DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: SoftBonds
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
Interesting, fun, outside the box ideas, Softbonds. I do see a little problem area.
We'd also have to calculate in terms of how much MORE damage is being done to herds and crops by our potential contribution, not by total losses. It isn't like droughts, floods, and the other assorted natural disasters, are a new development in human history, and will magically stop, even if we mitigate at the extreme end of the proposals with a steady-state, rigidly managed, agrarian economy. How many plaintiffs might finally see their day in court, only to be told that their island was due for hurricane anyway, and now pay the court costs, and opposition legal fees?
Yes, I agree with all of your points.
Another point brought up to me was that while Iowa stops being good farmland, other areas will improve as farmland, especially in Canada and Russia (which kinda benefit from higher average temperatures). Warming of those areas actually creates wealth, and yes, I am willing to admit that climate change isn't all bad... I just believe that on the balance it hurts more than it helps.
Here is yet another point, is it too late anyway? I kinda stumbled on that viewpoint when my 18 YO son suggested that he didn't care about climate change cause the big oil companies would do what they wanted, and it was up to everyone else to just live with it. But after his statement, I started to look into tipping points. In Alaska, huge amounts of methane are trapped in the permafrost. Methane is a much worse greenhouse gas than CO2. Alaska is getting warmer. What do you think happens to permafrost when it gets warm?
I imagine the same issues exist in Canada, Russia, Greenland, and Scandinavia. Look at a map and you will see there is a lot of land with permafrost.
Likewise, the Arctic Ocean has less ice, which means less heat reflected and more heat absorbed, which reduces ice cover, which...
And since many of those tipping points have already been reached, is it too late? Are we just debating closing the barn door after all the horses left, in order to save two lame pigs and an old milk cow?
I don't know. There is a huge amount of uncertainty, and you are right that "pinning the blame," is a pretty hard thing to do.
Heck, "who pays," is a pretty hard question. For China to reach our level of industrialization would produce HUGE amounts of greenhouse gasses. Is it fair of us to tell China to stay in the 3rd world and not catch up for fear of warming?
Not only would it take massive amounts of CO2 for China to get where we are today, they are already the #1 exporter (lol) of CO2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
1. China 23.33% global CO2 emissions
2. USA 18.11% global CO2 emissions
quote:
But at the end of the day, CO2 levels are a lot higher than they have ever been. That matters. The original "the sky is falling," worries were by scientists trying to get someone to pay attention, not because they knew what would happen, but because they didn't. We don't have any planets to do experiments on to make sure we don't fuck something up beyond all repair.
Global temperatures, however, have not increased as global CO2 has risen in the last decade or so.
quote:
Heat? Meh, we can move north, heck, plants and animals already are.
Drought? Well, it may reduce the number of people the planet can support, but starvation is expected. Besides, while it costs a lot more than other water sources, ocean desalinization does work. If California switched to that source of water, the remaining Rockies water could take care of the West. Not sure what Iowa does, maybe an aqueduct from the Great Lakes?
Ocean Acidification? Now that one scares me. Not because I know what will happen, but because I don't...
The problem I have with the "Denialgate" reporting is that little snippets were quoted. I can take the last quoted part of what you posted and turn it into, "Meh, we can ... reduce the number of people... planet ... starvation ... costs a lot more." Add in some cherry twists and turns for the period of ellipses and you will have a very evil quote attributed to you. Depending on who has access to the true/original documents, this may or may not be refutable.
The part about "indoctrinating" our children? If you're only presenting one side as possible (even if you only say "it's possible that"), aren't you indoctrinating already? While Kindergarten or First Grade may be a tad bit early, the "indoctrination" to the plain facts that there is no absolute, irrefutable evidence that Man is the cause of climate change, or that changing our carbon output would be able to change the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to the degree (no pun intended) necessary to impact climate change.
Until there is absolute irrefutable evidence, either in support of or refuting, Man's impact on climate change, and whether or not CO2 is even the true culprit, we will have to present it as "theory" or hypotheses.
I don't believe CO2 is driving climate change. I don't believe Man is driving climate change. I can be convinced that my current beliefs are not correct, but I'm not changing them until I'm convinced.
One odd question:
"The part about "indoctrinating" our children?" Um, where did I say anything about that?
Anyway...
Simple question, did the skyscrapers in New York form naturally from wind and rain effects on limestone, or did someone make them?
Was the US interstate highway system discovered by early explorers, a convenient natural formation of rock exposed by wind, or did someone make it?
