. You will be pleasantly surprised at his 'findings',
I'm sure. You wanna a 'scientist' to say that asbestos is a
fun diet suppliment, just fund him. I'm sure his research
will delight you as well. I won't believe a word any of
these money grubbers say unless I know who's funding
them.

Silfir
12-30-2009, 11:20 AM
Calling scientists "hacks" based on the fact that they're holding a minority opinion might be stepping over the line a little bit.

vogonpoet
12-30-2009, 11:56 AM
Calling all scientists "money grubbers" based on the fact that they're unable to create science from thin air and actually expect money not just for equipment but also in order to buy food and shelter for themselves and their families might be stepping over the line a little bit also.

Silfir
12-30-2009, 02:10 PM
My point is, what's the point of stepping over the line just a little bit?

Science is SATANISTIC DEVILRY! All environmental scientists routinely use the tears of dead children and the blood of puppies, kittens and clowns to fuel their evil machinations. All the climate rubbish is just a diversion for their real, sinister, selfish goals. I mean, really? What have scientists ever done for us? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExWfh6sGyso&feature=related)

Moeba
12-30-2009, 02:15 PM
Just a thing

IF global warmin is a hoax, and we're not responsible..... well, earth will adapt anyways.
if it isn't. Well, animals will be more adapted to humanity. Which is good.

So.... why bother?

One problem is that some lands will drown or need bigger dikes, like the Netherlands where I live - though a bigger problem will be India. We should be prepared, also for other effects, if there is a definite global warming. At the moment I don't think there is, just periodically, but if there is then preparations are good.
Another problem is that some species do get extinct from global warming, and as of yet there didn't come any new species. Like the polar bear, for which I do care: it does adapt, but still their numbers decrease. That is what pro-nature persons should care about, rather than stopping global warming: what species can we save, counting all practical problems and if we want to? Of course it would be better if we could fix global warming, were it our doing. But I won't believe that before they simulate the effect of carbondioxide in 'world temperature' with supercomputers following the physical rules, when it does have a significant effect.

gut
12-31-2009, 10:29 AM
> Calling all scientists "money grubbers" based on the fact that
> they're unable to create science from thin air

Nah, I call them money grubbers for the same reason I do politicians.
If you fund them, and they don't support whatever you want, then
they are legitimate scientists/politicians. If you fund them so their
findings/laws WILL support whatever you want, then they are money
grubbers. Or maybe you think tobacco isn't addictive?

> actually expect money not just for equipment but also in order to
> buy food and shelter

The money they so graciously give to one, must ultimately come
from another. Tell the coal miner that it's OK for a portion of his
paycheck to be stolen from him, in order to fund...yet another
icecap study.

vogonpoet
12-31-2009, 07:19 PM
Happy Hogmany btw guys, heres hoping this develops into a proper flame war about economics and science in the new year.
For any newbies out there, treasure hunter sucks by the way, its a wasted talent, take the PV line instead.

Cheers,
vp

Albahan
01-01-2010, 08:27 AM
In regards to polar bears:

Ok lets be honest with ourselves, if you ever met a polar bear in the wild it would rip your face off as soon as it could get its paws on you. Besides, ever heard of a little something called natural selection? Polar bears can't adapt to find food therefore they die, survival of the fittest people. We have no moral obligations to help them.. and yet we spend crap loads of money to try to save them when we should be spending it to save starving HUMAN BEINGS. So i say boohoo so sad to the polar bears and can't wait for them to be extinct.


Basically polar bears are Nazis (minus the whole hate for the Jewish thing)

gut
01-01-2010, 10:00 AM
> if you ever met a polar bear in the wild it would rip your face off

Indeed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ob_oD1IsYbE


> when we should be spending it to save starving HUMAN BEINGS

It was once theorized that undernourished parents should
eat their children, thus simultaneously improving one's
diet and reducing the population.

Polar bears have provided me with entertainment, and so I say
they should stay. If we could breed bipolar bears, I would be
the happiest man on Earth.

Dudley
01-01-2010, 10:17 AM
Just saying another thing, to support Albahan :
have we got the right to step in natural selection just like that?
And nazism - the jewish hating = best gove ever. at least, it works best than any that ever has been shown to mankind.

grobblewobble
01-01-2010, 07:21 PM
Wow, I'm impressed. It turns out that ADOM players can have an argument over something not called Treasure hunter. :p

There's a lot in this thread that I'd like to respond to, but for now just a few remarks. I will drop my sarcasm now, I'm not that good at this thing called humour anyway.

Polar bears get a lot of attention from environmental organisations in relation to global warming, but I'm afraid this is spreading the false impression that it is mainly a problem of those animals. It is not. Polar bears are hit relatively hard and early in comparison to human beings, but the long-term problem is far broader and larger in scale than a local threat to wildlife. Sea level rise is going to be a problem for many nations, while an increased frequency / probability of extreme weather events (or extended droughts) are theatening food and freshwater supplies. It is a problem that has been created in the geological blink of an eye, but will most likely last for centuries upon centuries. If in the next centuries we would be reckless enough to extract and burn every source of fossil fuel that can be found, not just oil and gas but also all coal, all oil in tar sands and oil shales, we may even be risking a runaway greenhouse effect like on Venus (according to NASA scientist Jim Hansen this is even a `dead certainty`). I know this is a bit hard to believe, since that would be a disaster even worse than the sensational crap in some movies. But yeah, this has a scientific basis and may actually happen.

In a first reply to Gut, I like how you are open about your personal economical dependency on coal and yeah, of course it is not realistic or desirable to advocate a complete ban on fossil fuels, at least not in the next decades. Our lives currently depend on consumption of fossil fuels. We?re addicted. But opening our eyes and recognizing that this addiction has at least potential negative consequenses is the first step toward finding a cure.

Dudley
01-02-2010, 08:55 AM
Yup. basicly, once you reach a certain quantity of greenhouse effect, the effect gets so hi that the water evaporation is enough to release carbon dioxide. vicious circle. which ends when there's no more water => venus.

Grey
01-03-2010, 08:17 AM
Yup. basicly, once you reach a certain quantity of greenhouse effect, the effect gets so hi that the water evaporation is enough to release carbon dioxide. vicious circle. which ends when there's no more water => venus.

Well, that's taking things to extremes a little. As has been said, the earth has been warmer in its past, and I don't think man-made global warming will cause so terrible a cycle as to result in a Venus-like Earth. The problem is more just that it's going to make the planet rather uncomfortable for us and many other mammals.

I love the conspiracy theories about global warming scientists - as if they get paid tremendous amounts to make bullshit up. True, that does happen with politicians (and Fox News executives), but scientists are peer-reviewed, need a wealth of evidence to back up claims, and on the most part don't get paid a great deal. I think they'd be more trusted though if annoying hippies weren't on the same side...

Dudley
01-03-2010, 09:40 AM
^^<3 annoying hippies.
Alternatively, we could also end up with a frozen earth. at least, northen hemisphere. know the gut stream? (sorry, the gulf stream?) without it you can coold down all america an europe. to≈ canadas temperature. with all cataclysm caused by that.

Dudley
01-03-2010, 09:46 AM
Also note that venus was like earthe before, it simply heated up due to the sun emitting more energy.

Grey
01-03-2010, 09:46 AM
I think that theory (well, more conjecture) has been shown to be rather baseless. The gulf stream is very unlikely to be affected by even large amounts of arctic ice drift.

From what I seen from experts one of the most worrying things is the effect on plankton, and the resultant impact on global ecosystems. We've already had a severe number of extinctions in the last century, and it looks like that's set to increase exponentially in the next, with climate change being one of the main contributors. Of course you could say survival of the fittest, but it would be a rather dull earth with just us and our pets and farm animals, with a few species kept preserved in zoos.

Dudley
01-03-2010, 09:48 AM
hey. note that we could feed on plankton. i think if it dies we're ALL screwed. more or less. more than less.

Conjecture seems reasonable enough to me. climate is EXTREMELY fragile a thing.

gut
01-03-2010, 10:38 AM
> I think they'd be more trusted though if annoying hippies
> weren't on the same side...

I think they would be more trusted if they would stop saying
whatever they are paid to say.

> need a wealth of evidence to back up claims

You wanna a link to the 'wealth of evidence' that says tobacco
(nicotine) isn't addictive? No need to question it, it was
discovered by ~scientists~. It has to be true.

> but scientists are peer-reviewed,

The peers will also say what they are paid to say. Count on it.

> number of extinctions in the last century,
...
> with climate change being one of the main contributors.

I blame population increase, and developement, not Co2.

> climate is EXTREMELY fragile a thing.

Not in my eyes. The ice age was brought about by too many cars?

fazisi
01-04-2010, 08:21 AM
> > with climate change being one of the main contributors.
>
> I blame population increase, and developement, not Co2.

That's crazy talk gut. It is clearly the emissions from the
bulldozers that are killing all the frogs, not the bulldozing
of the swamps to put up a super mall.

As for global warming, being a Canadian, I say BRING IT ON!
We need more beaches up here anyways.

vogonpoet
01-04-2010, 08:32 AM
gut dude, honestly, should no one get paid for anything? You really think all science is bunk? Just climate science? All environmental science? Even stuff which leads to concrete developments in engineering? Going back how far?

We have some lovely canals here in Serbia which as a scientist, I believe to have been badly polluted by man, and which we are trying to clean up, but anyone who doubts the sincerity of the people I work with (ha ha, cos we get these massive kick backs from all over the place, especially those incredibly powerful global sludge treatment plant cartels) is welcome to come swim in them, bathe their children there, drink freely of the waters, etc. I will warn you though, that in my apparently worthless professional opinion, it might be dangerous to your health.

The reason I don't normally get involved in the climate change debates is because they just serve to completely bypass debate about other environmental issues which are also important.

garyd
01-04-2010, 10:45 AM
Okay lets get soemthing straight.

The facts are these:

The antarctic reveresed a 3000 year long warming trend somewhere in the mid 1980's according to at least 3 different peer reviewed scientific studies.

