Why global warming would be good for us

[strijder20]

For several years now, the scientific community has been promoting 'Global warming'. Whether the science is wrong or right I'll leave up to you to decide. However, if it is true, it would be good for us.

1. Global warming would hit the West the least

Climate predictions show that the main hit regios will be India, Africa and the Amazon regio. This would surely lead to economic slowdown and recession there, meaning that the relative dominance of the western economy - and America's dominance in particular - would actually increase thanks to global warming.

2. Global warming would open up resources and markets

Climate disasters would be able to deliver the final blow of government-controlled firms exploiting natural resources in Africa and several governmentarian states. This would allow enterprises from relatively unhit regions to take over these assets and bring more wealth to their home country.

3. Global warming would lead to increased energy demands

An unstable climate would increase demands for fossil fuels - both those used to generate electricity and those used to make fertilizers. Whichever nation controls the last fossil fuel reserves would control the small supply in a world of high demand - huge profits would be possible. Therefore, expanding our influence in the Middle East is a must, instead of the crime it is often portrayed as.

4. Crisis favors the strong

In times of instability, it is often seen that the stronger thrive while the weaker falter. It is not needed to say which nation is the strongest right now - our strength and control over other countries would only benefit from a global climate crisis with disasters and crop failures.

It is obvious that we are better off whether global warming is fake or not: in the first case, we can expand our fossil fuel based economy by exploiting new forms of fossils such as tar sands and shale; in the second case, it will bring relative economic benefits leading to a second century of American dominance.

Regards,

Murican Eagle

 

[Tahuti]

Even if global warming is good/a sham, many of the technologies developed to counter it are useful nevertheless. For instance, electric cars make us less dependent on OPEC countries for oil, and solar panels increase local self-suffiency.

 

[Tee Kay]

Can't tell if satire.

 

[Borachio]

I don't think it is satire.

1. Global warming would hit the West the least

I think you're likely right. The effects on the UK, in particular, are certainly likely to be mitigated by the shut down of the Gulf Stream. And in any case, the richer countries will be those most able to take steps to mitigate the worst effects of any climate change on them.

However, it speaks ill of your parochialism that you can't see further than the end of your own nose.

And actually being in favour of increasing inequity is also short sighted, imo.

2. Global warming would open up resources and markets

Climate disasters would be able to deliver the final blow of government-controlled firms exploiting natural resources in Africa and several governmentarian states. This would allow enterprises from relatively unhit regions to take over these assets and bring more wealth to their home country.

Yeah. No. This is just too simplistic for me to know where to start answering it.

3. Global warming would lead to increased energy demands

An unstable climate would increase demands for fossil fuels - both those used to generate electricity and those used to make fertilizers. Whichever nation controls the last fossil fuel reserves would control the small supply in a world of high demand - huge profits would be possible. Therefore, expanding our influence in the Middle East is a must, instead of the crime it is often portrayed as.

You really don't have a global view of this issue at all, do you?

4. Crisis favors the strong

In times of instability, it is often seen that the stronger thrive while the weaker falter. It is not needed to say which nation is the strongest right now - our strength and control over other countries would only benefit from a global climate crisis with disasters and crop failures.

It is obvious that we are better off whether global warming is fake or not: in the first case, we can expand our fossil fuel based economy by exploiting new forms of fossils such as tar sands and shale; in the second case, it will bring relative economic benefits leading to a second century of American dominance.

You're not a fascist, by any chance? Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, of course. It's just that this sort of argument is terribly reminiscent of fascism.

 

[Bamspeedy]

I don't think it is satire.

My bet is that it is. First post in forum, the user name, how controversial the post is, etc. just screams, DL.

But if it's not, Ill just say that yes, there will be some individuals who will benefit from global warming, just like some construction companies benefitted from Katrina.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Can't tell if satire.

'Murican Eagle... Sounds like a real McCoy poster to me.

 

[James Stuart]

For several years now, the scientific community has been promoting the hoax 'Global warming'. Whether the science is wrong or right I'll leave up to you to decide. However, if it is true, it would be good for us.

1. Global warming would hit the West the least

Climate predictions show that the main hit regios will be India, Africa and the Amazon regio. This would surely lead to economic slowdown and recession there, meaning that the relative dominance of the western economy - and America's dominance in particular - would actually increase thanks to global warming.

2. Global warming would open up resources and markets

Climate disasters would be able to deliver the final blow of government-controlled firms exploiting natural resources in Africa and several governmentarian states. This would allow enterprises from relatively unhit regions to take over these assets and bring more wealth to their home country.

