Jump to content

the earth is warming?


Azazello1313
 Share

Recommended Posts

:wacko:

 

President Obama and the rest of the Group of 8 leaders decreed last month that the planet’s average temperature shall not rise more than 2 degrees Fahrenheit above today’s level. But what if Mother Earth didn’t get the memo? How do we stay cool in the future? Two options:

 

Plan A. Keep talking about the weather. This has been the preferred approach for the past two decades in Western Europe, where leaders like to promise one another that they will keep the globe cool by drastically reducing carbon emissions. Then, when their countries’ emissions keep rising anyway, they convene to make new promises and swear that they really, really mean it this time.

 

Plan B. Do something about the weather. Originally called geoengineering, this approach used to be dismissed as science fiction fantasies: cooling the planet with sun-blocking particles or shades; tinkering with clouds to make them more reflective; removing vast quantities of carbon from the atmosphere.

 

Today this approach goes by the slightly less grandiose name of climate engineering, and it is looking more practical. Several recent reviews of these ideas conclude that cooling the planet would be technically feasible and economically affordable.

 

this is the sort of approach that's always made sense to me. IF there is warming that represents a threat to human civilization on some level, then perhaps we should look at ways of dealing with it that don't involve massive, economy-killing, government-bloating taxes and regulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

:wacko:

 

 

 

this is the sort of approach that's always made sense to me. IF there is warming that represents a threat to human civilization on some level, then perhaps we should look at ways of dealing with it that don't involve massive, economy-killing, government-bloating taxes and regulation.

 

But do you really trust any gov't to do this? Unintended consequences...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is the sort of approach that's always made sense to me. IF there is warming that represents a threat to human civilization on some level, then perhaps we should look at ways of dealing with it that don't involve massive, economy-killing, government-bloating taxes and regulation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009...-climate-change

 

(This is actually one reason I am not freaking out about global warming. I am hopeful that we can invent our way out of it (like we did for previous energy crisis involving the lack of trees, then the lack of wood, then the lack of coal, and so forth). However, one potential concern about inventing our way out of it is that we need to make sure the incentives are in place for someone to create such inventions. Previously, people had incentives to invent new sources of energy because the prices of the existing energy increased. But in our current situation, the price of existing carbon-based energy is not high enough to cause people to devote too much effort into alternative forms of energy. We have to get the incentives right and in this case, unlike in previous crisis, it is not clear that the market incentives will work. Note: This is just food for thought and I am not proposing any specific government policies.)

Edited by wiegie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But do you really trust any gov't to do this? Unintended consequences...

 

at this point, maybe not, but I would certainly like to see more people studying/testing various ideas. see if global warming is as bad the doomsayers say it will be, and if it is, put some of the best plans into action. but some of the ideas really aren't scary at all as far as unintended consequences. like the cloud boats. make a few of those, test the results to see if it might work on a larger scale. and if it doesn't work like you hoped, hey, it's not like a few extra clouds floating around for a few days is some kind of irreversible phenomenon.

 

and if it comes down to the government spending a few billion here and there to avert the most dire chicken little climate predictions should they come about, versus spending hundreds of billions on subsidizing un-ecomomical fuels and throwing a wet blanket on the entire economy with taxes and regulation, all in the name of carbon reductions that will barely make a tiny dent in global temperatures, I think I'll choose the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

at this point, maybe not, but I would certainly like to see more people studying/testing various ideas. see if global warming is as bad the doomsayers say it will be, and if it is, put some of the best plans into action. but some of the ideas really aren't scary at all as far as unintended consequences. like the cloud boats. make a few of those, test the results to see if it might work on a larger scale. and if it doesn't work like you hoped, hey, it's not like a few extra clouds floating around for a few days is some kind of irreversible phenomenon.

 

and if it comes down to the government spending a few billion here and there to avert the most dire chicken little climate predictions should they come about, versus spending hundreds of billions on subsidizing un-ecomomical fuels and throwing a wet blanket on the entire economy with taxes and regulation, all in the name of carbon reductions that will barely make a tiny dent in global temperatures, I think I'll choose the former.

 

I can't disagree with you, and wiegie's post is along my line of thought as well. Personally, if there wasn't a government granted electrical monopoly for all these years, I'm not sure we wouldn't all be on solar or fuel cells or something else. I know I'll get ridiculed for that but who's to say what might have been invented for energy needs if the necessity was there?