A computer glitch caused us to underestimate the size of the arctric ice sheet 2 summers ago by several thousand square miles. So no Polar bears aren't threatened by global warming.

All glaciers aren't melting, Kilamanjaro in fact is slowly evaporating because it wasn't fed by rain nealry so much as by water vapor from the forests below that largely no longer exists. there are over 160k glaciers in the world we have good long term data on less than 5% of them. It is therefore impossible to say what 95% of them are doing and for how long they've been doing it making projections nearly impossible.

East Anglia where the Data was compiled has made it quite clear that they engaged not in science but fraud and strong arm tactics.

The Medieval Warm period appears to have been considerably warmer than it is now and seems to have been pretty much a golden age for man kind so the scare stories about possible harm caused by warming seems a bit far fetched. I f you wish to believe other wise get back to me when Grapes are growing wild in North Germany and Nova Scotia.

In short there is a hell of a lot of science out there on the subject now and enough of it runs counter to what the AGW crowd are putting out to make any sane person question all the fear mongering they're doing even if there own e-mails didn't strongly indicate that they were creating this crap out of whole cloth.

gut
01-04-2010, 03:02 PM
> That's crazy talk gut. It is clearly the emissions from the
> bulldozers that are killing all the frogs, not the bulldozing
> of the swamps to put up a super mall.

That gave me a good laugh : )


> gut dude, honestly, should no one get paid for anything?

Getting paid is part of life. Selling your integrity isn't.

> You really think all science is bunk?

Nope. I'm a 'follow the money' kind of a guy. If something
smells fishy, I wanna see the money trail. It isn't limited
to science. There are many fields that are 'holy', meaning
that it is almost an offense to ask to see a money trail.
I believe it's these areas that are the worst for corruption.
Compared to some churches and political groups, environmental
scientists are a fairly ethical bunch.

> Just climate science?

No, in particular I'm much more cynical of the food and
drug industry. One never reads about a powerful lobby being
successful in it's efforts to raise standards in food
production. Instead, they are allowed to continually suck
more and more nutrients out of foods, and replace them
with antibiotics, steroids and other drugs. If one looks
at the money trail, it's obvious that something is never
exchanged for nothing.

> All environmental science?

Misguided environmental science is irritating, and can
often be replaced by common sense. The kind that is
carefully and intelligently targeted to make a real
difference is invaluable.

> Even stuff which leads to concrete developments in engineering?

In my eyes, those are possibly the ones with the least
amount of inherant corruption, or maybe just hypocricy.
Those scientists seem to be honest about the fact that
they are persuing money.

> Going back how far?

I think there is a time/corruption curve, and it gets
a bit steeper every year.

> We have some lovely canals here in Serbia which as a scientist,
> I believe to have been badly polluted by man,

You should see the Kentucky river. I have a septic tank
installed, but most don't. I'd like to see it change,
but it's hard to make people pay for something that they
honestly can't afford.

> anyone who doubts the sincerity of the people I work with
> (ha ha, cos we get these massive kick backs from all over

Your data doesn't smell fishy, so I'd see no reason to
request a money trail. It's entirely believable that
Serbian canals are poluted and should be cleaned. I suspect
though, that the Serbian people are in a similar position
as the Kentuckians where money is concerned.

> welcome to come swim in them, bathe their children there,
> drink freely of the waters,

They do that in India, not Indiana (or Kentucky).

> my apparently worthless professional opinion, it might
> be dangerous to your health.

Convince your countrymen, somehow, to install septic tanks.
Don't ask me how, as I've yet to convince any of my own
countrymen to do the same.

> climate change debates is because they just serve to
> completely bypass debate about other environmental issues
> which are also important.

I would view the 'other' ones as more important, as they
have a lower corruption factor, in my opinion. In Kentucky,
there have been many successful environmental efforts in
regards to re-introducing wildlife to the region that had
been previously severly depleted or extinct. We now have
surprisingly large populations of black bear, and I've
recently even had the chance to see one personally.
Whatever tax money they spent to research, plan, and
implement those projects was money well spent IMO, and I
wouldn't begrudge a bit more. Perhaps the Co2 fanatics
could learn a bit here...

Dudley
01-04-2010, 05:41 PM
i hate considering science as in relation with money. can't say you're wrong. can't say you're not going to die on the 5th january 2027 from a heart attack. Iff what you can't say as wrong is true, then we're doomed.

Grey
01-04-2010, 08:36 PM
> my apparently worthless professional opinion, it might
> be dangerous to your health.

Convince your countrymen, somehow, to install septic tanks.
Don't ask me how, as I've yet to convince any of my own
countrymen to do the same.


How do we know you're not just in the pay of the septic tank corporations? ;)

vogonpoet
01-05-2010, 07:54 AM
Definitely sounds that way :)

Sadly, we have a shortage of political will born out two things: an disconcerting absence of public concern regarding the environment (honestly, a massive increase in NIMBY would actually help matters for once) partially brought about by the fact that 10-15 years ago, this region had altogether more pressing problems, and the fact that the political situation here remains so unstable, that no one in power ever plans to still be in power beyond the next election, and instead just tries to skim off as much wealth as possible in the short time they have (with possibly some exceptions maybe).

In many respects, the money issue is moot - if any sort of political consensus could be reached, money from the EU would flow into the country, to ensure we have enough drinkable water, to ensure we don't excessively pollute the poor Danube, etc. Consensus here is hard to find though, as up until recently, lots of infrastructure stuff was owned by the state, and every time the government changed (often), all the people in charge of the infra were changed as well - the electric, drinking water, wastewater, the oil industry, the transportation industry, agriculture, etc. all had new management willing to follow the party line.

If it takes 5 years to investigate the best possible method (efficacy and efficiency) for treating a town's drinking water (not unreasonable for the design and testing of a water treatment pilot plant), and the people whose responsibility it is to commision (and indeed fund) those investigations change every 3 years in a horrendously partisan manner, then decisions get, err, postponed. Indefinitely.

As time goes by, less stuff is owned by the state, and that which is owned by the state becomes slightly less unstable, but its all so slow, and meanwhile, even the industries are still pumping out their untreated waste, let alone private individuals not fortunate enough to be connected to the sewer system (many of whom do have septic tanks :), some of whom just empty them on nearby fields when they get full :( ). Throw in the damaged and neglected state of the municipal wastewater treatment plants, and its a story of doom and gloom right enough.

Small steps, public awareness raising, increased dialogue with industrial polluters, research into absolutely the most cost-effective treatment methods, increased dialogue with water authorities to try and ensure our nascent pollution regulations are actually enforced at some point, more public awareness raising, hope survives.

gut
01-05-2010, 12:31 PM
> How do we know you're not just in the pay of the septic tank corporations?

I would have spammed you before now : )

Up until just now, I never actually realized that there were such
things as septic tank corperations, but I suppose there are.

garyd
01-05-2010, 10:17 PM
Evel my lad the fossil fuels aren't the problem where we are getting them from is. Consider the following:

Those hydrogen powered cars they keep saying are just around the bend? We have two sources of easily extractable hydrogen water which by the takes more energy to obtain thatn the retireved hydrogen produces and fossil fuels There is a reason we call the things hydrocarbons...

2nd neither solar or wind can ever be more than 20 or 25% of the power grid due to reliability issues. The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. That leaves Nuclear which the same crowd that hates fossil fuels also hate with a mad burning passion.

3rd if you thing the politicians are there to make sure the scientist find the truth you are sadly out of touch with reality. The only thing politicians give a damn about is power and if a convenient lie assures them of power why then they will opt for the convenient lie...

Grey
01-05-2010, 10:53 PM
I'd love to hear in detail how politicians and scientists profit so greatly from the global warming myth, as opposed to the rather more renowned profit-greedy oil corporations.

grobblewobble
01-05-2010, 11:16 PM
Well, that's taking things to extremes a little. As has been said, the earth has been warmer in its past, and I don't think man-made global warming will cause so terrible a cycle as to result in a Venus-like Earth. The problem is more just that it's going to make the planet rather uncomfortable for us and many other mammals.

This is what I was thinking, until recently. But James Hansen (director of the NASA institute), claims that a Venus-like earth is a real long-term threat. Long-term, because the ice sheets would have to melt first, which would take a couple of centuries. He also doesn't claim that it can happen in moderate scenario's, but only when all coal and other carbon sources would be exhaustively burned. Here's a video where he explains his opinion.

http://bigthink.com/jameshansen/the-science-of-global-catastrophe

Maybe he's holding a minority opinion here, though - I'm not sure.

Evil Knievel
01-06-2010, 12:52 AM
Evel my lad the fossil fuels aren't the problem where we are getting them from is. Consider the following:

Those hydrogen powered cars they keep saying are just around the bend? We have two sources of easily extractable hydrogen water which by the takes more energy to obtain thatn the retireved hydrogen produces and fossil fuels There is a reason we call the things hydrocarbons...


So hydrogen cars are not the solution, agreed. Still will they be necessary to bring any kind of alternative energy on the road.



2nd neither solar or wind can ever be more than 20 or 25% of the power grid due to reliability issues. The sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. That leaves Nuclear which the same crowd that hates fossil fuels also hate with a mad burning passion.


I don't know, still it doesn't help, we have to do more on that side, not less. It's bad that it is difficult, but that's not a good reason to give up. The less we do the worse will it get (it will get unpleasant anyway, you are right).
Second: I have another opinion, I think the sun does always shine and the wind does always blow, and I think there is a lot more energy in those ressources than mankind can use up ever. Look at that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertec
Of course, it might never work, but it is better than not to try. Same goes for nuclear fusion.



3rd if you thing the politicians are there to make sure the scientist find the truth you are sadly out of touch with reality. The only thing politicians give a damn about is power and if a convenient lie assures them of power why then they will opt for the convenient lie...


The statement I was referring to was a bit ironic, so I agree with you once more.

garyd
01-06-2010, 04:41 AM
Grey the scientists get jobs and promotions and grant money from the politiicans the politicians get what politicians always want power.