3. Global warming would lead to increased energy demands

An unstable climate would increase demands for fossil fuels - both those used to generate electricity and those used to make fertilizers. Whichever nation controls the last fossil fuel reserves would control the small supply in a world of high demand - huge profits would be possible. Therefore, expanding our influence in the Middle East is a must, instead of the crime it is often portrayed as.

4. Crisis favors the strong

In times of instability, it is often seen that the stronger thrive while the weaker falter. It is not needed to say which nation is the strongest right now - our strength and control over other countries would only benefit from a global climate crisis with disasters and crop failures.

It is obvious that we are better off whether global warming is fake or not: in the first case, we can expand our fossil fuel based economy by exploiting new forms of fossils such as tar sands and shale; in the second case, it will bring relative economic benefits leading to a second century of American dominance.

Regards,

Murican Eagle

This makes me ask: why are we not actively pursuing global warming? Obviously, global warming is a hoax, but between your nation, and my nation's Dear Leader Tony Abbott, we have the capacity to deliberatelly warm our planet's temperature. I speak, of course, of the use of large mirrors in orbit, launched from Australia on American rockets, not of our fossil fuel usage and export, which has been proven, scientifically, to not cause global warming. If it did, we would have some evidence by now, but we clearly don't.

I propose that we pursue this mirror idea. It would benefit both our countries greatly.

 

[James Stuart]

i totally diaagree on that actually

Care to elaborate? You have some sort of problem with mirrors? One of those glass-hatin' environmentalist commies?

 

[onejayhawk]

Can't tell if satire.

First post. Definitely either satire or troll.

J

 

[Tahuti]

Can't tell if satire.

I'm pretty sure it isn't. Some people like to bring arguments in a very told-you-so way.

 

[warpus]

Whenever a liberal tells me that global warming is something we should be worried about, I ask: "Did Jesus own a fridge?". That shuts them right up.

 

[Harv]

Even if global warming is good/a sham, many of the technologies developed to counter it are useful nevertheless. For instance, electric cars make us less dependent on OPEC countries for oil, and solar panels increase local self-suffiency.

I thought most electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels.

However, in the long term, I think solar is the way to go, and here is why:

250 MW/km² - approximate average solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth. (1400x0.7/4)
510 million km² - approximate surface area of the Earth.

127500 TW - solar power reaching Earth's surface

 

[El_Machinae]

I thought most electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels.

It is. But electricity is not dependent upon fossil fuels like the Internal Combustion Engine is. e-cars allow the creation of alternative sources of power, in that e-cars don't care how the electrons are generated.

Now, switching the source of electricity requires concerted efforts from consumers, investors, and the government, but at least e-car are starting point to having a carbon-free transportation industry.

 

[strijder20]

Even if global warming is good/a sham, many of the technologies developed to counter it are useful nevertheless. For instance, electric cars make us less dependent on OPEC countries for oil, and solar panels increase local self-suffiency.

I do not deny that carbon-free technologies can be profitable. However, taxing corporations and then subsequently using that tax money to provide subsidies for otherwise insolvent 'green energy' is hurting our economy, as we'd be better off using the most profitable energy form.

I think you're likely right. The effects on the UK, in particular, are certainly likely to be mitigated by the shut down of the Gulf Stream. And in any case, the richer countries will be those most able to take steps to mitigate the worst effects of any climate change on them.

However, it speaks ill of your parochialism that you can't see further than the end of your own nose.

And actually being in favour of increasing inequity is also short sighted, imo.

Looking after my own interest first and subsequently the interest of my peers is what produced the economic growth and power of the west in the previous century. It is the basis of the wealth generating supermodel that is capitalism.

Increasing inequity is only bad when it starts to threaten consumer power.

Yeah. No. This is just too simplistic for me to know where to start answering it.

Governments have since the advent of capitalism tried to limit the market freedom, to lock up resources with protectionism and to attain monopolies in certain sectors. Only a major crisis, which floods, hurricanes and droughts can provide, is able to substantially and immediately weaken government grasp over resources.

You really don't have a global view of this issue at all, do you?

I do. As long as we control the majority of the fossil fuels, we can maintain superiority and control over the world - especially if that world's energy demand is rising.

You're not a fascist, by any chance? Not that there's anything necessarily wrong with that, of course. It's just that this sort of argument is terribly reminiscent of fascism.

