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.
A straw man argument, as I previously said the same about efficiency, but was addressing the comment about how "safe" they are vs nuclear power. And fusion research certainly does not preclude shorter term stop gap measures. At this point in time, solar and wind are actually contributing to our energy needs, while fusion is not.
Sure, I have no problem with the forms of energy existing. I just don't see why they should be subsidized, rather than letting them stand on their own. They have strengths and they have weaknesses. They're not perfect forms of energy like many make them out to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
It is also interesting that you believe in the singularity (untested, unproven theory) , but think that the vast energy of the sun cannot be harnessed. We are already harnessing it! And it will be those same scientists who improve it's efficiency and develop fusion as an alternative energy source.
When scientific consensus is based on research and data and factual analysis, it is the exact epitome of science.
My comment on "the singularity" was more an illusion to how fast technology is improving than strict adherence to the theory. Humans will adapt to changing climates. They have in the past. There's no reason to harm the economy to try to "stop global warming" - far better to build up the economy and use those additional resources to make any changing climate irrelevant. And don't say that the global warming policies implemented event this day do not cause economic harm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shaker281
Skepticism is good. But denouncing scientific methodology, as if all scientist are involved in a mass conspiracy, while embracing a position based in politics and belief is a bit nonsensical.
When the only counter to skeptics is "scientific consensus", which is a logical fallacy, then it's hard not to see a conspiracy. When scientists are bullied for dissenting, when politicians rush to make laws that have real effects before the science is settled, when everything in climate science depends on global warming being caused by humans (thus heavily biasing any research), it's nonsensical to NOT see the conspiracy.
Sure, I have no problem with the forms of energy existing. I just don't see why they should be subsidized, rather than letting them stand on their own. They have strengths and they have weaknesses. They're not perfect forms of energy like many make them out to be.
I do not know anyone who considers solar or wind to be perfect forms of energy. Just one more piece of a puzzle we are attempting to assemble. We are at a crossroads and attempting to find a path forward. If, at this point, all we have is a unicycle, it still beats walking. A careful review of emerging technology shows that there is almost always a need for subsidies to support development and mass adoption of the technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RecentGrad1
My comment on "the singularity" was more an illusion to how fast technology is improving than strict adherence to the theory. Humans will adapt to changing climates. They have in the past. There's no reason to harm the economy to try to "stop global warming" - far better to build up the economy and use those additional resources to make any changing climate irrelevant. And don't say that the global warming policies implemented event this day do not cause economic harm.
I suspect the idea of the singularity is exactly that: an illusion. Though, I know you meant "allusion". Still, I was just having some fun with that. We could certainly examine specific policies and their efficacy, but that is an entirely different subject form my point. Which is to use fact based analysis to determine truth, as opposed to ideological dogma. Thus, a straw man in this context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RecentGrad1
When the only counter to skeptics is "scientific consensus", which is a logical fallacy, then it's hard not to see a conspiracy. When scientists are bullied for dissenting, when politicians rush to make laws that have real effects before the science is settled, when everything in climate science depends on global warming being caused by humans (thus heavily biasing any research), it's nonsensical to NOT see the conspiracy.
The only counter to skepticism is not "scientific consensus". It is the data and facts brought about by bringing to bear scientific methodology and actual research. Once again, to the detractors I would say, bring on your relevant facts, data and research. Where is your evidence that scientists are being bullied for dissenting? And what does the fact that politicians go off half-****ed have to do with the data and research that has so far been assembled?
We do agree that the science is "not settled". But for those who trade in ideology vs science, will there ever be enough facts?
BTW, if one wants to bring "conspiracy" or "agenda" into this discussion, there is a much stronger case that those who have an economic stake in coal or nuclear or petroleum have a much greater reason to promote their agenda or dismiss the science, than those who urge prudence, caution and careful examination of all known information.
Plus, I certainly acknowledge there may be a questionable economic basis to certain regulations regarding clean energy initiatives.
BTW, if one wants to bring "conspiracy" or "agenda" into this discussion, there is a much stronger case that those who have an economic stake in coal or nuclear or petroleum have a much greater reason to promote their agenda or dismiss the science, than those who urge prudence, caution and careful examination of all known information.