All governments are eventually if not immediately about the Usurpation of power. It's what they have always done and will always do. The US does not have an efficient government. That is by design. Efficient governments are dangerous governments regarding the rights of their citizens.

What politicians generally mean when they state they wish to stream line government is that they haven't been able to use the current government sufficiently to liit the prospects of there opposition.

Sorry Evel. Sarcasm sometimes doesn't come across well in print...;)

Grey
01-07-2010, 08:06 PM
Then why did the previous administration in the US go so much against the idea of global warming? Why are smaller nations at the moment angry that their more powerful brothers didn't do more at the Copenhagen summit to set lower emissions targets in stone? Surely they should all be united in the international global warming conspiracy designed to give them lots of mysterious power?

garyd
01-08-2010, 03:38 AM
First off Bush did not go that much against Global warming. And even if he had in this country it would merely mean he'd done a better job of reading the political tea leaves correctly than has his succesor thus far.

In this country it is damn hard to make major changes to the geopolitical landscape and as much as Yankee country and the West coast would love to ape every damn thing Europe does no matter how foolish, the portion of the country between the Appalacians and Rockies is far more distrustful of the Washington power brokers no matter who is running the country. Bush Like him of not was a big government conservative, spending vastly more on social progams than he did on the War on terror thus he was a best ambiguous regarding Global warming and at worst complicit in the purchase of the hype.

Adom
07-04-2010, 01:54 AM
> At all Americans here: please stop reading american media

I'll agree with that, having gotten rid of my TV over 2
years ago, and not touching newspapers with a 10 foot
pole. I couldn't be happier.

> You have to read media

No I don't, and stop telling me what I have to do. That's
why I got rid of my TV.

> 30 or 40 years from now on there won't be any more german glaciers

30 or 40 years ago, people were scared out of thier gourds
that the 'global cooling' was going to end us all. Google it.
They were arguing over the legitimacy of data back then,
the same as we are now.
While I am very late to this debate, I may as well put in my input. Global Cooling was not believed my the majority of scientists when the theory was popular. Global Warming is believed by the majority. I do not know whether global warming is real or not. But we can all solve the problem if we are creationests!

gut
07-04-2010, 07:03 AM
You must have went to the wiki for 'global cooling'. Well, it is the first
place link, but I consider that something of a farce actually. It presents
the theory of global cooling as something of a misguided fluke, then
procedes to chat at length about the dangers and reality of modern day
global warming :D

Anyhoo, here is google's second place link: http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Widescale+Global+Cooli ng/article10866.htm

It explains to us that last year's worldwide COLDEST STINKING WINTER
in decades was not just conjecture or dreams that we mortals might have
imagined, but has now been verified through ~science~. Wonder how
much that cost me?

> I'd love to hear in detail how politicians and scientists profit so greatly from the global warming myth

Don't know how I let that one slide without a responce! I'll break it down
into steps for you.

Step 1. Collect money from the masses (2.1 trillion for USA masses).

Step 2. Get into a position to allocate it (3.7 trillion for USA :D).

Step 3. Smile as everyone and his kid brother comes to you begging for
their share (countless billions in USA lobby money per year). Unthinkable
that $ are allocated with quid pro quo in mind?

Step 4. Environmental groups/movements/concerns relating to Co2 come
with sufficient votes, therefore get sufficient funding, as does any other
special interest. Other concerns, just as real (maybe more important)
don't come with votes/image incentives, so to the back burner they go.

Evil Knievel
07-04-2010, 10:48 AM
It explains to us that last year's worldwide COLDEST STINKING WINTER
in decades was not just conjecture or dreams that we mortals might have
imagined, but has now been verified through ~science~. Wonder how
much that cost me?



Well, funnily to that I was listening to a talk in of some guy who is a critical on global warming, metereologist from... well I can dig out the details soon.

Anyway, he was showing temperature maps of last years harsh winter, and it turns out that it was one the warmest ones we ever had, if considered worldwide. There has never been so few ice in the arctic as in this winter since observations are done.

On another note, his main argument critizising the global warming thing (well, not global warming, but the human factor) was that statistically we can well predict the impact of CO_2 (some +X plus minus 1.Y degrees as far as I remember) , but not the effect of Aerosols (that is, we know the mean effect, but it#s possible variance is so big: some +(smaller than X) plus minus 5 degrees or so). So according to him, there is not enough data to support all that.

But he also said one thing that is quite critical to the whole debate and that separates scientists from the public: weather and climate are different things. Climate can not be observed, but weather can, but the two don't have much to do with each other and are often confused by public and media.

EDIT: Link to that (or at least a similar picture) that he showed. It matches quite well my memory. The anomaly in Europe and US is quite different in sign as the rest of the world, hence the different perception.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen09_fig5.jpg
Figure caption: Figure 5. (a) global map of December 2009 anomaly, (b) global map of Jun‐Jul‐Aug 2009 anomaly. #4 and #2 indicate that December 2009 and JJA are the 4th and 2nd warmest globally for those periods.

The whole page seems to give a lot of info, but I honestly have not read it.

gut
07-04-2010, 07:23 PM
I can't say my graph is more accurate than yours, but it is
opposite. Just follow my link above, it is the first graph you
see, and is supposedly backed by some (surely expensive)
science. Regardless of which graph you believe, mine or
yours, it just goes to demonstrate what I've been saying
all along, 'science' is a very purchasable thing.

grobblewobble
07-04-2010, 10:10 PM
Both graphs are correct, but the graph linked by gut has clearly been cherrypicked, with dates chosen to show the most "cooling" that they could find. Why do you think that graph has been cut off exactly at january 2008? Why does it start on the top of a peak in 1988? Why does it only show 20 years, while it is generally agreed upon that the shortest period you need to draw valid conclusions about climatic trends is about 30 years?

People presenting "science" like that are the ones trying to hoax us. Just have a look at the whole graph of the same data set: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

There is some real scientific debate on the relative importance of greenhouse gas forcing and other factors, but we are not in a period of "cooling". That's a flat-out lie.

gut
07-04-2010, 10:59 PM
> People presenting "science" like that are the ones trying to
> hoax us. Just have a look at

> http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/

This is how these things always wind up, because of scientists
selling their 'professional' opinions. You can't believe anything
that anybody says. You can discredit any link I find with 'they
are hoaxing us' and I can discredit your links with 'they are
fanatics who will say or do anything to further their agenda'.
Here is a link discrediting your source.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/29/water-vapour-climate-change

"The new research comes at a difficult time for climate scientists, who have been forced to defend their predictions in the face of an embarrassing mistake in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which included false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035. There has also been heavy criticism over the way climate scientists at the University of East Anglia apparently tried to prevent the release of data requested under Freedom of Information laws."

boris_pankov@inbox.ru
07-05-2010, 07:18 AM
Oh! A greenish post! I`ll read it from the begining )

Nobbse
07-05-2010, 09:12 AM
The reason that many Americans don't want to see that global warming is no hoax:

Acceptance of global warming theory means you accept that there?s a 500,000,000 year buildup of carbon in the ground, left by all those evolving plants and animals, and that digging much of it out and putting it into the air over a few hundred years makes a difference to a world created by a diety about 6,000 years ago.

The answer of a too religious bible belt inhabitant might be:
"How can that be true if the earth is 6,000 years old, and the coal and oil were put there for our use? "

Silfir
07-05-2010, 12:28 PM
"Americans don't believe in global warming because they are creationists"?

Oh fuck yes I was dying to witness a decent flamewar again! I should grab the popcorn right quick!

vogonpoet
07-05-2010, 01:00 PM
Yeah, the one thing the internet really needs is another pointless climate change thread, whereby people who refuse to listen to one another type endless screeds and post stupid graphs which no one has seen ever seen before, and where scientists are somehow portrayed as being more greedy and self-serving than the corporations, cos everyone knows those universities are just hot-beds of the rich, whereas the poor corporate types are just doing their best to put food on the tables for their families blah blah blah tiny violins etc etc.

Better off discussing the lack of balance in the talents system of a computer game which has as much chance of being updated this century as a whelk does of making a happy home in a supernova.

Nobbse
07-05-2010, 03:15 PM
The argumentation I wrote was not intended to be the ONE and only reason. I read it in Fefes Blog, a famous sarcastic german blogger. I thought it would be at least worth smiling a bit about it. Nevertheless the basic message might be not completely out of truth... ;)

But I want to add another voice: there is an interview with Nikolaus von Bomhagen in the actual german weekly magazine SPIEGEL. He comes to the conclusion that global warming is not a matter of believing or not, it is simply a fact, because of the correlated increase of floodings and storms. His company is checking all the scientist papers (both the papers of the global warmers and those of their antagonists) and though there were some problems in handling some details on the global warmer side (the famous Himalaya glaciers) he has not the slightest scepticism in global warming in general.

Now You might ask - who is this strange Nikolaus von Bomhagen? Why should I give any attention to his opinion? Well, he is CEO and chairman of the executive board of the "Munich RE" (the Munich Reinsurance Company) and this is one of the biggest reinsurance companies worldwide. I don't think that there is another company that has a better overview bout what's happening at the moment...

JellySlayer
07-05-2010, 04:43 PM
My ideology is fairly pragmatic: people have been predicting the end of the world since before the days of Christ, and have been, without exception, wrong. Despite our best efforts, we've dodged nuclear armageddon, global cooling, dozens of near-Earth asteroids, the evaporation of the ozone layer, swine flu, avian flu, SARS, smallpox epidemics, the worst wars in the history of mankind, and the collapse of several of the world's greatest empires. Is global warming going to be worse than any of the problems we've already dealt with, or had the good fortune to avoid thus far? Possibly. But doomsday prophets have a pretty poor track record. We will survive global warming. Things will be worse for some people and better for others.

