1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

One of the few remaining credible climate change skeptics changes views

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Hygro, Jul 30, 2012.

  1. aronnax

    aronnax Let your spirit be free

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2007
    Messages:
    6,344
    Location:
    Air Temple Island
    I precisely quoted and bolded the Economist article where is said that the negative effects of fracking can be contained and limited so that Gasland can be prevented. I didn't said it was ecologically neutral source. Point that out if you can. And lastly, I presented the image because people like to think that fracking is like an oilfield or quarry digging where if massively devastates the landscape and destroys hectres upon hectres of enviromental land.

    Yes, that picture was a part of my argument. But it's a minor point. The main crux of it is that the biggest damage of fracking (gas leaks, water poisoning, the utterly idiotic earthquake creator) can be limited.

    You chose to focus on that and act as if I had forgotten about those points.
     
  2. LucyDuke

    LucyDuke staring at the clock

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    13,582
    Location:
    where mise
    I don't know how much difference it makes. I'd like to see a poll of whether the general population knows that climate isn't the same thing as weather. I'd put money on less than half. It's also not frequently explained (blame the reporters) what kind of impact a little bit of change will actually have. I pay probably more than average attention to the subject, and I can only vaguely explain those details: the concrete, measurable things in bite-size facts. A 10°F change only means wear short sleeves for a person, it's a much bigger deal for a fussy plant.
     
  3. Old Hippy

    Old Hippy Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2011
    Messages:
    3,606
    and you choose to totally ignore the effects on landowners water tables where it is pointed out that land owners, are concerned with the long term effects due to inadequate enviromental studies and instead show a loverly green photo of farmland... if things go wrong it could be far worse, far worse than a big quarry limited to hectares ... it could devastate 100's of square kilometers of farmland and the jury is still out on the enviromental studies done
     
  4. BasketCase

    BasketCase Username sez it all

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    13,024
    Location:
    Closer than you'd like
    And a larger number of such people have moved in the other direction.

    Big Picture, dude. To be sure, climate change alarmism still has sheer weight of numbers on its side.

    Of course. And when it's a skeptic such as myself presenting ironclad evidence that climate change isn't being caused by people, you dig your heels in deeper. Don't be surprised when we do it--we learned it from you.


    #1: The human race has bigger problems to deal with.

    #2: Because combating climate change would be addressing the symptom and not the cause. We need to find out what the cause is.

    #3: Because in our haste to do something, we frequently do the wrong thing and make the problem worse. Humans have an instinctive need to take action, to feel in control, and when the correct action is to do nothing, we make things worse for ourselves.

    #4: Because the climate change trend (if it's even real, which I doubt) appears to be in a warming direction, which will be more beneficial than harmful.

    #5: Because it distracts us from the actual problems. For example: growing deserts are frequently cited as a result of global warming. That's false. Global warming doesn't produce deserts. Bulldozers do. Growing deserts are in fact being caused by humans, but in ways that have absolutely nothing to do with global warming. In fact, other factors remaining unchanged, global warming shrinks deserts.

    #6: As an American, I can't do anything to combat climate change, because nations with much greater influence on the problem are not taking action, and the problem CANNOT be solved until those nations do.

    Want more?
     
  5. Ziggy Stardust

    Ziggy Stardust New Englander

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    24,607
    Location:
    High above the ice
    How is trying to preserve the status quo making things worse for ourselves?
     
  6. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,478
    Location:
    California
    :confused::confused:
    Environmental sustainability is the biggest problem we have to deal with. If we continue our current rates of energy growth not only are we using more energy annually than our solar system even has, in just a couple centuries, but in that amount of time the heat of our planet will be like 160 F on average just from the warmth given off by our electricity creation and usage.

    And I don't care how much we innovate, it doesn't matter how good our fusion is, we can't sustain our species if we have to turn all the matter in our solar system into energy in less than a year a couple or three centuries off.

    And this can be in our lifetime depending on the future of medicine. Certainly our great grandchildren's.
     
  7. LucyDuke

    LucyDuke staring at the clock

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2007
    Messages:
    13,582
    Location:
    where mise
    :lol: Yeah science!
     
  8. Disgustipated

    Disgustipated Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,346
    Location:
    Las Vegas
    This is the problem as I see it. The only way I can see preventing this is going back to how we lived in the 18th century. Unfortunately we can't sustain 7 billion people on that.

    Either way people are going to die. The only solution is some miracle energy with zero emissions, and I just don't think nuclear fusion is technically feasible. Solar is much more realistic, but energy costs will be very high. Personally, I'd be happy if the entire world switched to solar (and nuclear for night time/cloudy energy usage). Yes we will all be poorer, but we won't be killing off billions of future Earthlings.
     
  9. Cutlass

    Cutlass The Man Who Wasn't There.

