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.
I'm not blaming Republicans, I'm making fun of them for being the only powerful group of people on the planet to deny that humans have anything to do with the current global warming/destabilization crisis, and for denying that humans should do anything to try to head it off even a little.
You can't solve a problem by calling the scientific experts in that field "*******s" who supposedly have a "liberal agenda" as a basis for their analyses. You can't solve any problem by denying that it exists.
While your point has *some* basis of truth, there are indeed many republicans that accept there is a human contribution to global warming.
Your portrayal doesn't add to the conversation in a positive way, you are about as bad as they are in continuing to try to politicize this.
Where the main problem lies is WHAT to do about it. For example, the US is lambasted for not signing the kyoto accord....and the countries that did sign it had thier emissions increase more than the US.
That's the crux of the matter, do you sign something and adhere to it while other countries don't or dishonestly monitor? Do you sign pieces of paper that do nothing?
Personally, I support conservation and regardless of political affiliation who doesn't want to have lower energy bills? So on that front I think we make strides on efficiency and pollution, get the low hanging fruit without making it about a politicized topic like "global warming".
P.S. Ironically, during the last ice-age scientists posit that the earth came close to a tipping point where it would have iced over completely and we'd all be dead now.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,157,672 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
While your point has *some* basis of truth, there are indeed many republicans that accept there is a human contribution to global warming.
Your portrayal doesn't add to the conversation in a positive way, you are about as bad as they are in continuing to try to politicize this.
Where the main problem lies is WHAT to do about it. For example, the US is lambasted for not signing the kyoto accord....and the countries that did sign it had thier emissions increase more than the US.
That's the crux of the matter, do you sign something and adhere to it while other countries don't or dishonestly monitor? Do you sign pieces of paper that do nothing?
Personally, I support conservation and regardless of political affiliation who doesn't want to have lower energy bills? So on that front I think we make strides on efficiency and pollution, get the low hanging fruit without making it about a politicized topic like "global warming".
P.S. Ironically, during the last ice-age scientists posit that the earth came close to a tipping point where it would have iced over completely and we'd all be dead now.
This isn't a math problem, you know. A math problem doesn't need to be politicized. This does - the future of our planet and civilization are at risk, and politics are the only way to fund solutions to the problem.
When I say " Some multinational corporations such as ExxonMobile, and political conservatives in the USA, are the only major political groups in the world to oppose doing SOMETHING (whatever the particular solutions)" ...... well, that's a generalization but a fairly accurate one. In a discussion like this, I can't say the above comment and then list all the exceptions, such as "........ except for the following: Joe Mathguy of Cincinnati, Lisa Smith who is assistant sub-secretary to the CEO of the Exxon headquarters in Mobile AL, ......."
This isn't a math problem, you know. A math problem doesn't need to be politicized. This does - the future of our planet and civilization are at risk, and politics are the only way to fund solutions to the problem.
When I say " Some multinational corporations such as ExxonMobile, and political conservatives in the USA, are the only major political groups in the world to oppose doing SOMETHING (whatever the particular solutions)" ...... well, that's a generalization but a fairly accurate one. In a discussion like this, I can't say the above comment and then list all the exceptions, such as "........ except for the following: Joe Mathguy of Cincinnati, Lisa Smith who is assistant sub-secretary to the CEO of the Exxon headquarters in Mobile AL, ......."
Let me try to make my point another way. Let's assume that everyone on the planet agreed that human emissions were causing an overall average warming of the planet.
Now what? How are you going to herd those "cats"? Most developing countries have already said they aren't going to stop burning coal etc. as the west has already had thier industrial explosion and pollution.
Slash US fuel consumption and global prices fall....increasing usage in other parts of the world.
This is the tricky part...actually having REAL IMPACT instead of meaningless scraps of paper like kyoto.
I hope this helps you understand that some people oppose signing things like kyoto not because they don't believe in less pollution (even if they aren't believers in global warming) but because it would impose real restrictions on the US and fake ones on much of the rest of the world.
LOL. The EU can't even get it's members to not tank their collective currency.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,157,672 times
Reputation: 8105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
Let me try to make my point another way. Let's assume that everyone on the planet agreed that human emissions were causing an overall average warming of the planet.
Now what? How are you going to herd those "cats"? Most developing countries have already said they aren't going to stop burning coal etc. as the west has already had thier industrial explosion and pollution.
Slash US fuel consumption and global prices fall....increasing usage in other parts of the world.
This is the tricky part...actually having REAL IMPACT instead of meaningless scraps of paper like kyoto.
I hope this helps you understand that some people oppose signing things like kyoto not because they don't believe in less pollution (even if they aren't believers in global warming) but because it would impose real restrictions on the US and fake ones on much of the rest of the world.
LOL. The EU can't even get it's members to not tank their collective currency.
True enough. It's probably too late. The world can't get together on population control either, even though population increases will lead us to increased pollution, at least before energy resources run out (we don't seem to be developing alternatives fast enough to deal with the loss of easily extracted oil). We've already done a little irreparable harm, and we will probably do much more before we crash as a global civilization.
There are already some positive feedback loops starting on release of greenhouse gases from ocean bottom and land, and so increasing pollution in the next few years could leverage our impact on the ecosystems far beyond what would normally be expected if the vicious cycles weren't enhanced.
It would be nice if we could at least try to lessen our impact - we pollute and impact the environment vastly more than any other country. That PO's me, and I don't mean Peak Oil. But it's true that almost certainly nothing meaningful will be done.
True enough. It's probably too late. The world can't get together on population control either, even though population increases will lead us to increased pollution, at least before energy resources run out (we don't seem to be developing alternatives fast enough to deal with the loss of easily extracted oil). We've already done a little irreparable harm, and we will probably do much more before we crash as a global civilization.
There are already some positive feedback loops starting on release of greenhouse gases from ocean bottom and land, and so increasing pollution in the next few years could leverage our impact on the ecosystems far beyond what would normally be expected if the vicious cycles weren't enhanced.
It would be nice if we could at least try to lessen our impact - we pollute and impact the environment vastly more than any other country. That PO's me, and I don't mean Peak Oil. But it's true that almost certainly nothing meaningful will be done.
This is why I am a BIG believer in attacking the problem from a practical standpoint. I don't care what your political ideology, religion or whatever is....people like to save money. On this note I liked the governments tax credits for energy saving things like windows etc. Affordable technology is the key.
Politicizing something is stupid and it's not just the far rights fault either.
You are absolutely correct about feedback loops. Ice reflects 90% of sunlight back up so as more melts, more sunlight absorbed etc. They have some great maps of the US when the oceans are 1000ft higher....no Florida and a huge gulf in the middle of the country too.
P.S. If we wanted to do something drastic we could absolutely cool the earth....or maybe yellowstone will beat us to the punch. Nature has quite the sense of humor.
Location: where you sip the tea of the breasts of the spinsters of Utica
8,297 posts, read 14,157,672 times
Reputation: 8105
Politicizing something is not stupid, since responsible and far-sighted individuals are few and far between. You might live among responsible people concerned about the environment, but I live in the lower levels of society, where splurging and showing off to the neighbors are way more important than frugality and conservation. For them to change requires a carrot-and-stick approach by the govt, and getting the govt to do that involves politicking.
Yeah, I guess we could cool the Earth by mandating that pavement and buildings be coated in light reflective colors - but that needs a lot more study in case it leads to unintended consequences.
Another idea would be to mandate solar panels or windmills on all new buildings or houses constructed, regardless of the cost in birds. It wouldn't be a huge percentage of total building costs, especially as solar panel prices would go down eventually from economies of increased scale.
Politicizing something is not stupid, since responsible and far-sighted individuals are few and far between. You might live among responsible people concerned about the environment, but I live in the lower levels of society, where splurging and showing off to the neighbors are way more important than frugality and conservation. For them to change requires a carrot-and-stick approach by the govt, and getting the govt to do that involves politicking.
Yeah, I guess we could cool the Earth by mandating that pavement and buildings be coated in light reflective colors - but that needs a lot more study in case it leads to unintended consequences.
Another idea would be to mandate solar panels or windmills on all new buildings or houses constructed, regardless of the cost in birds. It wouldn't be a huge percentage of total building costs, especially as solar panel prices would go down eventually from economies of increased scale.
Great post.
I love the idea of showing people how say...a roof top garden instead of black asphalt can save an apartment building big money in summer cooling costs as well as being a draw for tenants. Things like this don't require any belief in global warming or denial of it....and my left wing friends and right wing friends all like fresh tomatos.
Just basic, "hey lets save some money" type ideas while at the same time helping reduce consumption (and foreign dependency and trade deficits), lowers pollution and what not....there is something for everyone in there.
Let me try to make my point another way. Let's assume that everyone on the planet agreed that human emissions were causing an overall average warming of the planet.
Now what? How are you going to herd those "cats"? Most developing countries have already said they aren't going to stop burning coal etc. as the west has already had thier industrial explosion and pollution.
Slash US fuel consumption and global prices fall....increasing usage in other parts of the world.
Not necessarily: if prices fall there is less incentive for the FF companies to invest in finding and exploiting new supplies. It takes years to develop a new field. Remember that the easy stuff has been found and exploited. Less than a hundred years ago the Energy Return On Investment was 100:1, new sources are likely to be 5:1. (Think tar sands and deep ocean drilling compared to sinking a well in texas)
Thanks to the US's hate relationship with renewables, most of the patents are held by non-US companies: check any announcement of renewables in the USA and you'll probably find a non-US senior partner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mathguy
LOL. The EU can't even get it's members to not tank their collective currency.
In January 2001 1 Euro was worth 88 US cents: today it's worth 1$36. Reality would suggest that it's the USA that can't get its members to not tank their collective currency. Given that you have a significant minority of anti-science types sabotaging your progress to the next industrial revolution, things won't get better any time soon.
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.