It's worth pointing out, too, that the problem as it stands is not that global temperature can't rise too high. Biodiversity heavily favours warm areas--the vast majority of living organisms are not that far from the equator. This includes, to a fairly significant degree, humans, with a majority concentrated in near-equatorial Asia. There's huge expanses of land, in, say, Northern Canada and Russisa, that are essentially inhabited, not only by humans, but also by animals because it is too cold. There is no reason to think that our current temperatures, globally, or really, even locally, are optimal. The danger is not in the increase itself, but the rate of increase. Nature takes many generations to adapt to changes in climate. If, over the next thousand years, the temperature was to slowly increase by 2, 5, or even 10C, there probably wouldn't be a problem. We'd see some extinctions, sure. But mostly we'd see outward migration of species from the equator. We'd probably see the same in people. But if the same changes happen in 20, 50, or 100 years, the effects could be much more severe, because fewer species would have the opportunity to adapt. Humans will survive. We're remarkably resilient and we can adapt to change quickly, although not always correctly.

What bothers me about the whole debate is the way that the proposed solutions have been framed. Namely: reduce emissions or perish. I don't believe that this position is defensible because it ignores a whole host of measures that could be extremely efficient at dealing with the problem of global warming, although they may create other problems. For example, consider a geoengineering solution: rather than reducing warming emissions directly (eg. CO2), we could simply increase the amount of cooling emissions (eg. SO2) to compensate. It's been argued that we already produce more than enough cooling emissions that, properly deployed (namely in the upper atmosphere rather than the lower atmosphere where most of these end up), we'd be easily to easily overcome the effects of global warming. What's great about this is that it's a dynamic response system: we can design our instruments to eject coolants either into the upper atmosphere, and have a bypass that dumps into the lower instead. Thus we could tune with some accuracy the amount of cooling we want. Now, of course, we then have to deal with the consequences of dumping extra SO2 into the atmosphere, but if you believe that global warming is a problem of apocalyptic scale, then such solutions shouldn't be off the table. The utility of such a thing is almost certainly higher than allowing a genuine catastrophe. On the other hand, if you don't feel that global warming is such a problem to justify such solutions, how can you argue that people should be willing to severe compromise their quality of life to justify emission reductions? The utility of the geoengineering could well be higher than lowering carbon driven standards of living worldwide as well, at least until a renewable, cheap, replacement for fossil fuels can be found.

Nobbse
07-05-2010, 05:29 PM
We will survive global warming. ... Humans will survive. We're remarkably resilient and we can adapt to change quickly, although not always correctly. . I don't doubt that. And Humans will get used to worse conditions more and more - and forget there were better conditions decades ago. But I honestly ask You: "Do WE have the right to determine the life conditions of OUR future generations like that? "


"Things will be worse for some people and better for others."

Look at the globe closely: probably worse for a lot of people and better for the minority of people. And the lucky few won't allow the majority to migrate to the comfort zones - until they are FORCED to give the room. Then the lucky few will discuss military solutions or they will get used to live in gated communities. Yes, You can get used to live a life like that - there are a lot of rich people that live like that in South Africa, Mexico City, some places in the U.S.A., ... But it gives the creeps to most Europeans to think of living like this a lifetime.


... how can you argue that people should be willing to severe compromise their quality of life to justify emission reductions? Just think about the quite probable loss of quality of life of a LOT of people in the future in comparison... By the way: The Deepwater Horizon Incident proves that the quality of life of a lot of people already is lowered RIGHT at the moment by the oil industry, because greed and taking risks without really mastering the technology is an unholy alliance.

zasvid
07-05-2010, 07:10 PM
My ideology is fairly pragmatic: people have been predicting the end of the world since before the days of Christ, and have been, without exception, wrong.

Well, for everything there must be a first time ;)

grobblewobble
07-05-2010, 07:10 PM
For example, consider a geoengineering solution: rather than reducing warming emissions directly (eg. CO2), we could simply increase the amount of cooling emissions (eg. SO2) to compensate. It's been argued that we already produce more than enough cooling emissions that, properly deployed (namely in the upper atmosphere rather than the lower atmosphere where most of these end up), we'd be easily to easily overcome the effects of global warming.

SO2 has a much shorter lifetime in the atmosphere than CO2. So that would mean you permanently need to keep adding SO2 to the atmosphere in order to keep the temperature down. That doesn't sound like a very practical solution.

A transition to renewable energy is already possible. It would be a large investment, but in the long run it would mostly pay for itself because fossil fuels will in any case become more and more expensive anyway. With a combination of nuclear power, wind and solar energy it is already possible to supply a very large part, if not all of our energy needs. The only thing needed is the political will to do it. It would be expensive, but not as expensive as the Iraq war, for example.

There's a very good book (available for free) about this subject that discusses the numbers behind this matter. Without the Hot Air, by McKay.

JellySlayer
07-05-2010, 07:15 PM
I don't doubt that. And Humans will get used to worse conditions more and more - and forget there were better conditions decades ago. But I honestly ask You: "Do WE have the right to determine the life conditions of OUR future generations like that? "

As I said, people have been predicting the end of the world for generations. On average, things have been getting better, not worse. Worse things than global warming have already happened, and things are still better. Worse things than global warming have already been avoided, and we're no worse for it.


Look at the globe closely: probably worse for a lot of people and better for the minority of people. And the lucky few won't allow the majority to migrate to the comfort zones - until they are FORCED to give the room. Then the lucky few will discuss military solutions or they will get used to live in gated communities. Yes, You can get used to live a life like that - there are a lot of rich people that live like that in South Africa, Mexico City, some places in the U.S.A., ... But it gives the creeps to most Europeans to think of living like this a lifetime.

It's no coincidence that the majority of people already live in the world's warmest climates--that is the world's prime real estate. Increasing temperature is not going to necessitate mass migrations from Mexico City to Toronto, or from Dubai to Berlin. I don't see any reason to entertain such notions without proof.


Just think about the quite probable loss of quality of life of a LOT of people in the future in comparison... By the way: The Deepwater Horizon Incident proves that the quality of life of a lot of people already is lowered RIGHT at the moment by the oil industry, because greed and taking risks without really mastering the technology is an unholy alliance.

Thanks for quoting me completely out of context.

[edit]


SO2 has a much shorter lifetime in the atmosphere than CO2. So that would mean you permanently need to keep adding SO2 to the atmosphere in order to keep the temperature down. That doesn't sound like a very practical solution.

We already produce more than enough SO2 as a by-product in many industrial processes. We're just not putting it in the right place, but getting sufficient SO2 isn't a problem. Yes, it doesn't stop the warming in the long term, but if it buys us another 200 years to develop a fully renewable energy source? I'd buy that.[edit2]Just to add, I'm not saying that SO2 is the only solution. I'm saying that process like these shouldn't be ruled out as part of the solution. This particular one has the advantage of being cheap, easy to do, controllable, and we essentially understand the science behind it.


A transition to renewable energy is already possible. It would be a large investment, but in the long run it would mostly pay for itself because fossil fuels will in any case become more and more expensive anyway. With a combination of nuclear power, wind and solar energy it is already possible to supply a very large part, if not all of our energy needs. The only thing needed is the political will to do it. It would be expensive, but not as expensive as the Iraq war, for example.

There's a very good book (available for free) about this subject that discusses the numbers behind this matter. Without the Hot Air, by McKay.


You need fossil fuels to extract uranium; you need fossil fuels to build solar cells; you need fossil fuels to make windmills. More to the point, something like 20&#37; of the world's fossil fuels go to making fertilizers to maintain food production. That latter point is probably actually a much more serious short term problem that needs fixing than global warming.

grobblewobble
07-05-2010, 09:43 PM
About SO2: If I understand correctly, it needs to be injected into the upper atmosphere to have sufficient effect, right? That sounds like a very costly operation. In principle any kind of geo engineering is nice to think about, but I'm not yet convinced it would be practical. How many tons of it would be needed and how would it be transported to the upper atmosphere? What would the side effects be? Maybe you could give me a link to more info?

In any case, whatever happens, the solution to global warming will surely be a combination of prevention and damage control.

By the way, another type of geo engineering that is possible is to mine and crush CO2 absorbing rocks at a massive scale. In this case however, absorbing one ton of CO2 is more expensive than not emitting it.



You need fossil fuels to extract uranium; you need fossil fuels to build solar cells; you need fossil fuels to make windmills.
At least in the case of solar cells and windmills, this is negligible in comparison to the amount of fossil fuel you need for coal and oil powered stations. In terms of fossil fuel use a windmill pays itself back in a couple of months, while it has a lifetime of about 20 years.

With regards to fertilizer production, this is another reason why it would be wise to switch to renewables quickly. We need fossil fuels (especially oil) for production of materials, so burning them for energy is a waste.

JellySlayer
07-05-2010, 10:18 PM
If you can access it, this paper (http://www.springerlink.com/content/t1vn75m458373h63/fulltext.pdf) offers a nice overview of the subject. The idea is essentially based off of the claim that:



In the stratosphere, chemical and micro-physical
processes convertSO2 into sub-micrometer sulfate particles. This has been observed
in volcanic eruptions e.g., Mount Pinatubo in June, 1991, which injected some 10
Tg S, initially as SO2, into the tropical stratosphere (Wilson et al., 1993; Bluth et al.,
1992). In this case enhanced reflection of solar radiation to space by the particles
cooled the earth?s surface on average by 0.5 ◦C in the year following the eruption
(Lacis and Mishchenko, 1995). Although climate cooling by sulfate aerosols also
occurs in the troposphere (e.g., Ramaswamy et al., 2001), the great advantage of
placing reflective particles in the stratosphere is their long residence time of about
1?2 years, compared to a week in the troposphere. Thus, much less sulfur, only a
few percent, would be required in the stratosphere to achieve similar cooling as the
tropospheric sulfate aerosol (e.g., Dickinson, 1996; Schneider, 1996; NAS, 1992;
Stern, 2005). This would make it possible to reduce air pollution near the ground,
improve ecological conditions and reduce the concomitant climate warming. The
main issue with the albedo modification method is whether it is environmentally
safe, without significant side effects.
(emphasis mine)

For completeness' sake (or if the article is unavailable), I note that this paper is arguging that we might wish to add the sulfur to the upper atmosphere to compensate for the effect of our current efforts to reduce it from the lower atmosphere, an effect which will otherwise increase solar flux by ~0.10% per year, and is estimated would, alone, lead to a net 0.8K increase in global temperature. His estimate is that this would require about ~2% of the current global current SO2, and pegs the cost at a not-insubstantial $25-50 billion per year, although that claim is apparently based on 1992 technology.

