I agree.Nomadic said:Regardless of whether or not global warming is a problem, it is certainly not the biggest hoax of all time. Organized religion takes the first place in that contest.
I don't know 'political' estimates. I only know how some of the major energy producing companies in Europe (e.g. RWE, Vattenfall) are calculating and I guess they know what they do. Ok, last time I had to do with calculation of cost-effectivness of transmission lines and power plants is more than 3 years ago. But considering how CO2-crazy everyone these days is I don't think this worked in favor of coal lately. At least not in Europe.goodman528 said:It's impossible to estimate this sort of costs, because the firms involved are large, and the process involve is very complicated. The estimates in use are political, if you look hard enough you can find figures supporting whatever case might be. Also, there's variation between different countries.
The reason why I think coal is the cheapest source is because of how widely it is used throughout the world, and how simple it is.
I don't think everything should be completely carbon neutral, as you stated we need carbon dioxide to get oxygen, but if there is too much Carbon Dioxide, then there is more of it for plants to absorb and turn into oxygen. If this is done in too large increments, it could raise the oxygen levels in the atmosphere, which will increase the chance of the planet actually catching on fire. We all know that Oxygen, while not combustible itself, helps aid combustion. So if there is more oxygen, it is easier for substances to explode. If there is an increase in the concentration and density of oxygen in our atmosphere, forest fires could become much more dangerous and rampant, and there could be an increased chance of them. I'm sure you all can think of many other consequences for increased oxygen levels your selves.TheLivingDaylights said:Something is bound to get us before the Earth catches on fire...
You're welcome to do that if you really want to, but I'd pull the kid out and bop you one. See, the difference between leaving a baby in a swimming pool and not stressing over global warming, is that one is something you can actively control.ranc0re said:I couldn't be bothered to go past page three of this bullshit. Anyways, by your logic, it'd be alright for me to just leave a baby in a swimming pool? It's going to die in 80 years or so anyways, so who cares if it drowns in the pool? Phail.
What are you, specifically you not the generic, going to do about it?OT: Who gives a shit whether global warming is real or not? General scientific consensus is that: 1. Yes, global warming is real. And 2. Yes, humans do have an influence.
Why does it matter if it turns out to be real or not? Would you really mind living in a world where thousands of square kilometres of forest aren't clear cut away simply for the sake of farming beef (one of the most environmentally devastating things to farm)? Or forcing factories to find cleaner methods in manufacturing their goods? Take a trip to Sudbury, Ontario, my friend. The city was once one of the most environmentally damaged cities on Earth. Sulphur destroyed all of the vegetation around the city. Pink granite rock was stained black, and is still a few centimetres deep into the rock (that's how shitty the air was). People still suffer from the adverse effects of living in that environment.
Would it be so bad if we made sure that things like that couldn't happen?
What do you have as the cost per kWh for nuclear compared to other sources? I don't want to argue, just curious.li-ion said:I don't know 'political' estimates. I only know how some of the major energy producing companies in Europe (e.g. RWE, Vattenfall) are calculating and I guess they know what they do. Ok, last time I had to do with calculation of cost-effectivness of transmission lines and power plants is more than 3 years ago. But considering how CO2-crazy everyone these days is I don't think this worked in favor of coal lately. At least not in Europe.goodman528 said:It's impossible to estimate this sort of costs, because the firms involved are large, and the process involve is very complicated. The estimates in use are political, if you look hard enough you can find figures supporting whatever case might be. Also, there's variation between different countries.
The reason why I think coal is the cheapest source is because of how widely it is used throughout the world, and how simple it is.
A sidenote: a modern coal fueled power plant is nothing that I would call 'simple' ;-)
So I suppose resigning yourself to the fact you can't do anything about it is your answer? I believe Elliot Richardson sums it up nicely: "People have moved beyond apathy, beyond skepticism into deep cynicism."Agayek said:What are you, specifically you not the generic, going to do about it?ranc0re said:I
Would it be so bad if we made sure that things like that couldn't happen?
Outline for us your plan to improve the situation.
Saying "Yea, that's terrible" is all well and good, but if you're not gonna do anything about it, stop saying anything. Companies will always find ways around "green" practices, because they are expensive and inefficient. Get some of those scientists to design practical, efficient, and relatively lower/equal priced alternatives to current methods, and the pollution will go away. Until then, there's nothing you can do aside from sending letters to whatever government official you wish, which will promptly be ignored.
Edit: Also, we're all going to die when SkyNet goes live, stop worrying about the damned temperature.
You're ignoring my question: What are you going to do about it? Give me a practical, reasonable solution and I'd be all for whatever you propose. I can't think of any way to appreciably enact change, thus I'm not actively trying to change anything. As far as I'm aware, no one has proposed a practical solution to global warming, because with current technology, it isn't practical. I'm not saying don't try to fix it, I'm saying don't worry about it when it's out of your control.ranc0re said:So I suppose resigning yourself to the fact you can't do anything about it is your answer? I believe Elliot Richardson sums it up nicely: "People have moved beyond apathy, beyond skepticism into deep cynicism."
But I guess it's just hip to lose faith in humanity and get overwhelmed with the inevitability that is the death of your species.
Thanks for saving me a long first post by pretty much writing word for word what I was planning on contributing. =)patriklus said:Okay. Here goes...
I havn't had a chance to read through all the posts so I apologise if this has already been brought up, but here's my 2 cents worth: everybody is saying that carbon dioxide is causing global warming, but what if it is rather an EFFECT of global warming? All sorts of graphs are being posted showing the link between CO2 levels and temperature and they're not wrong, but the conclusions drawn from them are.
