Climate change - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-07-2008, 10:33 PM   #16
Refugee
 
AliEnvy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 2,320
Local Time: 03:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntalwar View Post
I haven't seen them in years. No more flocks of migratory birds - used to see them all the time as a kid.
Speaking of migratory birds, one day last week on my commute into work and again heading home, I saw huge flocks of Canadian geese heading due north. Odd.
__________________

__________________
AliEnvy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 11:50 AM   #17
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ntalwar View Post
Al Gore's house now has a solar roof, after local zoning laws were changed - more zoning laws need to change in this country. The oil industry has enjoyed tax breaks and subsidies, and wind/solar should be entitled to the same, which will help offset the cost.
Remember that Al Gore can afford these changes. What can the average person do? The average in the population has some major debt and mortgages to deal with first. It's like a tax the rich can afford but the middle class would struggle with. The gap between rich and poor would definately increase if these changes were pursued aggressively. These changes should be adopted slowly because people can't produce so quickly to adopt them. Solar panels are crappy technology and are made with rare materials so if everyone tried it the price would prevent it from happening. Solar panels in northern regions also get less sun so they are even less useable.

I think nuclear power is the only viable way at the moment to not crush the standard of living. Environmentalists need to study economics more (other than Karl Marx) if they want to see real success. People would love to adopt cheaper alternatives, but they won't sacrifice their children's future economically.
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 12:04 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
elevated_u2_fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: I'm here 'cus I don't want to go home
Posts: 31,692
Local Time: 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Environmentalists need to study economics more (other than Karl Marx) if they want to see real success. People would love to adopt cheaper alternatives, but they won't sacrifice their children's future economically.
"Economists" and I use that term lightly, need to study the Environment more, that is if they want their children to have a habitable world to live in.

Solar panels are not nearly as expensive as oil interests want you to believe, the technology continues to improve and the cost continues to decrease. As ntalwar said, if the same amount of tax breaks and incentives were given to alternative energy as oil and gas you would see a drastic change in price.

Even if the common person cannot afford solar panels or what not, surely they can afford to replace standard light bulbs with energy efficient fluorescents, turn down their heat and AC by a couple of degrees and god forbid - walk or bike or take a bus once and a while...
__________________
elevated_u2_fan is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 12:30 PM   #19
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
ntalwar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,900
Local Time: 10:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
People would love to adopt cheaper alternatives, but they won't sacrifice their children's future economically.
Of course solar works only where there is sun. Consider how many thousands of wind turbines and other clean energy projects could have been built with the financial bailout money, on the other hand. Good mass transit is also lacking in the US compared to Europe. In the DC area, we finally just got a rail extension approved to Dulles Airport (and through heavily populated areas)- in Europe those types of rail projects were done decades ago. It shows how much influence the oil industry has here.
__________________
ntalwar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 01:16 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Se7en View Post
a large percentage of carbon emissions are byproducts of burning fossil fuels, which also emit a host of other pollutants. nitrogen oxide and sulfur dioxide, among others. so just out of curiosity, how do you see focusing on a reduction of carbon emissions as being a separate issue from "clean air?" is it the framing of the issue that bothers you? if people campaigned around clean air instead of climate change would that make a difference to you?
It would. Reducing C02 to 1990 levels is just not feasible therefore not politically feasible. The population has increased and there would have to be lots of poverty to accompany it. This is especially true for developing countries. By focussing on clear air and water there would be less attention to C02 and more to other gasses that can create acid rain and respatory problems. I mean we are getting WAY out there now that Cow farts are being looked at for carbon tax purposes.

Farmers target EPA report they say might tax cows

There's something unnatural and exaggerrated with scientists today that looks political and maniac like. It doesn't help when Patrick Moore the founder of Greenpeace says that there is not enough evidence to show man being the main cause of warming. At least he's a proponent of nuclear power:

Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power | News Updates | Idaho Statesman

If we are going to make a premptive stike on global warming without the evidence then we need to look at options like nuclear power because they are more cost effective though there would have to be reprocessing in place to make it safer:

Nuclear reprocessing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reading the Skeptical Environmentalist by Lomborg showed quotes from scientists with WWF exaggerating their claims on purpose to scare people into doing the "right" thing. It becomes a cry wolf situation where premises are created about the environment and proven wrong over time. If any people in other professions did this on a consistent basis they wouldn't be trustworthy or professional.

The Skeptical Environmentalist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
Originally Posted by Se7en View Post
also, i think it's a bit disingenuous to say that anthropogenic co2 emissions are a basic element of photosynthesis. the united states pumped out 5.89 billion metric tons of energy related co2 in 2006. combined with other industrialized nations, that creates a massive amount of co2 that is unnecessary for the continuation of photosynthesis.
Well you can't have photosynthesis without C02 so that I don't think it is disingenous. Also there has been no set point of "optimum" C02 since planet earth has gone through natural climate change its entire history. What is excess? What may have been optimal for us was not necessarily what has happened in Earth's history and may not be optimal in the future. We could have an ice age 1000 years from now that is totally natural and it would wipe out much of life. Do we really have the power to control the warming or cooling on this planet yet?

I'm sure C02 has some warming affect but the science hasn't proven how much is related to humans conclusively.