The wikipedia article on stratospheric sulfur aerosols (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_sulfur_aerosols_(geoengineering)) discusses the topic in marginal detail.

gut
07-05-2010, 10:57 PM
Whatever happend to those nice CO2 drinking machines
called trees? I've heard that the world can compensate for
increased warmth and CO2 with increased vegetation
growth. Problem is, now trees are being reduced at the
same time as CO2 is increasing. I'd be much happier
funding reforestation programs as opposed to emmision
reduction programs. Firstly, I believe they would actually
work, and if they don't, well, at least we get the trees.

EDIT: I was unable to find it, but I have seen a satellite
photo of borders between certain countries that really
puts this into perspective. Very green country on one
side, a very brown one on the other. The side that
deforests their land too much pays for it.

Nobbse
07-05-2010, 10:57 PM
hmmmm, while I think that sulfur method might principally be working - the side effects in the long term may be devastating - Do You know the term "Waldsterben" ? One of the reasons for it is acidly rain...

At the moment for me the most practical geo engeneering method with the least side effects is simply planting trees! That doesn't push the carbon out of the bio cycle but at least most of the time out of the air - at least if you doesn't fire them instantly afterwards and it's also good albedo-wise. There are a lot of places where historically should be more trees that should be reforested (northern mongolia, around the mediterrean sea, ... )

EDIT - gut had the guts to present the same idea earlier ;)

Dudley
07-05-2010, 11:00 PM
Whatever happend to those nice CO2 drinking machines
called trees? I've heard that the world can compensate for
increased warmth and CO2 with increased vegetation
growth. Problem is, now trees are being reduced at the
same time as CO2 is increasing. I'd be much happier
funding reforestation programs as opposed to emmision
reduction programs. Firstly, I believe they would actually
work, and if they don't, well, at least we get the trees.

You're forgetting one thing : trees have high albedo (capacity to keep heat instead of reflecting it). Therfore, planting trees would be useful only near the equator (which is mostly saharian belt) or if you planted WHITE kinds of trees. which is probably not what you were thinking about.

gut
07-06-2010, 01:31 AM
> trees have high albedo (capacity to keep heat instead of reflecting it).

So places that have lots of trees are hotter because of them? Science tell
you that, did it? Prolly did. I don't believe it, not for 1 second. Trees cool,
not heat.

dallonj
07-06-2010, 06:23 AM
More to the point, something like 20% of the world's fossil fuels go to making fertilizers to maintain food production. That latter point is probably actually a much more serious short term problem that needs fixing than global warming.

the real solution to pollution is a change in diet.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.htm


and why did everyone forget about acid rain? we've got dead lakes up the wazoo here in NY
http://www.adirondacklakessurvey.org/bigmoosefront.html

dallonj
07-06-2010, 06:25 AM
> trees have high albedo (capacity to keep heat instead of reflecting it).

So places that have lots of trees are hotter because of them? Science tell
you that, did it? Prolly did. I don't believe it, not for 1 second. Trees cool,
not heat.

you have obviously never been in a rainforest. the shade is nice but they make it freaking humid as crap

gut
07-06-2010, 06:53 AM
My property has many black walnut trees, some dating to over
100 years old, I seldom curse their heating ways as I walk under
them in the summer. All those times I walk across treeless
expanses and feel overheated, I'll just be glad there are none of
those nasty heat producing trees around, making things so much
worse.

EDIT: most rainforests tend to be around the equator, no? Maybe
that has something to do with the temperature? I do believe
deserts fare a bit worse than rain forests in the 'supporting-life'
aspect.

Dudley
07-06-2010, 09:17 AM
My property has many black walnut trees, some dating to over
100 years old, I seldom curse their heating ways as I walk UNDER
them in the summer.

They absorb the heat. If you were to walk IN them (whihc you can't, unless you tweak some quantic physics laws) you would feel their bad effect over heat retransmission.
And by the way, i switched the places where there should and should not be tree ... sorry.
As for deserrts... they don't absorb CO2, but they reflect nearly all the heat back up. That's why many desert inhabitants live underground.

Nobbse
07-06-2010, 12:54 PM
I absolutely appreciate that we have an interesting discussion so far instead of a flamewar! I still have to do some research about the statements about tree albedo because they seem somehow counterintuitive. But it's probably more complicated anyway, depending on what the ground is and whether we are talking about coniferous forest or deciduous forest. It gets even more complicated as there seem to be a dependency between how much carbon can be absorbed and how much water is available, here are some of the recent papers:

http://www.sciencemag.org/sciencexpress/recent.dtl

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1189587

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/science.1184984

And then You also have to take another side effect in account - the hydrology system! Clouds are one of the most important factors for the albedo - and a forested territory surely has another influence on cloud building than a not forested territory has (because of the ability to buffer water). So these indirect effects might have a greater effect on the albedo of the earth than the albedo of the trees itself. Now it's 40 years ago we were on the moon, but science still has to do a lot of homework about what is going on on earth...



... Thomas Biskup should invent an albedo system in JADE ;)

gut
07-06-2010, 07:05 PM
> If you were to walk IN them (whihc you can't,

I don't need to walk in them, I can chop them. I suppose you
are city-folk who has never chopped a tree? Well, I'm not, I've
chopped plenty. Let me tell you, it's cool in there, not hot. In
addition, water comes gushing out of the big pine ones by the
gallons (Suppose you would have imagined steam?). This water
is fresh and good, and is a delightful thing for the life that does
surround the tree if a drought happens.

This 'absorption' of heat which you are accusing my leafy friends
is not a bad thing, it is a natural side effect of being a solar panel.
All this E that comes from burning coal/oil, from where do you
think it comes, if not from the sun? All greeny stuffs are solar
panels. Photosynthesis rules, tree-haters drool!

Albahan
07-07-2010, 06:48 PM
> "I absolutely appreciate that we have an interesting discussion so far instead of a flamewar"

Ahem:

The reason that many Americans don't want to see that global warming is no hoax:

Acceptance of global warming theory means you accept that there's a 500,000,000 year buildup of carbon in the ground, left by all those evolving plants and animals, and that digging much of it out and putting it into the air over a few hundred years makes a difference to a world created by a diety about 6,000 years ago.

The answer of a too religious bible belt inhabitant might be:
"How can that be true if the earth is 6,000 years old, and the coal and oil were put there for our use? "

Point A) You're ignorant
Point 2) Next time you collect your facts about the theory of creationism try not to get them from a screaming Baptist Preacher that tells you you're going to Hell for looking at a pair of tits the wrong way
Point C) Where in the Bible does it say the "Earth was created 6000 years ago?" Even if it says something about 1000 years thats because back when the Bible was written and then translated 1000 years was just a number they used to mean a really long time.. so really there's no place in the Bible that gives you an exact time when the Earth was created. Oh and the 7 day thing? Who ever said that one of God's days are equal to one of our days?
Point 3.1) Even if it did say something like that I'll even use one of Science's Laws to prove your reasoning to be faulty.. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed" Therefore who's to say *my deity* didn't just take floating pieces of matter that happened to be 500 million years old to create the Earth?
Point 4.0) You're ignorant.

gut
07-07-2010, 09:12 PM
Now now children...

garyd
07-27-2010, 06:05 AM
Sorry no the main reason most Americans think global warming is a hoax is because the people involved in it are getting rich pushing it. Followed closely by the fact that for many Americans it simply isn't matching there experiences. We've had abnormally cool temperatures in this state for much of the last year much being in excess of 90&#37;. And then there is the infamous e-mails in which we discovered that the hockey stick is compounded of both temperature data from today and proxy data from juniper trees in China that are apparently the only trees in Asia that show a parcipitous rise in temperature. And of course the confession by the head brit Pushing it that the medieval warm period was likely warming than anything we are likely to experience today or in the next 500 years and it was a freaking golden age for many culture world wide.

Then there is that irritating fact that CO2 isn't even close to the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases -one good fart probably produces more greenhouse effect than drivng your car all week - and currently it exist only in trace amounts in the atmosphere what something around .004%? and is considered unlikely to reach .005% in the next 100 years.

And then there is the distressing feeling many of us have that the primary reason governments and their hand picked scientists want to control CO2 is that through it they have a ready made way to at least try to control damn near all human activity. And our experience of fascist and socialist goos has been on the whole rather unpleasant to put it mildly.

Nobbse
07-27-2010, 12:57 PM
...
Point A) You're ignorant
...
Point 4.0) You're ignorant.

Sorry, I thought I made it clear that it was not my own opinion, but a cited one. Seems You missed the post I made some hours after my "strange" posting: " ... I thought it would be at least worth smiling a bit about it. Nevertheless the basic message might be not completely out of truth... "

Perhaps I should have clearified the original source meant it that way:

The reason that ( many Americans don't want to see that global warming is no hoax )

and not that way

( The reason that many Americans don't want to see that global warming ) is no hoax:

Nevertheless - a discussion about creationism and evolutionism might be interesting - but not in this thread - we should make an own thread about it...

Apropos - creationists like ADOM because it's clearly a creator's world :D though some jackalweres try to get evolution working with their shitload of jackals :D :D

gut
07-27-2010, 03:42 PM
Nobbse, I gotta call you out on this one:

> Sorry, I thought I made it clear that it was not my own opinion

That's cowardly. Posting stuff that is bound to irritate, following it
with 'It isn't me saying it, others said it, I'm just repeating
it.'

