A Question for all you Global Warming skeptics

[omicron1]

In reply to the OP: Basically? When efforts like these begin to infringe upon my money, either personally or through taxation; my quality of life; or my time; I have about as much respect for them as you would probably have for federal taxpayer-funded efforts to prepare for the return of Jesus Christ, or the alleged 2012 Mayan Apocalypse.

"Do what you want with your own money, but don't come hounding after mine," in other words.

 

[Bantarific]

@omicron1 So basically even though we could provide clean water to the entire world at the cost of 10 billion dollars, if it makes you pay an extra dollar on a candy bar, well thats going to far.

 

[Bantarific]

@ Jedihunter 4 would you like me to repost again my 5 sources and 10 quotes? I would really like it if you would go and them because 4 of them aren't from NASA. Also, I'm sorry but private contractors would cut costs like everything else they do in the US and try to make the thing out of foam from China.

 

[Jakub324]

I think global warming is bullshit. I am against sustainable energy sources like wind and solar power because they are really expensive to set up and maintain and they don't generate enough power to be worth it. I believe the climate IS changing, but I also believe it has been doing so for millions of years. That's why the UK isn't covered in jungle and why the Sahara is desert instead of lagoons. So what if it's never happened this fast? Man made global warming on a massive scale just sounds outrageous to me. I think the government should push the development of efficient energy sources for when we run out of oil (like nuclear power), but I think wind, wave and solar should be left behind as good but flawed ideas.

GLOBAL WARMING IS A MYTH

 

[Blaster395]

Mostly because the ideas proposed are entirely unreasonable. If all power was renewable the cost of electricity would increase to 5 times current levels, and the cost of many other things would rise too. Electric vehicles, just as expensive. Recycling does absolutely nothing but waste electricity and fuel unless your recycling Aluminium so that is not an option.

With the measures that would be needed, living costs would double overnight. It would be bad enough to cause many people to simply starve to death, especially in poorer countries that could not afford the change.

 

[minimacker]

Well, I believe in Global Warming, just not some points of it that seems to be focused upon. (Melting icecaps will not flood the earth, that's not how ice works.)

I do believe, however, of the natural fauna changing and species' survival to be endangered.

 

[THE_NAMSU]

People can be ignorant or don't want this extravagant life style to end.
Oh well, the protest movement in the middle east has my attention at the moment.

 

[Charli]

Global warming? No.

Climate Shifts, now that I will get behind.

 

[Wulfen73]

*Sigh* Okay really guys this isn't a scientific magazine, and the fervor to which some of you take this on either side is a little scary. There is debate in the scientific community as to what is going on and we still don't have all the evidence, and as it appears we don't even have the evidence of what we could do to slow such a problem. Pollution is bad yes, we all learned this as children, and we have significantly cleaned up a lot, we actually pay attention to it now which is great but the problem isn't the industrialized countries to begin with, even if we were at one point.

We have now many nations, very poor ones, starting to develop, they are acquiring technology, getting education, starting to use more modern methods of farming and irrigation, starting to industrialize. The problem is, the technology they can afford to use is generally 20 or more years old, meaning it is dirty and gas guzzling but reliable and cheap. Now their are a lot more of them then their are of us (All the 1st world countries may make up 1/6th of the population and likely a good number less) But with so many more using these dirty older technologies we are going to have far far more pollution. So what is the answer? If you take away their old crappy technologies you are killing people, that's right killing people so you had best think long and hard on if you think what you are doing is the right thing to do. Another option is to give them the modern technologies, the modern, complex technologies that they don't have the infrastructure to support or the expertise to maintain, meaning we would not only have to supply the materials, the experts and probably the labor (I realize there is a lot of unskilled labor there but I wouldn't want them near a future nuclear reactor without a loooot of training) but teachers, set up universities or at least classes on the subject and offer it for very little or let the cost come out of our pockets. And this is assuming they want our interference at all. Until we come up with a solid solution researching renewable energy is great, but we have to make sure it is available to everyone, not just us entitled jokers in the richest nations who have never known what it was like to not eat for a week.

 

[Blue_vision]

You call someone else arguement rubbish an then try an claim that becoming more green will give us a "more enjoyable, more equitable society" seriously? seriously? can you guarantee me we will have a happier fairer society if we all change to wind energy? Seriously? there are plenty of decent arguments as to why we should look to renewable sources.

Don't go around promising people we will have a utopian society by changing our energy sources, there will still be poverty there will still be crime there will still be war.

Coming up with ridiculous arguments like that makes the original valid argument seem bull shit when its not.

Hell I agree we should be grradualy changing over, not building new coal power stations, I mean hell it makes sense that when one is closing down, why not build something more eco friendly, ur going to have to build something new anyway!

But yer I agree with you on the core issue an U have managed to piss me off, changing our fuel its not going to deliver any of the crap you are spouting.

"solve world hunger" seriously, if we stop producing green house gasses you honestly think it will help solve world hunger . . . I have honestly wasted too much time writing to someone who thinks getting rid of green house gas sources will help "solve world hunger" honestly ...

An easy example; cutting down on long-distance freight. What does this do? Well it cuts huge amounts of GHG emissions from cargo ships and freight trucks, but it also necessitates more local economies, meaning more local industry (good for the majority of the world who's local industry has been undercut by the few huge industrial centres in the cheap-labour developing world.)

Another one, cutting down on coal use. To stop using coal means to cut back on a huge source of GHGs and black carbon (another source of global warming.) But it also means that coal won't pollute the waterways of coal-producing and coal-consuming regions, allowing locals to fish and drink water. It means that there won't be coal power plants for neighbours to get sick from (cancer and respiratory problems.)

Cutting down on oil use: Certain countries no longer have an uneven stake in the world economy, oil-related conflicts and autocracies, such as Iraq, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela have much less of a reason to exist. Other pollution from oil, such as oil spills, and runoff from roads and gas stations can't pollute waterways. Higher oil prices may also sway the paradigm of auto use in North America, changing the face of urban areas along the trends of New Urbanism, which postulates that reversing suburbanization could solve the issue of inner city poverty, as well as leave space for agriculture or natural space, and more vibrant urban areas.

And it works the other way, or going together. For instance, a big factor in global warming is the destruction of carbon sinks such as swamps and rainforests. Do something like stop rainforest destruction from logging and farming, and you improve air and water quality, but doing so would also require the elimination of poverty and economic necessity that lead to much of the logging and farming in the developing world.

Again, the whole process of "greenification" (I forced myself to use global warming-related examples, but there's tonnes of other issues, from excess raw material consumption, to dangerous chemicals manufacturing, to habitat destruction, that would see huge benefits in all parts and walks of the world: human health, economic prosperity, environmental health, and general quality of life, in both the developed world and developing world, in the event of a large-scale paradigm shift away from the current direction of our society.

 

[Blaster395]

You call someone else arguement rubbish an then try an claim that becoming more green will give us a "more enjoyable, more equitable society" seriously? seriously? can you guarantee me we will have a happier fairer society if we all change to wind energy? Seriously? there are plenty of decent arguments as to why we should look to renewable sources.

Don't go around promising people we will have a utopian society by changing our energy sources, there will still be poverty there will still be crime there will still be war.

Coming up with ridiculous arguments like that makes the original valid argument seem bull shit when its not.

Hell I agree we should be grradualy changing over, not building new coal power stations, I mean hell it makes sense that when one is closing down, why not build something more eco friendly, ur going to have to build something new anyway!

But yer I agree with you on the core issue an U have managed to piss me off, changing our fuel its not going to deliver any of the crap you are spouting.

"solve world hunger" seriously, if we stop producing green house gasses you honestly think it will help solve world hunger . . . I have honestly wasted too much time writing to someone who thinks getting rid of green house gas sources will help "solve world hunger" honestly ...

An easy example; cutting down on long-distance freight. What does this do? Well it cuts huge amounts of GHG emissions from cargo ships and freight trucks, but it also necessitates more local economies, meaning more local industry (good for the majority of the world who's local industry has been undercut by the few huge industrial centres in the cheap-labour developing world.)

Another one, cutting down on coal use. To stop using coal means to cut back on a huge source of GHGs and black carbon (another source of global warming.) But it also means that coal won't pollute the waterways of coal-producing and coal-consuming regions, allowing locals to fish and drink water. It means that there won't be coal power plants for neighbours to get sick from (cancer and respiratory problems.)

Cutting down on oil use: Certain countries no longer have an uneven stake in the world economy, oil-related conflicts and autocracies, such as Iraq, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela have much less of a reason to exist. Other pollution from oil, such as oil spills, and runoff from roads and gas stations can't pollute waterways. Higher oil prices may also sway the paradigm of auto use in North America, changing the face of urban areas along the trends of New Urbanism, which postulates that reversing suburbanization could solve the issue of inner city poverty, as well as leave space for agriculture or natural space, and more vibrant urban areas.

And it works the other way, or going together. For instance, a big factor in global warming is the destruction of carbon sinks such as swamps and rainforests. Do something like stop rainforest destruction from logging and farming, and you improve air and water quality, but doing so would also require the elimination of poverty and economic necessity that lead to much of the logging and farming in the developing world.

Again, the whole process of "greenification" (I forced myself to use global warming-related examples, but there's tonnes of other issues, from excess raw material consumption, to dangerous chemicals manufacturing, to habitat destruction, that would see huge benefits in all parts and walks of the world: human health, economic prosperity, environmental health, and general quality of life, in both the developed world and developing world, in the event of a large-scale paradigm shift away from the current direction of our society.

And of course starve everyone who could not afford the living cost increases.

 

[Blue_vision]

And of course starve everyone who could not afford the living cost increases.

Of course: those damn living cost increases that'll come from consuming less stuff, less energy, energy that doesn't require nearly as much manual labour or resource use to produce. Not to mention those wage drops that'll come for poorer people from having more local industry to work in with higher wages, and (as a part of such a paradigm shift,) higher education, smaller family size, and less foreign exploitation.

I'm "living green," and my cost of living has gone way down. I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

Not to mention, the ultimate people that'll be starving are the next generation, and the generation after that, and the generation after those guys, if we don't get some major changes through. Environmental sustainability is just one of those major changes. It just makes sense to do.

 

[Blaster395]

And of course starve everyone who could not afford the living cost increases.

Of course: those damn living cost increases that'll come from consuming less stuff, less energy, energy that doesn't require nearly as much manual labour or resource use to produce. Not to mention those wage drops that'll come for poorer people from having more local industry to work in with higher wages, and (as a part of such a paradigm shift,) higher education, smaller family size, and less foreign exploitation.

I'm "living green," and my cost of living has gone way down. I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

Not to mention, the ultimate people that'll be starving are the next generation, and the generation after that, and the generation after those guys, if we don't get some major changes through. Environmental sustainability is just one of those major changes. It just makes sense to do.

It may not seem that such "Electric Cars" or "Renewable resources" require less labor and resources, but they do. Sometimes up to 5 times more.
Try telling someone living on $2 a day that the food prices have doubled because the farms are using electric tractors which are more expensive, and the electricity for them is being produced by renewable power plants which are more expensive.

And when people are starving they take extreme measures.

Civil war and war on other countries would increase.

 

[thedailylunatic]

OK... this is WAAAY too complicated for a forum post, but I'll try to boil down my answer as much as possible:

Basically, the reason why it doesn't make sense to take the kinds of steps you'd probably like against global warming based on worst case scenarios is because people will fucking die. I don't mean to be insulting; I'm just trying to convey the appropriate emphasis.

Basically, if we did everything that Al Gore wanted us to do, we'd have to smash the world economy to tiny tiny bits and build the whole damn thing up again from scratch. There's a reason why people call it a "dependence" on fossil fuels: because if we place artificial restraints on our use of them industry will grind to a halt and many middle-class people will lose their jobs and, at the very least, many poor folk will not be able to get heat for their families in the winter or cooling in the summer and they will DIE.

Basically, until the technology exists to replace fossil fuels (it doesn't, I promise), any serious steps to combat possible global warming will horrifically fuck over the entire world. I understand why you're concerned about global warming; I just hope you understand why I'm more concerned about the global economy.

 

[DazBurger]

I do believe in global warming... But im not really so sure that its man made.

 

[Shirokurou]

My opinion on Global Warming is neutral.
Environmental damage = true.
2012 due to it = not so true

I'm all for "clean green" production, but I also realize that it'll be very harsh on the economy...

 

[SemiHumanTarget]

I was amused when the US had an unseasonably cold winter like two years ago and suddenly everyone was back on the climate skeptic wagon. Little do they realize that global warming actually causes all kinds of wacky weather patterns including, from time to time, extremely cold winters.

The science points to the fact that the globe has warmed considerably in a matter of a decade or so. If global warming is really a naturally occurring phenomenon that happens over millions of years, how exactly do you explain such a drastic increase in global average temperature in such a short period of time?

And to all those complaining about emissions restrictions and all that, grow up. Regardless of what the government wants to do to your car's tailpipe, it wouldn't kill you to ride a bike once in a while or take the stairs, would it? You might even find that you like being in shape. And as for emissions restrictions on large manufacturers, you can't possibly think all that black shit billowing out of your nearest factory is good for anybody, right? Regardless of your beliefs on the environment, do you personally really want to be breathing all that crap in?

 

[Blue_vision]

It may not seem that such "Electric Cars" or "Renewable resources" require less labor and resources, but they do. Sometimes up to 5 times more.
Try telling someone living on $2 a day that the food prices have doubled because the farms are using electric tractors which are more expensive, and the electricity for them is being produced by renewable power plants which are more expensive.

Try "you don't have to be green to be green." Obviously, every single thing being touted as "green" isn't the best choice for the environment. But take an overall shift towards electric vehicles, use of renewable resources, local markets, and (importantly) reversing consumerism in general, is much better for the environment than current trends.

And three things: activities like reducing the prevalence of cash cropping, low-cost green initiatives to replace expensive things such a pesticide, fertilizer, and commercial seeds would see little fluctuation in the price of food in the developing world, if not a drop due to lower production costs.
Also, the higher cost of renewable energy is mostly because it's an issue of existing infrastructure vs. new infrastructure. Obviously, the economics of replacing a brand spanking new coal power plant with a hydroelectric plant aren't very good. But if done over time, perhaps closer to the end of the power plant's life, the economics improve significantly, especially when you take all the benefits of the system into account (lower health costs due to cleaner air and water, higher agricultural output from less acidic rain and water, low to no fuel costs, etc.)
And finally, there is some responsibility on the incredibly rich developed world to help out the developing world. Ok, maybe food costs will increase. But there's some form of equalization between the global North and South that needs to happen, if not straight reparation for the decades (if not centuries,) of abuse from the developed world, then at least to build together towards a better future. The big two differences between the developing world and the developed world is infrastructure and education, two things that are easy for highly developed countries to help the developing world with. And if you're willing to do that, it's pretty trivial to just make all that infrastructure green and safe for the future.

 

[Heronblade]

And of course starve everyone who could not afford the living cost increases.

Of course: those damn living cost increases that'll come from consuming less stuff, less energy, energy that doesn't require nearly as much manual labour or resource use to produce. Not to mention those wage drops that'll come for poorer people from having more local industry to work in with higher wages, and (as a part of such a paradigm shift,) higher education, smaller family size, and less foreign exploitation.

I'm "living green," and my cost of living has gone way down. I'm not sure where you're coming from here.

Not to mention, the ultimate people that'll be starving are the next generation, and the generation after that, and the generation after those guys, if we don't get some major changes through. Environmental sustainability is just one of those major changes. It just makes sense to do.

I won't argue with you on the topic of energy and waste conservation, that is something we need to do regardless of what other measures we take.

But what kind of "green energy" are you talking about in this case. Be it for vehicles or overall electrical production, I defy you to name a viable system that is economically feasible on a large scale. With the exception of course of hydroelectric (since we've already built as many as we can), nuclear, or fossil fuels.

EDIT:
Ok, I'll start with this

But take an overall shift towards electric vehicles.

Electric vehicles increase the amount of hazardous waste dumped. The energy saved from not burning gas is just transferred to a burden on the power plants, leading to an increase in fossil fuel consumption. Overall, this system is more efficient, but the cost involved in switching over may or may not be offset by the 5-10% improvement.

next please

 

[UsefulPlayer 1]

I didn't know people are arguing whether the planet is warming...

Because everyone knows it is. The question was whether or not we are causing it.