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...0_TakingGr.pdf

Richard Lindzen's view of the IPCC report and their conclusions to man made global warming:

1. Evidence for natural variability is restricted to model outputs.
2. Evidence is said to include the irrelevant claim that only by assuming human causality is policy relevance assured. To be sure, policy relevance is important, but it cannot be a reason for a scientific conclusion.
3. The assertion that there is no reason to suppose that there are factors omitted from the models is likely to be false as we shall discuss shortly. So too is the claim that such factors are currently unknown to science.


Looking at this report you can see a simplification of the data that goes too far and when there is an absent explanation for warming we see a pointing to humans automatically and a ruling out of other causes we aren't sure of, or have little studies on. I want to see the science improve so that there is much more consensus on what's happening in the atmosphere before we go into a thicket of world taxes and regulations.

UAHuntsville News

Here's another guy who backs up some of Lindzen's assertions of the Iris hypothesis:

Iris hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Science is still gathering evidence and tests. The debate isn't over yet.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 01:26 PM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by elevated_u2_fan View Post
Even if the common person cannot afford solar panels or what not, surely they can afford to replace standard light bulbs with energy efficient fluorescents, turn down their heat and AC by a couple of degrees and god forbid - walk or bike or take a bus once and a while...
This is fine but it won't be enough to reduce it down to 1990 levels. Your examples definately won't destroy the economy but many people won't bike to work because they have to use their car for employment purposes or have to commute from far away. I do like the idea of trying to find work nearby so I could walk to work but most people can't be too choosy. They are just happy to have a job to go to.

I'm all for finding more ways to be efficient and buying more efficient cars because if it even helps my pocketbook it is actually good for the economy. There is an argument for reducing extravagent lifestyles so you can actually save money and reduce the usage of our oil reserves at the same time. Yet don't expect Hollywood green types like DiCaprio to actually live like that and still go to work. Let's be clear. The people who are supposed to reduce their carbon footprint are the majority of the population. The jet set will still use their private planes and won't live lower middle class lifestyles.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2008, 05:54 PM   #22
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 01:47 AM
One thing we can do to cut climate emissions is encourage more work from home, a computer and high speed internet connection, even used for a day or two a week, would have a decent effect on carbon emissions and traffic congestion.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 08:34 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
the iron horse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: in a glass of CheerWine
Posts: 3,251
Local Time: 10:47 AM
Snow in Vegas.

What snows there stays there.
__________________
the iron horse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-18-2008, 11:04 PM   #24
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by the iron horse View Post
Snow in Vegas.
So obviously climates are being thrown off...
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 12:19 AM   #25
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
I want to see the science improve so that there is much more consensus on what's happening in the atmosphere before we go into a thicket of world taxes and regulations.
What would you define as a "consensus"?
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 12:34 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobvok View Post
What would you define as a "consensus"?
Like the consensus on gravity.
__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 01:01 AM   #27
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Like the consensus on gravity.
You're willing to make a ban on nicotine, other drugs, abortion, etc...

Yet none of these have a consensus like gravity.

You're inconsistent at the least, but more than likely misinformed.
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 01:11 AM   #28
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 09:47 AM
I will concede that the evidence is not absolute.

But the opposition has to step up, for you are all looking like fools.

You have given us proven hoax oppositions. You can't decide if global warming is just a natural cycle or doesn't exist at all. Within your own evidence you preach both...

Your own mouthpieces are preaching that burning fossil fuels has no negative effect what so ever(Rush, Hannity, etc). The scientific process is lost to so many of you... What you present as "science" is just
__________________
BVS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 01:25 AM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
mobvok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: boom clap
Posts: 4,428
Local Time: 07:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by purpleoscar View Post
Like the consensus on gravity.
You mean the consensus about general relativity that we need to gather more evidence and tests because it's incomplete, as evidenced by its fundamental conflict with quantum mechanics?

If "the debate isn't over" until scientists are done gathering evidence and conducting tests, then by not even your standard can we accept gravity.

Of course we do, because the overwhelming scientific evidence supports the practical conclusions of general relativity. Parallels....

Link
Quote:
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.
But we need much more consensus? Zero is too high?
__________________
mobvok is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2008, 04:06 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
purpleoscar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: In right wing paranoia
Posts: 7,597
Local Time: 08:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
You're willing to make a ban on nicotine, other drugs, abortion, etc...

Yet none of these have a consensus like gravity.

You're inconsistent at the least, but more than likely misinformed.
I think you're forcing juxtapositions on issues.

Does anybody want to pay huge taxes for Al Gore's businesses without solid science? I'm sure believers would get a bad taste in their mouth if years later an entire government apparatus was erected for the mere purpose to fleece citizens. (Hello new religion?!)

Nobody is debating what an abortion does to a baby. Nobody is seriously debating whether smoking is good for you or not. We even have solid evidence that second hand smoking is bad for you.

I already posted Lindzen's study and it shows that the people supporting the man-made climate change are simplifying the data so it's easier to explain to the public (even if it's overly reductionist). There is an element of cooling in the atmosphere that needs to be studied further because the actual projections have been proven wrong because of it.

The most worrisome is blaming humans on unknown variables without studying oceans and the El Nino and La Nina effects. There should be more studies on the sun as well. It's obvious the science isn't convincing yet. Especially since there has been a study that those with the largest carbon footprints are the ones advocating reductions in emissions. They should lead by example. As long as they don't the public will reject it out of envy because the middle class couldn't stay middle class if they try and keep up with expenses that the rich do with expensive inefficient environmental technologies. As Clinton would say "It's the economy stupid."
__________________

__________________
purpleoscar is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com