Would be like me posting stuff from nambla (or some other group
of perverts) that criticizes prudes that just don't understand their
lifestyle, then saying: 'Here's some stuff that I've been reading
recently, maybe it's actually a good idea... but remember, it's not
me saying it.'

We aren't idiots :)

fazisi
07-27-2010, 07:04 PM
Now why would the North American Marlon Brando Look-Alikes criticize prudes?

Nobbse
07-27-2010, 07:41 PM
Nobbse, I gotta call you out on this one:

> Sorry, I thought I made it clear that it was not my own opinion

That's cowardly.

That's what ADOM teached me: the Coward-Mode is really helpful :)



We aren't idiots :)

me neither... besides of that - I already made my own point of view earlier in this thread.


and don't forget: tree-wise I'm on Your side, gut!

gut
07-28-2010, 02:40 AM
You're right! All that name-calling and talk about trees not being
worth their albedo got me so frustrated I was lashing out at my
tree lovin' allies. I'm still mad! Raawrrrr!
*puts on sneery tone and rants*

~Scientists~ with all their fancy talk and 3 syllable words,
thinking they're packed with awesome. Let me tell ye, trees
have more awesome in their tiniest, diseased, bug-eaten twig
than scientists will ever have in their collective, worldwide mass.
The world could so much more easily do without scientists than
trees it isn't even funny. No wait, maybe I can make it funny.
Let's see if the work of ~scientists~ can compete with that of
trees.

Should be simple for them, they have university degrees,
literally dozens of years of experience, and a never-ending
supply of tax dollars with which to work. What could trees have
to compete with that? All the scientists have to do is make a
system of self sustaining solar panels capable of harnessing the
power of the sun, then making the energy suitable for sustaining
life on Earth for the rest of time. Kinda like that time on star trek
'deep space nine' when that Faringea engineer, Whatshisname,
created that worm-hole mine field. Just a lot more complex. And
in real life.

Must remember though, to make the solar panels self replicating,
weather resistant, self repairing, extremely efficient, 100%
biodegradable, and self improving with each generation. They
should also serve side functions as sources of food, shelter, and
building materials for countless millions of life forms. They should
also be so beautiful to look upon that they actually increase
property value wherever they are generated. Would be so easy
and elloquent to do that. So nimble and leet. Much easier than
me having to accidentally stomp a walnut in the ground as I walk
through my yard.

Just one last vital thing though, must remember to make them
all white. Gotta to keep that low albedo :D

Nobbse
07-28-2010, 08:58 AM
I can perfectly understand You, gut, but don't put the blame on the scientists, most of them are completely aware of their imperfection. The problems are more on the side of other people (politicians, journalists, ... ) that don't read their papers attentively enough and arrive at wrong conclusions. Trees contribute to the climate multifactor-wise, albedo is just one factor, hydrology is another one (as I showed some posts before) . Real scientist and ADOM aficionados that are used to multifactorial effects do understand that and will search on - while the morons begin to chop trees ;)

fazisi
07-28-2010, 09:22 AM
If it wasn't for trees, I wouldn't have this comfy couch from which to spread my anserine opinions all over the web.

Nobbse
07-28-2010, 03:02 PM
Apropos albedo measuring... does anybody think it were the SCIENTISTS that are to blame for THAT decision here? http://www.desmogblog.com/dscovr-mission-to-be-gutted

Sometimes there seem to be forces that don't want the scientists to do their work...
actual status: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSCOVR

gut
07-28-2010, 03:43 PM
fazisi, you mispelled 'asanine' really badly there :D

Nobbse, if we compare scientists to politicians, corporations, and
the media in general, they're an ethical bunch, but are those really
the standards by which scientists should be judged? I recently
found an amusing link I almost posted here, but decided against
it due to not wanting to sound too critical of scientists. I'll post it
now anyway : )

http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/07/bp-locking-in-scientists-research-to-prep-for-lawsuits.ars

Yep, BP sux, but shouldn't the scientists, um, not? I know,
you know, we all know that BP will fill its roster with
the most prestigious ~scientists~ money can buy, and those
~scientists~ will say whatever they are paid to say. There will be, after
all, binding non-disclosure contracts they have to sign, just in case
the only thing they discover is that BP has destroyed a small chunk
of the world. Very convenient.

No group can consistantly sell their integrity to the highest bidder,
then wonder aloud as to why nobody believes a thing they say.

fazisi
07-28-2010, 07:02 PM
If I were trying to spell "asinine", I definately did a horrible job. I think I learned the word "anserine" from a cow farmer actually.

And I agree with gut. I personally have a certain set of limits of how much I will sell off my own credibility. I guess that's why I'm under the poverty line while those scientists are getting million dollar grants tossed at them.

gut
07-29-2010, 12:36 AM
makes sense that it would come from a farmer, as when
I googled it, most definitions I found pertained to geese.

fazisi
09-13-2010, 11:18 PM
I hope I'm not the only one recovering from one hell of a hangover on Jan 1, 2013...

gut
09-14-2010, 03:43 AM
oddly, I wish you are

gut
10-18-2010, 11:48 PM
bast bot I've ever seen

Silfir
10-19-2010, 01:54 AM
Water filters? Seriously? What kind of junk aren't they trying to sell us with spambots now?

Soirana
10-19-2010, 04:34 AM
Computer games. Strange since we should be target auditoria.

grobblewobble
10-19-2010, 03:41 PM
I am hoping that the title of this thread is a joke.

Yes, I meant it as a joke. Pretty sick - sorry.

And I agree with you, totally. Although at this moment, I am worried about peak oil even more than about climate change. Climate change means that in some twohundred years, we will probably see some sea level rise of several meters. Peak oil means that we will be in deep shit within the next five to ten years. One of these days we will discover that the big fields are getting dried up and the shit will hit the fan. Our modern society is completely dependent on the cheap energy and plastics from oil. Once the price shoots into the hundreds a barrel, things will get pretty interesting. I feel like one of those guys playing the violin on the titanic.

fazisi
10-19-2010, 06:41 PM
And to imagine that a century ago, hydrocarbons were considered a waste product.

gut
10-20-2010, 02:36 AM
> I am worried about peak oil even more than

It's good that you are worried, it means that propaganda still works.

> Peak oil means that we will be in deep shit within the next five to ten years.

Yes, the same as it meant in 1970's when the first push for 'peak oil' propaganda
was originally made. I think they called it 'hubbert's curve' (or something like
that anyway). Distant memories, but the same old line in any event. Sure, they
can say 'it's different this time!', but remember, they have said the same thing
at least once per decade since 70.

Dudley
10-20-2010, 07:41 AM
Oil is a renewable ressource. On a scale of millions of years :p

nathrakh
10-20-2010, 10:07 AM
Global warming may be true but imo it's not because of men's actions. Isn't it proven that there has been warm periods in the past too, it's logical.

But we _are_ still in a 'deep shit' soon. With our current rate of consume and waste of energy, resources, food etc., the earth is simply overpopulated to withstand such, may I say rape.

As to how to fix things.. it's much harder, obviously great measures should be taken together with all the countries. Making new set of rules on how to control the evergrowing increase of consumption. Obviously this hasn't quite worked.

gut
10-20-2010, 04:07 PM
or we could use some stem cell and genetic technology to produce
hybrid mutant humans who eat pollution and pee electricity

nathrakh
10-20-2010, 05:37 PM
or we could use some stem cell and genetic technology to produce
hybrid mutant humans who eat pollution and pee electricity

Good idea there but unfortunately majority of people has something called moral. Too bad.:p

Silfir
10-20-2010, 08:16 PM
Majority? At least you still have faith in humanity :)

Grey
10-20-2010, 08:29 PM
Global warming may be true but imo it's not because of men's actions. Isn't it proven that there has been warm periods in the past too, it's logical.

I love how "it's logical" so easily overcomes "backed by all the expert scientists in the world".

nathrakh
10-20-2010, 10:55 PM
I love how "it's logical" so easily overcomes "backed by all the expert scientists in the world".

Well I don't have any links to point to and can't be arsed to find one. I've just seen that information in many documentaries and read it from some scientific texts.

Silfir
10-21-2010, 09:07 AM
"All"? The theory that global warming is a man-made effect is backed by a majority of scientists on the subject, yes, but to claim that "all" of them do is something else entirely. And the thing about majorities of any kind is that truth doesn't get decided by vote. 95&#37; of scientists might simply be wrong.

gut
10-21-2010, 11:02 AM
> Isn't it proven that there has been warm periods in the past too

all of those periods were caused by man too. as soon as that one caveman
discovered fire, it was all over...

grobblewobble
10-21-2010, 05:32 PM
> I am worried about peak oil even more than

It's good that you are worried, it means that propaganda still works.

Not a convincing argument. Why is it propaganda?



> Peak oil means that we will be in deep shit within the next five to ten years.

Yes, the same as it meant in 1970's when the first push for 'peak oil' propaganda
was originally made. I think they called it 'hubbert's curve' (or something like
that anyway). Distant memories, but the same old line in any event. Sure, they
can say 'it's different this time!', but remember, they have said the same thing
at least once per decade since 70.
Hubbert's curve was originally a prediction of USA (not world) oil production. Few people believed him when he originally made his predictions in 1956. Yet here is his prediction from that moment, along with up to date actual figures:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/58/Hubbert_US_high.svg/200px-Hubbert_US_high.svg.png

As you can see here, US production did peak in 1970. World production will peak at some unknown time in the future - unfortunately, some major oil producing countries are keeping their reserves secret. That is, they come up with incredible official numbers and do not allow any outsiders to check it. Therefore, there is a lot of uncertainty about when global production will peak. This doesn't mean it won't happen.

But of course I'm only spreading propaganda, you shouldn't take any of this seriously. We all know there is infinite oil left. Besides, once prices rise sufficiently, we will magically technologize substitutes out of thin air. There is nothing to worry about.[/sarcasm]

grobblewobble
10-21-2010, 05:56 PM
"All"? The theory that global warming is a man-made effect is backed by a majority of scientists on the subject, yes, but to claim that "all" of them do is something else entirely. And the thing about majorities of any kind is that truth doesn't get decided by vote. 95&#37; of scientists might simply be wrong.