Any zoology textbook will have a chapter on the ability for water to absorb or give off gases based on its temperature, and looking at this will tell you that the higher the temperature of a body of water gets, the more gases it gives off, and vice versa. So lets take the oceans, which just so happen to be QUITE large bodies of water. As the temperature of the oceans increases they release more gas, the largest percentage of which is carbon dioxide. It is a bit more in depth than this, but any scientist worth his/her salt will tell you the exact same thing. So does CO2 CAUSE global warming? I don't think so... Temperature increase = CO2 increase, not the other way around.
What I think causes global warming rather, is the sun. It has been proved that solar flares or "sun spots" generate the heat needed to upset our atmosphere. I don't know off-hand the sources to prove this, but if you can watch Al Gore's movie and believe it, then I challenge you to watch a movie called "The Global Warming Swindle". Some of you may have heard of it and it may have already been mentioned, but in that movie they give scientific proof (just like Al Gore) that global warming is happening but is in no way "man made". I used to be the staunchest supporter of the whole global warming thing, I would make people sick because I would just go on and on about it, until a friend of mine made me watch this movie. It literally turned my world upside down. So to all of you guys on the global warming bandwagon: watch Al Gore, then watch this movie, then make an INFORMED decision about what you believe, don't just take what you're told on face value, even this post.
Something I saw someone ask was why would scientists advocate man made global warming if it was untrue. Well I think I have the answer: MONEY!!! Let me put it like this: politician needs votes to be in power, so he finds the latest "fad" to get the people on his side. Ah! whats this? Man made global warming! Sounds good... But wait? How will people believe politician without proof? After all we aren't stupid. So politician lets it be known that he is looking for proof of man made global warming and is willing to pay lots of MONEY! After all, he wants to win doesn't he? Then you have scientist who is battling for funding for his research, he needs MONEY. So upon seeing that politician wants proof of this "man made global warming" he designs experiments and collects just the right data he needs to give the politician the proof he wants. Politician is pleased with the results, and so gives scientist more MONEY to give him more proof. Basically, the politician is funding the scientists research so long as he gives him the proof he wants. The minute scientist gives contradicting proof, POOF!, away goes the funding. Now imagine this on a much larger scale, with many more scientists needing funding and many more politicians (and others) having the money and wanting the proof. And now, years down the line, any scientist claiming to have evidence refuting man made global warming is labeled a "crack pot" and shunned by his fellow scientists, all because the snow ball has become to big to stop rolling.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that global warming is happening, it's just a bit egotistical to think that Man can effect it it any way.
Also, if you watch the movie, you will see that Mans total contribution of CO2 into the atmosphere is... wait for it... 0.49%!!! Thats 1 in every 200 parts of CO2 is man made! Half a percent...
Use it, don't use it...
i cant completely figure out whether you're just being a troll, or if u actually think it is infact a fake.. your entire argument is chalked full of fallicys, which automaticly inclines me to believe your argument may likely be false, and also my own personal knowledge in science/earth science points me to believe your facts are wrong as well.TheLivingDaylights said:Okay Escapists, I'm going to sit you all down for a little chat about something called the Terra-Thermal Cycle. I'm sorry? Does that not ring any bells? Fine, I'll refer to it by the term fear-mongering slugs use. Global Warming. I have tolerated it for a little bit, but at this point I've had enough! For all reading this, the lie ends here!
Now, I'm not denying the Earth is getting warmer. Neither am I saying that pollution has had no effect on the planet. But saying that carbon dioxide is somehow directly causing the Earth's increased temperature is total bullshit. You see, this concept was invented by shadowy money-grubbers such as Al Gore. To people like him, the environment is so destroyed that the only possible solution is to reinvent one of Earth's most ancient and natural cycles into a doomsday clock. Not only that, but if they had their way, a vital resource to all animals would be essentially wiped out. They have demonized carbon dioxide, calling it a menace. By looking at things logically, one would find that if everyone and everything were carbon-neutral, life would suffocate. With neutrality, plants don't give back enough oxygen to equal the amount you use.
If we are causing the global warming, then global warming activists have another thing to explain. Why is it that there have been six occurrences of even more extreme versions of our global warming occur ed before man walked the Earth? Greenhouse gas is what keeps the earth from freezing over like mars. The whole process is cyclical, and here's the kicker...Every "condition" of any part of the world is the same. Few people know this, but roughly 5,000 Years ago, the Sahara desert was a jungle-like expanse of rain forest. Around 3,000 B.C. though, the Earth's rotation wobbled somewhere around 1.100479582 degrees, turning the entire place into a desert.
The craziest part of it all is, the data from two of the past global heating cycles showed that an Ice Age followed very soon after. If this is a mild warming like those, we could be trying to prevent the world from freezing over within the next 200 years. Then, there will be someone yelling at us that we produced so few greenhouse gasses that the Earth froze.
The point I'm trying to make here is that nearly everything that happens is cyclical, and quite frankly, our control over these cycles is next to nothing. My advice? Sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. Besides, look at the odds! An asteroid that would have wiped out the human race passed between the Earth and the Moon. A German woman accidentally given the Ebola virus nearly took a trip to Canada. Half the countries in the Middle East are building nuclear weapons. Something is bound to get us before the Earth catches on fire...
If you are still reading, you made it through my evil wall of text, and I congratulate you. Now, you are able to make an educated opinion of this subject, and post/vote on what you think!
-
Kade