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.
On recycling solar panels, EU has a much more developed market than the US, and AFAIK, some US panels are being sent to EU. That said, I also believe the science will win out. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones, and people will continue to profit from new opportunities.
Solar panels suck. Short life span, ugly on your home, and they rust, and ruin your roof. Plus at 25k to start, not much of a savings plan, especially because they're useless before you can even pay them off.
Yes, fair point, but also an incomplete CV. He’s an accomplished researcher in the hard sciences with hundreds of peer-reviewed papers to his name, which have thousands of citations between them. That’s no small accomplishment. Not in climate sciences, true, but that he is scientifically literate is undoubted. He also was consulted for the UN Secretary General’s High Level Panel on Sustainable Development from 2011-2013, during which time he claims to have read hundreds of relevant scientific papers. Given his scientific literacy and familiarity with the literature, I wouldn’t dismiss him so quickly.
But yes, one also ought not take every interpretation of his for granted.
Solar panels suck. Short life span, ugly on your home, and they rust, and ruin your roof. Plus at 25k to start, not much of a savings plan, especially because they're useless before you can even pay them off.
Some of what you say is debatable, or subjective. Rooves can now be made of panels. No need to add them. Currently, the most advanced panels operate at only 23% efficiency. That is expected to increase over*time, and along with reducing prices will rebalance the equation.
I guess we're all related to survivors of the last Ice Age. Our habits have been economy- rather than ecology-driven for a centuries. Some from greed, some from ignorance.
In my lifetime I've seen at least a trend in weather change enough to accept that a small and short change is happening. Time will tell how long and severe that will be.
But I wonder if we give humans too much credit for their power over the forces of nature. We view the earth through micro rather than macro lenses. You know - "Right here, look, this spot is all messed up because of our behavior." But the natural and even universal forces that affect that spot will make the ultimate difference in time and it will have little to do with man's attempts to alter them.
I am unsure whether we have a great deal to do with climate change or that changes we make could influence that universal influence. Maybe people are better at setting the stage for problems than we are at fixing problems. Still there's no reason not to try to do what we can.
I just don't see the loudest voices being the first to change their ways and set a good example. Maybe they don't because they don't believe their own "science." We make a wretched mess of things when we politicize matters of health and well-being.
Status:
"Moldy Tater Gangrene, even before Moscow Marge."
(set 1 day ago)
Location: Dallas, TX
5,790 posts, read 3,599,675 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95
This "debate" hasn't been a debate at all for the last 30 years. It is transparently political activism which, early on, took on the tone of religious fanaticism as a very short-sighted ploy to quash any and all doubt.
It is, In fact, the same Marxism pushed today by violent mobs in the streets of our large cities. But the lies promoting "climate change" angst come from sophisticates, pseudo-intellectuals whose sole marketable skill is a knack for making others feel stupid if they dare question the dogma.
Calling climate change Marxist is just bizarre, on two counts:
1) Karl Marx lived and died in the 19th Century - well before the invention of the automobile. So how could he be concerned with it before it happened to the 20th Century extent?
2) Marx was concerned exclusively with economics (an extremely simplistic understanding of how human nature and history operate, but that's for another post). He claimed that people exploited others due to private ownership of wealth-creating property and paying their workers less than the value of their labor. He claimed this can be stopped by abolishing private ownership of wealth-generating properties. This has nothing to do with climate change.
In fact, if the issue is irrelevant to the issue "Who ought to own wealth-creating properties: individuals, government, or society as a whole?", then it's not about Marxism. It's ... that ... simple.
The world's most powerful interests made us doubt the smoking-lung cancer link. They oil companies use the same tactic to sow doubt about the connection between oil and climate change. You've been had - by a bunch of people who want to make money at the expense of public well-being
"New Zealand scientists claim to have developed a "flatulence inoculation" aimed at cutting down on the massive amount of methane produced by its sheep and cows."
"No matter how much we enjoy our steaks, cheese, and baby back ribs, meat and dairy are one of the biggest contributors to excessive greenhouse gas emissions in the world, greatly causing the warmth of our climate.
The biggest factor of climate change—the cause of an ongoing mass extinction—is converting and destroying natural habitat into land for food. According to Lester Brown, founder of the Earth Policy Institute, the more dependent we are on meat, milk, and eggs, the greater the CO2 and methane emissions are.
Cattle and livestock of all kinds produce methane as a byproduct of breaking down grass, and other things they feed on. Discovery Channel says that methane is twenty-two times more potent as a climate-changing gas than CO2, which means it doesn't take a lot of it to create negative impacts."
climate siren -- “exxon’s plan for surging carbon emissions revealed in leaked documents,” by bloomberg’s kevin crowley and akshat rathi: “exxon mobil corp. Has been planning to increase annual carbon-dioxide emissions by as much as the output of the entire nation of greece, an analysis of internal documents reviewed by bloomberg shows, setting one of the largest corporate emitters against international efforts to slow the pace of warming.
“the drive to expand both fossil-fuel production and planet-warming pollution comes at a time when some of exxon’s rivals, such as bp plc and royal dutch shell plc, are moving to curb oil and zero-out emissions. Exxon’s own assessment of its $210 billion investment strategy shows yearly emissions rising 17% by 2025, according to the internal documents.” bloomberg
Calling climate change Marxist is just bizarre, on two counts:
1) Karl Marx lived and died in the 19th Century - well before the invention of the automobile. So how could he be concerned with it before it happened to the 20th Century extent?
2) Marx was concerned exclusively with economics (an extremely simplistic understanding of how human nature and history operate, but that's for another post). He claimed that people exploited others due to private ownership of wealth-creating property and paying their workers less than the value of their labor. He claimed this can be stopped by abolishing private ownership of wealth-generating properties. This has nothing to do with climate change.
In fact, if the issue is irrelevant to the issue "Who ought to own wealth-creating properties: individuals, government, or society as a whole?", then it's not about Marxism. It's ... that ... simple.
The world's most powerful interests made us doubt the smoking-lung cancer link. They oil companies use the same tactic to sow doubt about the connection between oil and climate change. You've been had - by a bunch of people who want to make money at the expense of public well-being
Pure dogma that we're seeing for the billion and oneth time.
You clearly didn't watch and/or understand the film. Watch it again....and keep watching until you begin to understand to backward relationship between temperature and CO2 that you've been had by.
Then demonstrate that you have given serious reflective thought to the catastrophic expense to public well-being that eliminating fossil fuel use would bring. Then maybe you'd be ready to enter this discussion.
I, for one, am still not convinced that if I park my car and ride a mule instead that climate change will end forever.
An electric car is not a solution as there is no rational way to charge one where I live.
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.