Of course. This is what's been driving the denial of the fact that there's a human component to global warming, all these years. What's been discussed at the UN is the US's denial of the international scientific consensus and refusal to cooperate. Choosing to import coal instead of buying local is just an economic decision. Just another aspect of globalization, like outsourcing various jobs.
The same thing happens with using US oil resources. Rather than drilling in the US, where environmental protections are strict, we decide to import our oil for cheaper from nations that couldn't care less about the environment. "We're not drilling in the the US!" people say, while they pass on the jobs and environmental damage (as well as our energy independence) to a developing country that couldn't care less about the environment. I cannot believe how much resistance there is to using US oil resources.
Yes, I would rather use coal, oil, and natural gas that is produced in countries that have restrictions.
U.S. Liberal democrats fight to end global warming but the truth is that for every coal plat they shut down in America, they give the coal contract to a country just 3 hours away, in this case Colombia has taken over the coal jobs of West VA. according to this article.
Will this help global warming(the same pollution 3 hours away) or is this just to ruin American production? it seems that every single global warming effort to help with climate change they instead just take away American jobs and give them to other countries.
I really wish our schools did a better job.
Global warming is real. It is not up for debate. The "lack of concensus" is really "99 to 1".
No, moving the dirty plants (yes, there is a difference between clean coal and dirty coal) does not combat global warming. However, the politicians are stupid as ****. One actually said the problem with wind power was that the turbines were blocking the wind and slowing down wind speeds across the planet. He was on the panel that was supposed to be working on climate change. He was a real waste of organs.
However, the problem we face is that pollution is convenient and profitable right now, and the people who have to deal with us destroying the planet are just barely being born, and in some cases won't be born for another decade or two, so they have very little say. The damage may be catastrophic as we will reach a tipping point after which it will be virtually impossible to reverse course.
The bigger question at hand is why does everything turn into a republicans vs democrats issue. The only reason that something would become a political issue is because someone somewhere is afraid of losing money, so they use their talking heads to brainwash the public. Observation: Hey look carbon dioxide raises the greenhouse levels, that in turn heats up the atmosphere...we better be careful about how much we're producing....turns into..."Libertards are stewpid!" "No republitards are stewpid!!!"
The puppet-masters sit back and laugh....and laugh....and laugh. The definition of intelligent is being able to see that theres a man behind the curtains, not calling your fellow man stupid.
Of course. This is what's been driving the denial of the fact that there's a human component to global warming, all these years. What's been discussed at the UN is the US's denial of the international scientific consensus and refusal to cooperate. Choosing to import coal instead of buying local is just an economic decision. Just another aspect of globalization, like outsourcing various jobs.
You mean the UN that is promoting the Agenda 21 aka Future earth? This is a pure and simple brainwashing effort into the Marxist world. If what you say was true, then they would stop production, not send it out for production in another country nearby.
Glaciers are melting. Whether humans are causing it is debatable.
Even the History Channel did a documentary about the climate during the "Medieval Warm Period". The climate was warmer then than it is now, and it clearly wasn't caused by industrial pollution. Of course, the last half hour of the 90 minute documentary, they ranted about global warming, even though the first hour of it was all about how the climate warmed up during the Middle Ages and then subsequently cooled off for a few hundred years until things began warming up again in the 19th century.
Not unless the dataset ended before 1995. It's certainly true that the first assessment report (AR1) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) did indeed show a graph with the Medieval Warm Period being above the recent warming.
However, the global temperatures since then (i.e. since the IPCC AR1 was published) have exceeded that during the Medieval Warm Period by a significant margin, and the more recent IPCC reports show that the last 2 decades have shown a degree of warming not plausibly explained by natural causes alone.
Not any more. Glaciers covered in pollution have been filmed over time, both close up, to show how the pollutants are causing accelerated melting, and from a distance, with comparisons done with photos taken in previous generations. There's no denying it any more. See the documentary: "Chasing Ice".
What most people think about glaciers is probably not true. Easy to cherry pick. Not so easy to understand the complete context in terms of so called climate change.
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.