We have an effect on our environment. No, I do not know that it will make temperatures go up, we still don't have good ideas about the effects of clouds. That said, we do know there is more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has ever been before. I think it is 30% higher than any previous measurable level, and we are not talking about "since industrialization," here, this is using ice cores that go back hundreds of thousands of years.
The Ocean is doing it's part to absorb that CO2, with a scary effect, it is turning the CO2 into carbonic acid. This is significantly changing the PH level of the Ocean.
So my question to you is, are you going to stick with "We can't know for sure, so I'm going to ignore it," or are you willing to pursue greater knowledge and at least talk about ways to mitigate risks?
Do you have any guess as to the cost of doing nothing if you are wrong?
1. Never quoted "indoctrination" to you. It came from the article.
2. Yes, we have an effect on our environment. But, my claim was that we don't yet know if Man is driving climate change. Nor do we know whether or not CO2 is driving climate change. If CO2 is driving climate change, why hasn't the climate changed as global atmospheric CO2 has continued to increase?
3. A great end-around is the hypersensationalizing of consequences and then framing the choices around that claim. That is exactly what you are doing, whether you know it or not (you do claim that you don't know if climate change is caused by us). There are a great many things that are well worth preventing. There are many things that are worth taking action against, even when it's possible that those things may or may not happen.
According to the Global Warming sensationalists, we only have 10 years to do something before we've crossed the point of no return. Well, VP and Presidential candidate Gore, we're almost 12 years beyond that claim and, well, either we're past the point of no return, or the people who are making all the claims don't know wtf is really going on.
All the supporters rely on the computer models out of the CRU. When you look at the predictions that model made, they are wrong. The facts and measurements do not follow the model. None have ever explained that. How is it we are supposed to rely on computer models that have yet to show themselves to be accurate. Now, you may be willing to make changes, but who else is? Al Gore isn't. He just keeps blasting carbon with his lifestyle and buying "carbon credits" which doesn't actually change CO2 amounts.
I don't know if it was you that brought up the water issue in California or not. I will let you know that I honestly want to cut off all monetary aid to every foreign country. I am a firm believer that we help out other countries, but not by giving them a check. I fully believe tying all foreign aid (not including emergency disaster relief) to products or services that provide real, residual value. For instance, if we were to build a desalination plant or 3 in Haiti, what do you think that fresh water would help with? If nothing else, it would improve public health and reduce epidemic breakouts. Instead, we've given $2B+ to Haiti that was essentially siphoned off by those in charge. Desert areas in Africa and the Middle East could support plant life. Imagine what would happen to CO2 levels if we covered the deserts with greenery. If CO2 is the culprit, we might end up with a friggin' ice age.
I recycle. I freecycle (instead of throwing away usable things, I offer it for free via a Yahoo group; if no one wants it, it's either donated, or taken to the landfill). I had my house built facing north so the largest portions of unbroken rooftop would face south, which is the best direction for my area if you want to install solar panels. I've priced residential wind turbines. I actively use CFL's to reduce power consumption. I have looked into retrofitting my house with an "on demand" hot water heater, and for installation of a geothermal heat pump. I have done none of this with the express intent of reducing my carbon footprint (because I honestly believe it's BS), but to actively save money and reduce my resource usage. My yard was mud when we moved in. It is now 95% covered with grass. There are trees here. I have a garden and take my compostable waste and put it in the garden. My belief is that we all need to get more regional. Have community farmer's markets where the entire community can come together, have a damn good time, and get locally grown produce and foods. My son and I built a "solar oven" as a summer project (because of my awesomely horrible carpentry skills, it failed miserably).
You want to cripple manufacturing? Or, increase the costs of goods for everything? Go ahead. I'm working towards getting off the grid. If I have to raise my own damn chickens, cows and pigs, I'll find a way to do that. You can continue to pay ever-increasing prices for everything. Don't expect to soak the rich, either. It won't happen. They have enough money now. They can stop working. They can stop investing. They can close their plants. Then what? If you take 90% of every dollar in earnings over $350,000 (which is where the top tax bracket lib's point to would be in today's dollars) and maintain the lower tax brackets, will that be enough? Well, I actually know that it won't even cover the $1.5T deficit Obama budgeted for the 2010 fiscal year. Take that money away and there will be less the following year, and less the following year, etc. Even if you soak the rich and it helps for a year, what do you think is going to happen to all the jobs those closed plants used to support?
It is a never ending cycle. Global Warming is most likely yet another scam to redistribute wealth. Period.
|
"Denialgate"............ - 
Profile
RE: "Denialgate"............ - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread