Global Warming: Solutions

[Lukeje]

There are just as much or more serious scientists, who claim that the glasshouse effect does not significantly affect our climate, as the ecologists (usually much more poorly educated) who claim otherwise.

Citation please. I've yet to meet or read about a single scientist (who has the qualifications to make an informed decision) who denies that Global Warming is a problem.

 

[goodman528]

...stuff...

To be fair, China's suffering under Communism is inflicted by China...etc...

...stuff...

....etc... I still think communism is unfair (and it will never be ideal, because every time you give more power to the goverment it uses it to enslave you and steal from you. Thats because power corrupts.) ....etc....

Let's not discuss communism in this thread, it's off topic. There's a lot of communism that's simply undefensible. I disagree with the dictatorship of the proletariant, and planned economics. Big government, and interventionism, simply doesn't make sense as far as I can see. (I picked my avatar because it looks like a cool gaming pic, I like Red Alert a lot, not that much to do with my politics.) As for China and communism, that's even more complicated, there were two Chinese revolutions, 1912 Republican, and 1949 Communist, The civil war was won by the communists, that wasn't a democratic choice, it was a war determined by the stronger military side. As for the tragedy of Eastern Europe, Britain and USA were just as responsible as USSR.

I only just realised how many people have posted on this topic, without ever thinking about it for a single moment, and just believes whatever Bush, Christianity or the conservative media has told them, and repeats it:

I don't listen to Bush, I reject Christianity and I watch the right-wing media as much as the left-wing media.

Which makes me more skeptic towards global warming, or any political issue, than average. You should try it some times, in stead of blindly following the Global Warming Is Superserial-camp.

I know you sound really smart saying I follow stuff blindly just like you do. But there is the subtle difference I can justify my position with a clear line of thinking, and without quoting random stats or impressive sounding people. Skepticism is a good thing, but if you attack everything you ever hear, without a clear and logic line of thought to back up your attacks, then you are just being cynical.

 

[Mr. Squirrel]

nuclear energy

 

[Spinozaad]

I know you sound really smart saying I follow stuff blindly just like you do. But there is the subtle difference I can justify my position with a clear line of thinking, and without quoting random stats or impressive sounding people. Skepticism is a good thing, but if you attack everything you ever hear, without a clear and logic line of thought to back up your attacks, then you are just being cynical.

Oh, you got that part right. I am a cynic. In the seventies and eighties there was a 'Global Cooling' scare. You can look it up if you want to, I read an article that mentioned it (titled: 'Society of Fear') in de Nieuwe Revu (a Dutch magazine) this summer. I'm sure the information about 'global cooling' can be found on the interwebs.

I'm not denying that global warming is happening. I never denied that. I'm just too much of a skeptic to buy into the near-apocalyptic qualities we're assigning to this upcoming 'global warming'. Vikings lived on Greenland, Romans kept vineyards in England, etc. Global temperature fluctuates all the time. Yet I doubt Eric the Red bothered about climate shift (admittedly, the vikings living in the Greenland settlement might beg to differ) and Constantine the Great never assembled the Bishops of the Empire to discuss a change in the climate. Yet, currently we're hyping over it.

Why?

Because people can gain from it, especially politicians. And of all the 100 things politicians do, 99 of them are -at least- to further their own ends. That's why I'm a cynic.

So even if -this- fluctuation is man-helped (not made, I do not give Man so much credit), trying to fight it is a waste of time. You'd have to change society to an extent that is impossible.

If it's going to doom us all, it's going to doom us all.
But I'm too cynical, even about that.

 

[Rolling Thunder]

I'm sorry, but - "The climate is shifting at a far faster pace then nature ever intended it too." Really? Besides mangling grammar, nature has no intent. If you can't acknowledge G-d, then at least don't attribute god-like cognizance and planning to a randomly occurring, randomly evolving system. And if you cannot manage even that much consistency, then at least refrain from insulting the intelligence of others whilst displaying your own lack thereof. The unintentional irony is far too heavy for a gaming site.

So you will accept the theory of directed cause-and-effect in the market system (The invisible hand/Supply and Demand), but you refrain from acknowledging the same application of Le Chatelier's principle to ecology?

 

[Zeke109]

holy shitballs.....I've been gone a week and this is still on the front page...

 

[MarcusStrout]

Global warming is an entirely natural occurence and therefore out of our control. Carbon dioxide emmisions are natural, but I must agree that they are excessive. Maybe if everyone would shut up about global warming, they'd go back to being reasonable

 

[Zeke109]

We all know what WE can do to stop global warming. Buy a solar panel, Drill for geothermal power,put up a small windmill, even put up buy a hybrid.
BUT: We can also buy totally air-powered cars, which are $3,000 less than conventional cars, and only costs 3 cents to fill up.

Also, scientists have been thinking up ingenious ways to solve this problems, From sending lenses into space to dilute the sun's rays, to making clouds shinier.

You got a solution?

just re-posting the origional thingy so this thread doesnt go craaaaaaaaazzzzzzzzzyyyyyyy
EDIT: oh, wait, It already has.

 

[werepossum]

I'm sorry, but - "The climate is shifting at a far faster pace then nature ever intended it too." Really? Besides mangling grammar, nature has no intent. If you can't acknowledge G-d, then at least don't attribute god-like cognizance and planning to a randomly occurring, randomly evolving system. And if you cannot manage even that much consistency, then at least refrain from insulting the intelligence of others whilst displaying your own lack thereof. The unintentional irony is far too heavy for a gaming site.

So you will accept the theory of directed cause-and-effect in the market system (The invisible hand/Supply and Demand), but you refrain from acknowledging the same application of Le Chatelier's principle to ecology?

I accept the theory of directed cause and effect in the market only to the extent that humans plan and direct; the market itself has no intelligence, no capability for planning. The environment is the same; it too has no intelligence, no capability for planning. For each or both you can accept G-d and say "It's G-d's will." But that yields little guidance for either, no understanding of the pace at which either should change, and little sense of direction.

 

[goodman528]

...etc...
Because people can gain from it (Global Warming), especially politicians. And of all the 100 things politicians do, 99 of them are -at least- to further their own ends. That's why I'm a cynic.

So even if -this- fluctuation is man-helped (not made, I do not give Man so much credit), trying to fight it is a waste of time. You'd have to change society to an extent that is impossible....etc...

Actually of the 100 things politicians do, 100 of them are to further their own ends. If a politician did something that wasn't in their best interests... well, we shouldn't even discuss this if, 'cos that's never gonna happen.

However, there is no "if" in man made global warming, of course climate fluctuates and all that, but all we are interseted in is deviations from the norm, and global warming is man made. Fact. Backed up by the clear line of thought I posted earlier. And we really can do something about it, we have the technology, we have the money, we can make a difference, but we are not doing it.

Why don't we switch to nuclear power?

Why don't USA place more realistic CO2 restrictions on cars?

Why don't we stop using Air conditioning and heating? (not including the old people who really do need the heating.)

Why don't we plant more trees?

Precisely because of the selfishness of those in charge. If either Obama or MacCain proposed to change 95% of USA's energy production to Nuclear within the next 20 years, then that would make him unelectable. However, technically, we easily achieve that, without any changes to anybody's daily life.
If they proposed more restrictions on cars, they would be unelectable.
If they proposed some way of cutting back air conditioning and heating in homes, they would be unelectable.
If they proposed a government program to plant trees on the edges of USA's deserts, they would be unelectable.

Who is electing the next president? Will you be electing someone whose best interests coincides with yours? Or will the big corporations be electing someone whose best interests coincides with them?
What matters more in an election? Really wanting to change the world for the better? Or more campaign funding?

You are saying we are not willing to make some changes now to our habits, on the totally blind assumption global warming is not as bad as it seems, because it's impossible to change society too much. How many smokers you know are trying to quit smoking? I know a few smokers, for one of them smoking more as well be his life, and all of them are trying to quit smoking. Maybe they shouldn't quit smoking, on the blind assumption maybe it won't cause cancer.

 

[Geoffrey-]

Global warming is an entirely natural occurence and therefore out of our control. Carbon dioxide emmisions are natural, but I must agree that they are excessive. Maybe if everyone would shut up about global warming, they'd go back to being reasonable

Ok, everytime someone says that either global warming is a myth, or that it's not anthropogenic, I have to ask them:

Do you have more expertise and knowledge in the subject than the overwhelming majority of leading climatologists and the IPCC?

 

[yzzlthtz]

Solution: realize global warming is not man made.

Because science has been so wrong about so many things already!

 

[yzzlthtz]

easy fix. stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible and stop cutting down trees.
this has to happen eventually anyways, since they will run out - trees and fossil fuels.
whichever country puts the most effort into researching and implementing renewable energies gets to export their results to the rest of the world and make a mint.
hopefully we'll get this done before it's too late.
for you "it's not man-made"-ers - congrats, you've just proven your ability to assimilate and regurgitate lies.
Human caused climate change has been a scientifically accepted phenomenon since the 80s. Denying it is pretty much like denying that the earth is round.
so - Way to go! your blissful ignorance will no doubt go down in history.

 

[yzzlthtz]

Global warming is an entirely natural occurence and therefore out of our control. Carbon dioxide emmisions are natural, but I must agree that they are excessive. Maybe if everyone would shut up about global warming, they'd go back to being reasonable

yes, completely natural, like cars, and trains, and industrial pollution.

 

[yzzlthtz]

Realize Al Gore and some Hippies made it up for money.

oh yeah, cause they're making bank off all those dvd sales.

 

[werepossum]

easy fix. stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible and stop cutting down trees.
this has to happen eventually anyways, since they will run out - trees and fossil fuels.
whichever country puts the most effort into researching and implementing renewable energies gets to export their results to the rest of the world and make a mint.
hopefully we'll get this done before it's too late.
for you "it's not man-made"-ers - congrats, you've just proven your ability to assimilate and regurgitate lies.
Human caused climate change has been a scientifically accepted phenomenon since the 80s WHEN IT WAS A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY WAS THROWING THE EARTH INTO A NEW ICE AGE. Denying it is pretty much like denying that the earth is round.
so - Way to go! your blissful ignorance will no doubt go down in history.

There, I fixed that for you.

 

[Metro Knight]

For all of you doubters, you can read this, but if you doubt Global Warming being a real thing, than you probably can't read.

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/climate-swings-have-brought-great-co2-pulses-deep-sea

Also, if you are curious about solutions, you should read about CO2 extractors here,

http://www.physorg.com/news96732819.html

 

[Lazzi]

besides killing off humanity?

nothing original really, jsut the normal coctail for clean alternative energies

 

[Spinozaad]

Actually of the 100 things politicians do, 100 of them are to further their own ends. If a politician did something that wasn't in their best interests... well, we shouldn't even discuss this if, 'cos that's never gonna happen.

However, there is no "if" in man made global warming, of course climate fluctuates and all that, but all we are interseted in is deviations from the norm, and global warming is man made. Fact. Backed up by the clear line of thought I posted earlier. And we really can do something about it, we have the technology, we have the money, we can make a difference, but we are not doing it.

Why don't we switch to nuclear power?

Why don't USA place more realistic CO2 restrictions on cars?

Why don't we stop using Air conditioning and heating? (not including the old people who really do need the heating.)

Why don't we plant more trees?

Precisely because of the selfishness of those in charge. If either Obama or MacCain proposed to change 95% of USA's energy production to Nuclear within the next 20 years, then that would make him unelectable. However, technically, we easily achieve that, without any changes to anybody's daily life.
If they proposed more restrictions on cars, they would be unelectable.
If they proposed some way of cutting back air conditioning and heating in homes, they would be unelectable.
If they proposed a government program to plant trees on the edges of USA's deserts, they would be unelectable.

Who is electing the next president? Will you be electing someone whose best interests coincides with yours? Or will the big corporations be electing someone whose best interests coincides with them?
What matters more in an election? Really wanting to change the world for the better? Or more campaign funding?

You are saying we are not willing to make some changes now to our habits, on the totally blind assumption global warming is not as bad as it seems, because it's impossible to change society too much. How many smokers you know are trying to quit smoking? I know a few smokers, for one of them smoking more as well be his life, and all of them are trying to quit smoking. Maybe they shouldn't quit smoking, on the blind assumption maybe it won't cause cancer.

You do know you're horribly contradicting yourself, right? You say that Global Warmin is man made, yet you acknowledge natural fluctuations. Global Warming is, at best, helped by humans. It's not created by us. Unless the Romans and vikings "created" global warming by... I don't know... mass-building temples of Jupiter and ships, or something. Global Warming is not, and I repeat, not a human process. It's happened before in history, without Man's help. So stop proclaiming that it's our fault. Sometimes shite just happens.

I'd like to add that people should stop trusting blindly in statistics and scientists. They remain (made by) people, and people make mistakes, even in consensus. Cesare Emiliani was a great scientist, yet his prediction about global cooling seems to be wrong by today's scientific findings. Who's to say -those- guys are not wrong? Just because they come up with fancy statistics? Well... here's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming] a list of some guys (many of them actually scientists, unlike Al Gore!) who oppose the mainstream theory of global warming. So there really isn't a consensus among scientists.

Also, you're seriously suggesting that the world should switch to nuclear energy? Global Warming might destroy society in a few hundred years, nuclear energy would need less years for that. Where will you keep the waste, how will you prevend human failure, etc.?

Stop heating? I live in the Netherlands. It gets cold here.
Stop air conditioning? I live in the Netherlands, it gets hot and damp here.
Everybody wants a clear conscience, but nobody wants to surrender his or her way of life. And, as a complete reliance on nuclear energy is plain silly and no alternative, it really is impossible for society to change. Using less energy is not really solving anything, really.

 

[The_Prophet]

easy fix. stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible and stop cutting down trees.
this has to happen eventually anyways, since they will run out - trees and fossil fuels.
whichever country puts the most effort into researching and implementing renewable energies gets to export their results to the rest of the world and make a mint.
hopefully we'll get this done before it's too late.
for you "it's not man-made"-ers - congrats, you've just proven your ability to assimilate and regurgitate lies.
Human caused climate change has been a scientifically accepted phenomenon since the 80s WHEN IT WAS A PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT THAT HUMAN ACTIVITY WAS THROWING THE EARTH INTO A NEW ICE AGE. Denying it is pretty much like denying that the earth is round.
so - Way to go! your blissful ignorance will no doubt go down in history.

Well thank God someone started thinking! I got sick of all the "it's not man-made"-ers.