I'm stating the facts. It is known that capital generates capital, and that therefore one requires capital in the first place to attain further wealth. Crisises like predicted will devastate the 'small capital' entrepreneurs in the third world; this allows the 'large capital' entrepreneurs, who are protected by the large scale of their wealth and the relative unaffectedness of their homes, to step in and further generate profits and increase efficiency.

I also refuse to acknowledge government intervention as the way to exploit these crises efficiently; entrepreneurs are better able to do this. I am an advocate of capitalism, not fascism; I do not claim any right for the West to rule. I merely predict that the current situation will lead to further control of the developed countries over the developing countries.

My bet is that it is. First post in forum, the user name, how controversial the post is, etc. just screams, DL.

But if it's not, Ill just say that yes, there will be some individuals who will benefit from global warming, just like some construction companies benefitted from Katrina.

My name is referring to a webcomic of a dear friend of mine; I fail to see the relation with global warming.

My post isn't controversial; nothing I have said has been refuted so far, only cast in doubt for 'moral' reasons. I also did not use any numbers; I merely claim that relatively global warming is benefiting the West.

I thought most electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels.

However, in the long term, I think solar is the way to go, and here is why:

250 MW/km² - approximate average solar energy reaching the surface of the Earth. (1400x0.7/4)
510 million km² - approximate surface area of the Earth.

127500 TW - solar power reaching Earth's surface

There are a couple things wrong with those figures; primarly that using all the energy reaching the surface will take out reflection out of the picture and therefore lead to severe global warming (several dozens of degrees).

Secondarily just stating the possible extractable wealth leaves ease of extraction and even possiblity of extraction (good luck trying to extract energy in the oceans or the rainforest without killing all the plants below).

However, you are right with it being a sustainable (until the sun blows up) form of energy.

This makes me ask: why are we not actively pursuing global warming? Obviously, global warming is a hoax, but between your nation, and my nation's Dear Leader Tony Abbott, we have the capacity to deliberatelly warm our planet's temperature. I speak, of course, of the use of large mirrors in orbit, launched from Australia on American rockets, not of our fossil fuel usage and export, which has been proven, scientifically, to not cause global warming. If it did, we would have some evidence by now, but we clearly don't.

I propose that we pursue this mirror idea. It would benefit both our countries greatly.

Sadly enough our technology to shield those mirrors from space debris and satellite debris is not developed enough. I also do not agree with there not being any evidence for global warming in place. Using those mirrors as an offensive system to scorch farmland and cities in rival lands has some military applications though.

 

[Harv]

It is. But electricity is not dependent upon fossil fuels like the Internal Combustion Engine is.

Agreed.

e-cars allow the creation of alternative sources of power, in that e-cars don't care how the electrons are generated.

Again, long-term, I think electric vehicles will be the way to go. Here is the explanation from physics: If I am driving an electric vehicle, if I "slam on the brakes," I can convert the kinetic energy into electrical energy. If I am driving a vehicle with the traditional internal combustion engine and I slam on the brakes, I cannot convert the kinetic energy back into gasoline.

However, before they become popular, they would have to build a vehicle that would win NASCAR.

 

[bhsup]

I just want to point out that internal combustion engines don't actually require fossil fuels. They can use other sources to power them.

Hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle

 

[warpus]

Looking after my own interest first and subsequently the interest of my peers is what produced the economic growth and power of the west in the previous century.

And if you don't realize and accept that your peers here are all the humans on this planet, then you're never going to understand why you can't just put profits ahead of everything else, especially when the environment we live in is getting destroyed.

 

[El_Machinae]

Additionally, it wasn't just self-interest, but a system of laws that prevented people from just taking other people's property willy-nilly which is what climate change de facto does. And anyone who's spent a few minutes watching a few descriptions of comparative advantage knows that having prosperous trading partners leads to faster wealth growth than having poor trading partners.

I just want to point out that internal combustion engines don't actually require fossil fuels. They can use other sources to power them.

Hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle

Yes, that's true. I guess I was using 'internal combustion engine' as a stand-in for 'car that requires fossil fuels'.

We don't actually need the liquid fuel to be fossil: biodiesel, ethanol, etc. But, it's energetically cheaper to just deliver electrons to a battery that to use electrons to convert elements into hydrocarbon chains.

 

[Borachio]

Hmm. The beauty of hydrogen, though, is that it's easy enough to convert existing internal combustion technology to use it, while the drawbacks of battery technology may prove intractable.

 

[El_Machinae]

Is it easy enough? Where are there very strong technological crossovers? And maybe some of the pseudo strong crossovers with current ICE technologies/infrastructure? Honest question, 'cause I don't know