Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ok statements like this make me question your honesty. Go re-read the post you responded to and show me where I said that. I said human activity has no effect on the veracity of the science. Do you need me to link you an online dictionary?
It has no effect on research, but it has one hell of an effect on outcome.
Is the only concern about climate change research?
How do you find a good climate scientist, one with experience in saving worlds from climate change? Do not tell me that scientists are objective and that they do not replicate themselves. Our intellectual elites are well known not to look at their results. The amount of incestuous peer review is appalling. The risk of being nothing but the current crop of faddish nutritionists is high.
The second problem is, how to you keep government from abusing its power or having its power hijacked ?
I am sympathetic to the idea of not taking needless risks , but the problem not just a factual or theoretical problem. There is also no reason not to link this with natural disasters. Developing technology aimed in this direction is certainly one thing we could all agree on. We really will not advance much further in harnessing energy just by burning stuff and making steam. That is certainly a bigger tent.
I don't know, some problems defy pat answers and soundbite solutions, we are probably pretty screwed at this point no matter what we do. Anything we do now will most likely be mitigative rather than preventative. I am not an expert on it, although I am a scientist(in a completely unrelated field), I would need substantially more knowledge and research into it than I am willing to put in to come up with any kind of proposed solution set.
I do a lot of team-based public process planning in my job. When a team is faced with a huge multi-faceted problem they can get that "deer in the headlights" freeze reaction and its very hard to make any progress dealing with it. What often does work is to break the big issue down into smaller bites. Not only because they seem less intimidating, but because they are more specific. What I mean is that the huge cloud labeled climate change is very difficult to wrap arms around so people find it easier to bicker endlessly and uselessly about what it is, isn't, what causes it or doesn't cause it, and who or what to blame it on. What may work better is to tease apart the "lesser" ecological feedback loops and figure out how they might affect us and what we can and can't do about them.
Take this example: a looming cycle of drought and warming and wildlifes in western states. We may not be able to do a lot about the cause for the trend, but we can PREPARE for the results...be better at conserving water, engineer more efficient communities, develop drought-resistant crops or grow ones that do better in those conditions, detect northward spread of tropical disease-bearing insects or weeds, manage landscapes to be more wildfire resilient.
Let's say we know a region's rivers and aquifers are recharged by mountain snowpack or glacial melt. If we know the snowpack and glaciers are declining or disappearing, what can we do to replace that dwindling water? If you get less snow but more rain, collect and store that instead.
If we know oceans in some places are warming enough to trigger toxic algae blooms that kill commercially important food fish, maybe culture fish stocks that benefit from the warmer conditions instead. If we find out that plastic micro beads used in cosmetic soaps end up killing marine life, replace them with a biodegradable material or get rid of them entirely.
Whether you happen to believe humans can affect the climate or not and whether you believe there's even a problem to begin with ends up less important. In my opinion, figuring out a lesser more specific problem may be the best option, and you will also end up with more useful information to apply to the big hairy one.
I for one don't see any benefit in useless arm-waving and screaming at each other. You know, fiddling while Rome burns.
No politician is going to try to cap consumables for the public, and additional taxes on energy will only hurt the poor and lower class. Additionally, any legislation passed will give them some sort of subsidy rendering it useless anyway.
Not true. We have had a carbon tax in my province since 2008. It is revenue neutral, which means that every cent collected is returned through reduced taxes. The shocking truth about B.C.
Quote:
People aren't going to cut back. If President Obama, who claims to be a believer, uses an armada of jets to fly nearly halfway around the globe each year just so his family can sit on that special beach they like, do you believe other people will do anything significant in their lives?
Of course people will cut back. I have, and most of the people I know have.
Quote:
On that note, do you think Obama, who has direct access to the top scientific minds, really doesn't believe in climate change or that he believes it's out of the question for people to make any changes to do something about it?
Unfortunately for America you have just elected a climate change denying president........
How do you find a good climate scientist, one with experience in saving worlds from climate change? Do not tell me that scientists are objective and that they do not replicate themselves. Our intellectual elites are well known not to look at their results. The amount of incestuous peer review is appalling. The risk of being nothing but the current crop of faddish nutritionists is high.
The second problem is, how to you keep government from abusing its power or having its power hijacked ?
I am sympathetic to the idea of not taking needless risks , but the problem not just a factual or theoretical problem. There is also no reason not to link this with natural disasters. Developing technology aimed in this direction is certainly one thing we could all agree on. We really will not advance much further in harnessing energy just by burning stuff and making steam. That is certainly a bigger tent.
There is no real fix without energy tech breakthroughs and an energy infrastructure paradigm shift. Anything else we do amounts to putting a bandaid on a bullethole.
I do a lot of team-based public process planning in my job. When a team is faced with a huge multi-faceted problem they can get that "deer in the headlights" freeze reaction and its very hard to make any progress dealing with it. What often does work is to break the big issue down into smaller bites. Not only because they seem less intimidating, but because they are more specific. What I mean is that the huge cloud labeled climate change is very difficult to wrap arms around so people find it easier to bicker endlessly and uselessly about what it is, isn't, what causes it or doesn't cause it, and who or what to blame it on. What may work better is to tease apart the "lesser" ecological feedback loops and figure out how they might affect us and what we can and can't do about them.
Take this example: a looming cycle of drought and warming and wildlifes in western states. We may not be able to do a lot about the cause for the trend, but we can PREPARE for the results...be better at conserving water, engineer more efficient communities, develop drought-resistant crops or grow ones that do better in those conditions, detect northward spread of tropical disease-bearing insects or weeds, manage landscapes to be more wildfire resilient.
Let's say we know a region's rivers and aquifers are recharged by mountain snowpack or glacial melt. If we know the snowpack and glaciers are declining or disappearing, what can we do to replace that dwindling water? If you get less snow but more rain, collect and store that instead.
If we know oceans in some places are warming enough to trigger toxic algae blooms that kill commercially important food fish, maybe culture fish stocks that benefit from the warmer conditions instead. If we find out that plastic micro beads used in cosmetic soaps end up killing marine life, replace them with a biodegradable material or get rid of them entirely.
Whether you happen to believe humans can affect the climate or not and whether you believe there's even a problem to begin with ends up less important. In my opinion, figuring out a lesser more specific problem may be the best option, and you will also end up with more useful information to apply to the big hairy one.
I for one don't see any benefit in useless arm-waving and screaming at each other. You know, fiddling while Rome burns.
I can get behind all of this, but at the base level it requires people to accept that change is occurring. And there is a pretty large subset who will deny even that.
Renewable energy markets surged in the United States in the first half of this year despite uncertainty over federal tax credits and a sluggish national economy, according to mid-year figures.
Wind, solar, and geothermal energy are all on the rise. At least 17,000 megawatts (MW) of these three energy sources are now under construction. According to the Energy Information Administration, renewable energy will account for about one-third of new electricity generation added to the U.S. grid over the next three years. U.S. Renewable Energy Growth Accelerates | Worldwatch Institute
I can get behind all of this, but at the base level it requires people to accept that change is occurring. And there is a pretty large subset who will deny even that.
Well, so often deniers shout that climate is always changing but it just doesn't have anything to do with man. Fine...its probably more essential to adapt to the change and quit bickering about why. I'd rather do something useful instead of sitting around whining and moaning as a brick falls on my head.
Ladies and gentlemen, the issues that affect the future of all people include the challenge of global climate change. It is in our interest to make the U.N. Climate Change Conference to be held in December in Paris a success.
As part of our national contribution, we plan to reduce by 2030 the greenhouse emissions to 70, 75 percent of the 1990 level. I suggest, however, we should take a wider view on this issue. Yes, we might defuse the problem for a while, by setting quotas on harmful emissions or by taking other measures that are nothing but tactical. But we will not solve it that way. We need a completely different approach.
We have to focus on introducing fundamental and new technologies inspired by nature, which would not damage the environment, but would be in harmony with it. Also, that would allow us to restore the balance upset by biosphere and technosphere (ph) upset by human activities.
It is indeed a challenge of planetary scope, but I'm confident that humankind has intellectual potential to address it. We need to join our efforts. I refer, first of all, to the states that have a solid research basis and have made significant advances in fundamental science.
We propose convening a special forum under the U.N. auspices for a comprehensive consideration of the issues related to the depletion of natural resources, destruction of habitat and climate change.
Russia would be ready to co-sponsor such a forum.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