They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.
-- Carl Sagan

In any case, what really convinces me that global warming is man-made isn't just the fact that the vast majority of scientists says so, but also that the evidence is pretty solid. The following are undisputed scientific facts:

- carbon dioxide acts as a greenhouse gas
- mankind is responsible for the sharp rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide since the industrial revolution
- the direct (short-term) effect of doubling the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is about 1 degree

The scientific debate is about this question: what is the net effect of doubling the amount of CO2, after including all medium term feedbacks? These feedbacks include increased cloud cover and change of albedo (ie, ice and snow are white and therefore reflect more sunlight than uncovered soil or water). This is an incredibly complex question and there is no definite answer yet.

However, uncertainty works both ways. It could be that the effects are less pronounced than the current median estimate, but it's equally likely that they will be worse.

grobblewobble
10-21-2010, 06:05 PM
Isn't it proven that there has been warm periods in the past too, it's logical.
This is absolutely true, there have been warmer periods than today. Millions of years ago, the amount of CO2 in the air has been higher than today, temperatures were higher and sea levels were way higher, too.

However, that doesn't mean it's no problem if we return to that situation right now. For one, this time we are responsible. Secondly, in terms of geological time the current climate change happens at an incredibly fast speed. Third, back all those millions of years ago there were no six billion humans around, so it's irrelevant.

Grey
10-21-2010, 06:38 PM
"All"? The theory that global warming is a man-made effect is backed by a majority of scientists on the subject, yes, but to claim that "all" of them do is something else entirely. And the thing about majorities of any kind is that truth doesn't get decided by vote. 95% of scientists might simply be wrong.

I said "all the experts". I was also making a general point, not specifically about this topic. Plenty of other topics suffer from the same problem of ignorant people disputing scientific evidence with their own supposed "logic".

Silfir
10-21-2010, 06:45 PM
Triple post? Sarcasm marks? sniff :'(

Besides, it's not that there is infinite oil left - oil will never run out. That's because as it gets rarer, it gets more expensive, which increases demand for alternatives, which will cause an increase in scientific funding. Wherever alternatives already exist, they will get used more and more, and eventually supplant oil, which as prices rise starts to get only used for things that actually require it to work. I refuse to get worked up over this.

Also: "undisputed scientific fact"? There is no such thing. First, if it's undisputed, it's not scientific. Science is all about theory, discourses, disputes, squabbles and argumentation, and the couple odd wonks who think different. But that's fine, since none of these are actually undisputed; at least I hope someone, somewhere is doing actual science. Second, these are not facts, they're theories based on what we believe to be facts (i. e. observations). So, it's not "undisputed scientific fact", it's "widely agreed scientific theories". That's fine, too, because theories are great and can definitely be grounds for action.

I'm just kind of funny about escalating rhetoric. Let's take "ALL SCIENTISTS AGREE ON THESE UNDISPUTED SCIENTIFIC FACTS" and tone it down to "A significant majority of scientists agree on these widely accepted theories" and we can work our way to an agreement.

EDIT: Grey, is that to say that if you don't agree with the consensus on global warming, you obviously can't be an expert?

fazisi
10-22-2010, 02:02 AM
If these scientists haven't beaten the ToEF without prior spoiling from the GB, they cannot be considered experts.

gut
10-22-2010, 06:55 AM
>>> I am worried about peak oil even more than

>> It's good that you are worried, it means that propaganda still works.

> Why is it propaganda?

Read your own sentence and see if it doesn't fit the criteria of propaganda.
I hereby attribute to you:

>>> "Peak oil means that we will be in deep shit within the next five to ten years."

A message such as this presents the situation as if all factors are being taken into
account, all data has been wieghed and measured, and an inescapable/undebatable
conclusion has been reached. One of doom and gloom. This is a scare message, intended
to sway people's thinking to your liking. This is 'Why is it propaganda?'. I do enjoy the
re-occuring efforts to present one's side as being non-debatable though, especially in the
middle of a debate :D

Yet, you follow your message with the admition:

> "World production will peak at some unknown time in the future"

How quick, the backpedaling :D

Then there's this:

>> Yes, the same as it meant in 1970's when the first push for 'peak oil'
...
>> they have said the same thing at least once per decade since 70.

> Hubbert's curve was originally a prediction of USA (not world) oil

Yet was presented in the same scare-fashion as your earlier message. As I said,
there have been additional 'peak oil' scare pushes over the decade. None of them
ever seemed to pan out, yet they persist. The USA has vast oil reserves, coal
too. Peak USA oil output is a result of lower costs to pump it elsewhere. For
the same reason, I'd say that USA manufacturing has peaked as well.

> But of course I'm only spreading propaganda,

and you should be ashamed

> you shouldn't take any of this seriously.

Reforrestation is what I take seriously, not scare tactics and doomsday scenarios.
Honestly, the reason I support the idea of planting trees has nothing to do with being
frightened about greenhouse gasses and unsustainable energy sources. I just like trees.

> We all know there is infinite oil left.

Not infinite, yet plenty that has and hasn't already been discovered.

> Besides, once prices rise sufficiently, we will magically technologize substitutes

There are other resources that will be tapped before we need to resort to magic, or
my hybrid mutants. They are just more expensive to gather and refine than oil is.
Won't happen on a large scale until gas hits 5$ in USA though.

minchazo
10-22-2010, 07:21 PM
I checked out Wikipedia's entry on global warming, specifically http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change where it states: "No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion [that global warming is attributable to human activities.]"

Now that's a bold claim to make: it only requires finding *one group* of respected scientists who dissent for it to be false. Said group don't even have to argue against global warming, just that it's not caused by humans! Not even petroleum companies' pet science groups have argued against it. The best they can do is a "non-committal statement."

Right on the heels of that statement, I have to ask, "What should we do about it? What could this do to the environment?" There's never been *any* discussion about the pros and cons of global warming, only the assumption that is B-A-D. In my opinion, it could be more good than bad.

fazisi
10-22-2010, 07:41 PM
Hi wikipedia.

Grey
10-22-2010, 08:57 PM
EDIT: Grey, is that to say that if you don't agree with the consensus on global warming, you obviously can't be an expert?

No, that just happens to be the case for most people ;) Of course one can agree with global warming and be an idiot too. In fact I think that's half the problem in convincing people about the real effects of man-made climate change - too often the loudest proponents are banal idiots who overdramatise everything. Hippies are the worst. God-damn hippies...

I saw a poster campaign at a university last year saying "Global Warming: The Real Truth". Below it had a very beautiful picture of a tiger in a forest, with a note saying how global warming was killing precious animals. Really fucking pissed me off - exactly the sort of bollocks that makes people disregard the real issues about climate change.

Dudley
10-22-2010, 09:13 PM
My opinion on the subject :
-1 I don't know
-2 I don't care.

gut
10-23-2010, 06:41 AM
What do you mean 'you don't care'? Don't you know that if you CARE, it
will make all the oil companies stop pumping oil? Don't you know that if
you complain loudly enough, cars will start running on water, like in that
youtube video? If only MORE PEOPLE WOULD CARE!!!

Dudley
10-23-2010, 08:20 AM
And? 10 chars

Evil Knievel
10-23-2010, 09:28 AM
http://www.molleindustria.org/en/oiligarchy

some fun in between

Silfir
10-23-2010, 02:11 PM
This game is made of win.

grobblewobble
10-27-2010, 10:21 AM
> But of course I'm only spreading propaganda,

and you should be ashamed

I am deeply ashamed about stating my opinion on the internet.



There are other resources that will be tapped before we need to resort to magic, or
my hybrid mutants. They are just more expensive to gather and refine than oil is.
Won't happen on a large scale until gas hits 5$ in USA though.
Ok, I'm listening. What are the other resources?

Please keep in mind it's not just about energy. Oil is important for the production of stuff like rubber, plastics, fertilizers, pesticides and all sorts of chemicals. Besides, oil holds energy in a particular form. For example, you can't fly an airoplane on coal. Well, maybe you can if you first turn the coals to liquid, but you lose a lot of efficiency in that case.



>>> "Peak oil means that we will be in deep shit within the next five to ten years."

A message such as this presents the situation as if all factors are being taken into
account, all data has been wieghed and measured, and an inescapable/undebatable
conclusion has been reached. One of doom and gloom. This is a scare message, intended
to sway people's thinking to your liking. This is 'Why is it propaganda?'. I do enjoy the
re-occuring efforts to present one's side as being non-debatable though, especially in the
middle of a debate

Non-debatable? I'd love to be convinced that I'm completely wrong.



> "World production will peak at some unknown time in the future"

How quick, the backpedaling

All right. How about this:

It is uncertain at what exact moment oil production will peak, but based on recent research, it seems quite likely that this will happen in the next five to ten years.

gut
10-27-2010, 04:06 PM
>>> But of course I'm only spreading propaganda,

>> and you should be ashamed

> I am deeply ashamed about stating my opinion on the internet.

I meant be ashamed of forgetting to use sarcasm marks...

> Ok, I'm listening. What are the other resources?

Of course I didn't hear about other resources from wiki, but it's just so easy to link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands

" the world's largest deposits occur in two countries: Canada and Venezuela, each of which has oil sand reserves approximately equal to the world's total reserves of conventional crude oil."

and that is only one alternative. there are others that I'm too lazy to even wiki

Grey
10-27-2010, 05:24 PM
You want to raise a debate about the huge environmental impact of oil sands now?

gut
10-27-2010, 05:37 PM
they're in canada and venez-something-or-other...

fazisi
10-27-2010, 06:04 PM
The Canadian oil sands are the cause of the most recent domestic terrorist attacks on Canadian soil.

JellySlayer
10-27-2010, 10:08 PM
The Canadian oil sands are the cause of the most recent domestic terrorist attacks on Canadian soil.

Pretty sure the most recent terrorist attacks in Canada were related to the Olympics. See: RBC firebombing in Ottawa. Although honestly, I'd hardly count anything on Canadian soil since Air India as a "terrorist attack" or, at least, a successful terrorist attack.

gut
10-28-2010, 09:52 AM
> The Canadian oil sands are the cause of the most recent domestic terrorist attacks on Canadian soil.

The Canadian oil sands are also the cause of the US's current economical troubles.
The Canadian oil sands are also the cause of the flu season.
The Canadian oil sands are also the cause of inner-city gang activity.
etc...

grobblewobble
10-28-2010, 10:40 AM
That is a good point, I didn't know that the reserves expected from tar sands are this large. Oil extraction from tar sands is not a pretty sight if you like trees or living things in general, but let's stick to one subject at a time.

Environmental issues aside, I'm unsure tar sands can really prevent the economical crisis that peak oil theory predicts. Extracting oil from tar sands yields low net energy: you need to invest a lot of energy in the process, compared to the amount of energy you gain. This raises the next question: is it really viable to scale up the current production from these sources massively, as would be required when conventional production starts to decline seriously? Some experts think not (http://www.resourceinvestor.com/News/2005/5/Pages/Oil-Doomsday-is-Nigh--Tar-Sands-Not-a-Substitute.aspx). But others are more optimistic. Time will tell, I guess.



The Canadian oil sands are also ...

Not to mention that they kill my brimstone man attempts. :(

Grey
10-28-2010, 01:41 PM
Well what do you expect to happen when you walk into a burning tower caked in oil sand?

Pro-tip: Do not coat yourself in extremely flammable substances when entering flame-filled structures. Unless you're wearing RDSM, of course.

gut
10-28-2010, 04:41 PM
> Extracting oil from tar sands yields low net energy:
...
> is it really viable to scale up the current production from these sources

Once upon a time, coal was just coal. Methane was the deadly bi-product gas that
results from coal being mined and mixed with air/water/otherstuffs. It was a hurdle
that had to be jumped in order to mine the valuable coal. Coal seams that were
close to underground water sources were especially 'hot', and therefore weren't
even considered sources of coal, as they would ~always~ be too deadly and
therefore expensive to mine.

Things are different now. Thanks to recent technologies, the methane is now more
valuable than the coal. Methane burns cleaner, has a higher (as you mention) net
energy, and in some ways is less expensive to mine (more like capture) than the
actual coal. These days, many new coal mines are actually being constructed, not
for the purpose of mining coal, but to intentionally create 'hot' mines to produce
as much methane as possible.

The reason I gush at length over this is because I fully expect a similar thing to
happen with 'oil sand'. The mining technology is currently underdeveloped because
nobody has a reason to develope it yet. Mostly, energy companies are the ones who
will develope the tech, and why should they right now? They would actually be
working against themselves, as their research would undermine the assets they
currently hold...

Nobbse
11-01-2011, 02:45 PM
digging an old thread with a heaty discussion, because I stumbled opon this article You might be interested in:

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/10/31/how-google-is-making-the-climate-war-worse/

Moeba
11-01-2011, 04:22 PM
Heh, nice article. I completely agree with the main point, which is that google is not objective.

But the same problem applies to the whole topic of global warming, because there's always politics involved (nowadays, in Europe at least). In any case, everyone arguing about it argues either in order to stop the measures against global warming, or in order to motivate more measures against global warming. Of course there is some exact science about global warming, but most of what is said about global warming is as vague as social sciences to me.

Grey
11-01-2011, 09:15 PM
Heh, nice article. I completely agree with the main point, which is that google is not objective.

There is no objectivity. There's the truth and the loons. Which is which depends on your side of the debate ;)

dallonj
11-01-2011, 11:24 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2011/10/31/richard-muller-global-warming-skeptic-study_n_1066788.html

Silfir
11-02-2011, 12:07 AM
... That one guy is acting like skepticism is a religion you belong to. There is no "skeptics" team. They'd never get around to agreeing they need to form one.

Grey
11-02-2011, 12:51 AM
I think "scepticism" is the wrong term. The guy's a physicist, and when publishing physics results you have to bend over backwards to point out how you could be wrong. Other areas of science don't have the same rigour in publishing, and lead to more sensationalist and less trustworthy articles. These articles can be eventually disproved, but they muddy the water.

The new study does solidify the science of global warming quite significantly. But it was something that was already very well accepted in scientific circles. I mean even NASA studies showed the same thing. If you wanna deny NASA results then join the ranks of weirdos that doubt the moon landings.

gut
11-03-2011, 02:36 AM
There are three schools of thought upon reading this:

> One-quarter of the $600,000 to do the research came from the Charles Koch Foundation, whose founder is a major funder of skeptic groups and the conservative tea party movement. The Koch brothers, Charles and David, run a large privately held company involved in oil and other industries, producing sizable greenhouse gas emissions.

Muller's research team carefully examined two chief criticisms by skeptics. One is that weather stations are unreliable; the other is that cities, which create heat islands, were skewing the temperature analysis.

1. See, this proves WE were right all along!

2. Bah, it only says urban 'hot spots' weren't scewing the tests and weather stations weren't 'unreliable'.
I wasn't debating those points anyway! 1.6 degree F temperature rise? Wonder how the Earth survived all
the previous rises without all these scientists.

3. I wonder what effect that $600,000.00 would have had if it had gone to planting some trees instead
of... yet another climate study? -_-

Yeah, I'm in the 3 catagory.

It is so difficult to wade through the ocean of stupidity that is produced by the wacko greenies. They promote
windmills, solar, ethanol (*jeez*), carbon capture, so many other ignorant 'viable solutions' to our climate
problems, one tends to discount every idea out of their heads as worthless. There are actually things that
make sense though, here is a sight that seems to be on the right track. I may actually even build one of these
decomposers, as I have the land...

http://mb-soft.com/public3/globalzb.html

Grey
11-03-2011, 05:48 PM
Don't trust science written in Comic Sans, or that is ridiculously pro-American. The pseudo-science on that page is one of the craziest I've ever read.

nathrakh
11-03-2011, 07:36 PM
I've come to a firm belief that global warming is totally real! After all, the on-going fall season has been the warmest in 50 years...here, in Finland.. ermm.. yes. This must mean something!!1

gut
11-04-2011, 01:08 AM
> Don't trust science written in Comic Sans,

That site has an option along the top of every page, offering
an assortment of fonts to the viewer, an option almost all
other sites lack.

> or that is ridiculously pro-American.

He was pro-American? I didn't notice, but yeah, I can see how
that would disqualify someone from knowing what they are talking
about.

> The pseudo-science on that page is one of the craziest I've ever read.

I've not studied physics beyond what was mandatory, but it
seemed to be this project made logical sense. I did a bit of
searching around and did find demonstrations of this type of
system actually working (and working financially) in real
world applications, which is more than I can say for solar
or wind (well, beyond solar calculators).

What part were you annoyed at particularly. The part where it
states that it takes more energy to create ethanol than can
be extracted from it? From what I saw, the guy was an eco
enthusiast of the highest magnitude, but wasn't willing to
ignore facts just to please other eco enthusiasts. Is that
all it takes to be branded a psuedo scientist these days?

gut
11-04-2011, 02:40 AM
> the on-going fall season has been the warmest in 50 years...here, in Finland.. ermm.. yes. This must mean something!!1


Doh, this again. "Who are you going to believe, me, or your lying eyes."
If you search this thread, you will find a point where someone else also
tells me "this winter was the warmest on record. Everything is ALWAYS
'the warmest on record' -_- Meanwhile, I'm freezing my lili-white hillbilly
butt off here in KY. "It's just getting warmer everywhere... except
where you live!" I have also been told on this forum, upon mentioning
how clean the KY air is, how bad air polution is 'everywhere except where
you live". Funny enough KY is a state that produces > 95% of its electricity
from coal, but coincidentally has > 95% of its surface area covered in
trees. But I'm sure those things are unrelated. We already know that trees
are a useless, albedo producing plague upon the land. It would make ever
so much more sense to do the scientific and environmentally friendly
thing: cut down all those nasty, albedo producing trees and use the money
for the REAL solution to all our problems... another climate study.

I just got my electric bill today, 11-03-11, for the electricity I used
in October. It's actually still laying here. It shows that I consumed
+10% more electricity than last year (524 Kw/h for a 3 bedroom house,
at $0.085/h) for the same period, despite using all the exact same
appliances as last year. I have already talked to one person earlier
today who said the same thing happened for them. Same appliances, same
rates, just increased Kw/h used. It is just that stinking cold. It got
so cold here in late October, I worried about my pipes freezing. That
was in October! I'd bet that if other people would actually compare
the Kw/h used durring the winter months from year to year, as I do,
they would notice the same thing is happening for them. This is despite
the fact that most houses are becoming more well insulated, as more
people realize that is something that ACTUALLY WORKS.

As an especially irritating side note, the same bill shows a government
forced 'environmental surcharge' of $0.011 onto every Kw/h I used. How
much of this money do you suppose goes toward planting trees? I doubt
any, at least here in KY, as that would be rather like planting sand in
a desert. How much goes toward distributing insulation? I doubt any, as
there are existing governmental programs that already do that, and are
funded through income and sales taxes. How much will go toward
encouraging the use of coal/oil/natural gas as residential heating
sources as opposed to electricity (which is extremely wasteful due to
the multiple conversions and heavy transmittal losses it undergoes). I
doubt any, as that is sooo obviously just pro-American psuedo science.

grobblewobble
11-04-2011, 01:36 PM
> the on-going fall season has been the warmest in 50 years...here, in Finland.. ermm.. yes. This must mean something!!1


Doh, this again.
I think Nath meant to make fun of anecdotical evidence, not use it.

Joe
11-07-2011, 05:13 PM
There is no objectivity. There's the truth and the loons. Which is which depends on your side of the debate ;)

So on which side is your view? :P