 

I just don't trust the gov't to do this. There are horrible, unforseen consequences to everything gov't does and I just hate to think what they might unleash by whatever they might do. I don't have a better answer, it's just scary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like it if someone could finally answer the question... what is the perfect temperature/ideal climate for us to have as a goal for the planet? And it would be great if there were comprehensive and detailed reasons to back up any answer to that question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't disagree with you, and wiegie's post is along my line of thought as well. Personally, if there wasn't a government granted electrical monopoly for all these years, I'm not sure we wouldn't all be on solar or fuel cells or something else. I know I'll get ridiculed for that but who's to say what might have been invented for energy needs if the necessity was there?

 

I dunno, government's been subsidizing the hell out of solar for decades now. if not for the government, I'm not sure ANYBODY would be on solar power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

at this point, maybe not, but I would certainly like to see more people studying/testing various ideas. see if global warming is as bad the doomsayers say it will be, and if it is, put some of the best plans into action. but some of the ideas really aren't scary at all as far as unintended consequences. like the cloud boats. make a few of those, test the results to see if it might work on a larger scale. and if it doesn't work like you hoped, hey, it's not like a few extra clouds floating around for a few days is some kind of irreversible phenomenon.

 

and if it comes down to the government spending a few billion here and there to avert the most dire chicken little climate predictions should they come about, versus spending hundreds of billions on subsidizing un-ecomomical fuels and throwing a wet blanket on the entire economy with taxes and regulation, all in the name of carbon reductions that will barely make a tiny dent in global temperatures, I think I'll choose the former.

 

agreed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would just like it if someone could finally answer the question... what is the perfect temperature/ideal climate for us to have as a goal for the planet? And it would be great if there were comprehensive and detailed reasons to back up any answer to that question.

 

One that doesn't kill all the life in the ocean might be a good start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, this debate needs to turn from what causes warming (man, cyclical, whatever) to what are the threats of climate change and what can we do about it.

 

 

it has been proven that it isn't man made, I think since Mars is going through the same thing....

 

unless we are on Mars right now stinkin up the joint like we are on Earth...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it has been proven that it isn't man made, I think since Mars is going through the same thing....

 

unless we are on Mars right now stinkin up the joint like we are on Earth...

 

I'd think that there is a solar component (cyclical), and a local atmosphere component (caused by inhabitants). So I'd say you are partially correct and partially incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd think that there is a solar component (cyclical), and a local atmosphere component (caused by inhabitants). So I'd say you are partially correct and partially incorrect.

 

well, in a sense we are filthy animals...we all take a massive crap on Earth and we need to clean up our act if not for "Global Warming" then to keep life going in places like the Ocean where we are abusing life to the upmost...

 

however...the ice caps on Mars are melting and there are even spheres working their way through the surface that are made of ice and are melting....which I find to be extremely interesting...

 

I just tried googling a picture of the ice spheres, but can't seem to find what I am looking for....I saw them around 2004 in an article...:wacko:

 

can anyone find them or inform me on the correct wording?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow - some good thought here in a climate thread. :wacko:

 

I read a clip the other day with regard to this topic. There is real danger in the idea that a "scientific consensus" has been built regarding climate change and its cause(s). Science is not practiced by consensus, but by continually challenging common conception. The very idea that there is some massive consensus of scientific thought on this topic is an affront to science as a process and reeks of political ambition.

 

That is not to say there is not an element of man-made climate change - I believet here is. I also believe there are other factors contributing to the mania, including a politicized overstatement of the problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

. There is real danger in the idea that a "scientific consensus" has been built regarding climate change and its cause(s). Science is not practiced by consensus, but by continually challenging common conception. The very idea that there is some massive consensus of scientific thought on this topic is an affront to science as a process and reeks of political ambition.

 

 

:wacko: There sure is a lot of time energy, and $$$ spent on right wing anti-GW propaganda, for all the political ambition being on the scientific side.

 

You are right about Science being about challenging common conception. But to insinuate that Science isn't advanced forward on universally held beliefs/ideas/consensus opinions (whatever you want to refer to it as) isn't accurate by any means.

Edited by bushwacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is real danger in the idea that a "scientific consensus" has been built regarding climate change and its cause(s). Science is not practiced by consensus, but by continually challenging common conception.

 

The point is that every climatologist who has studied this has found that humans are contributing to climate change, and there is something we can do about it.

 

I agree that their beliefs should be challenged and modified as new research is done.

 

But right now, there is a consensus of science and data showing that Avernus knows jack about crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point is that every climatologist who has studied this has found that humans are contributing to climate change, and there is something we can do about it.

 

It's a vast liberal conspiracy; the sneaky liberal climatologists are making an affront on science.

Edited by bushwacked
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information