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2008
    Messages:
    46,905
    Location:
    US of A

    That is completely a strawman. Tech is always moving forward. We can too, if we invest in new tech. The argument against AGW and particularly the argument against doing anything about AGW is at its heart an argument against investment and the creation of new tech. There is no reason for people to die. That's pure fiction. The reality is that the rich just do not want to be inconvenienced, no matter what price others may pay for that.
     
  10. Leoreth

    Leoreth Prince of Blood Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2009
    Messages:
    34,869
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    House of Hades
    Hilarious :lol:
     
  11. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    45,291
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    I don't know if we really think of it as 'the biggest problem'. Yesterday, I drove 30 km to attend a BBQ birthday party and this morning I drove my wife to a bike race. I cannot think of a single thing anyone (amongst those of us there) that helped push us culturally or technologically to a new paradigm of energy sustainability. We invested nearly nothing into energy development - maybe indirectly a tiny portion of the profits that the oil companies received from our consumption ... but that's about it.
     
  12. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,478
    Location:
    California
    We can't innovate our way past physics unless our understanding of physics is fundamentally lacking.

    It doesn't matter how much innovation we have without political regulation beyond the very core of our system. When you make a resource more efficient in our economic world system, that resource gets more, not less. As we get more joules, watts, calories, whatever energy you want to use, per unit of resource, we use more of those resources in absolute. This is a key model of microeconomics that has hyper macro implications.

    We can have growth, and increased standards of living, but we can't keep it going so long as we don't set enforced energy limits for all of humanity, adjusted as needed.

    And that change is, even if it turns out beneficial for a few or a great many people, going to inconvenience everyone.
     
  13. Flying Pig

    Flying Pig Utrinque Paratus Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,651
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Perfidious Albion
    Yes, there is a theoretical maximum to the efficency that we can have: yes, there is a maximum population that the Earth's farmland can sustain, yes, there is a maximum energy consumption that we can feed from renewable sources - but we're a long, long way off either of those yet. Cutlass is right that more research is still able to yield considerable benefits.
     
  14. Crezth

    Crezth 話說天下大勢分久必合合久必分

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    11,120
    Location:
    北京皇城
    What are you talking about?

    Especially since America has the largest per-capita carbon emissions.

    Anyway, here's a thing from those communists at NASA: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/warming-links.html
     
  15. Murky

    Murky Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    7,216
    Location:
    The Milky Way Galaxy
    I think the biggest obstacle to solving the problem of climate change now is human psychology not physics. There are many who are hostile towards anything that would help. They view it only as a global conspiracy or hoax despite the evidence to the contrary. These aren't just the far-right loons. These are powerful interests with lots of money and influence that don't want wind and solar to take their market share in energy production/distribution.
     
  16. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,478
    Location:
    California
    Are we? I dare say we are mere centuries away. Assuming only technology that doesn't break our understandings of the laws of physics, we can't keep this up (i.e. we'd need faster than light travel, ability to transport energy faster than light). If we keep this up there will be system death and billions of people will die. That doesn't need to happen.

    Anyway, and even then if we did invent those things, in 2,500 years we've consumed the entire galaxy's matter and turned it into energy. However it doesn't matter because some 1,500 years earlier the earth's surface is hotter than the surface of the sun, purely thanks to the amount of energy consumed. This is totally different from our kind of climate change.

    http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/


    My previous post that Cutlass was responding to. Thought it was completely obvious. Also, who the hell is this Hydro guy? He seems to write some similar things as I do. That and some economic law that I often reference but with a name that I always forget and take forever to find again.


    This is true for, I dunno, 75 years. Ample time to change things up and make it true for another 75,000 years though.
     
  17. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    45,291
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    I don't know if farmland can feed more people (with innovation). We're currently using too much fertilizer and aquifer water. We're losing species and topsoil.

    It is very true that we could feed more people than we currently are, but I don't think we could do so and increase sustainability at the same time. We're pushing the boundaries.
     
  18. Hygro

    Hygro soundcloud.com/hygro/

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2002
    Messages:
    23,478
    Location:
    California
    Commercial agriculture right now is highly efficient at being highly profitable per work hour of its proprietors. But there are vastly more sustainable farming practices that yield significantly higher calorie (and profit) per acre. They are just much more labor intensive for the guy on top and so don't scale as easily. Would you rather earn a 6 figure income doing great work per acre or a 7 figure income doing simple work per acre with many more acres? We could feed a lot more people with more sustainable practices, but the incentives aren't there right now.
     
  19. Crezth

    Crezth 話說天下大勢分久必合合久必分

    Joined:
    May 26, 2006
    Messages:
    11,120
    Location:
    北京皇城
    No, because it is babble.

    I dunno, maybe he knows Czerth?
     
  20. Truronian

    Truronian Quite unfamiliar Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2005
    Messages:
    9,869
    Location:
    Near Cornwall
    I always amazed at how big climate change and global warming threads can get without really containing any science.
     

Share This Page