Man made Global Warming is not taking place

[ethios4]

God the Eating Fossil Fuels article is scary. Glad to be reading it...I had forgotten just how screwed we are! Gonna pick up the energy policy book....had forgotten about that.

Haha...never though anyone would listen on this forum? What the hell would I be doing here if not listening thinking and responding?

[WaveRider]

My city in Indiana was once a tropical sea, then a frozen tundra and now very temperate. The earth will cool and heat and mankind can do very little to affect it either way.

The people pushing hardest for anti-man, anti-reason, anti-achievement, anti-freedom "Global Warming" politics are the Marxists of the 1920's, the beatniks, the hippies, the labor parties and now the green parties. It is always a group of leftists pushing for an anti-industrial revolution where mankind is under a bootheel.

+1

and I see no warmist can reply to "fuel crops" causing millions to die of hunger


you are indeed the new nazis, the ecolofacists

[Emissary]

My city in Indiana was once a tropical sea, then a frozen tundra and now very temperate. The earth will cool and heat and mankind can do very little to affect it either way.

The people pushing hardest for anti-man, anti-reason, anti-achievement, anti-freedom "Global Warming" politics are the Marxists of the 1920's, the beatniks, the hippies, the labor parties and now the green parties. It is always a group of leftists pushing for an anti-industrial revolution where mankind is under a bootheel.

+1

and I see no warmist can reply to "fuel crops" causing millions to die of hunger


you are indeed the new nazis, the ecolofacists

I think we need to get away from this anti-man facist/nazi talk. Socialism, communism, capatilsim, they are all outdated. We are artists and so we need to work together to find solutions using our artistic minds. calling people names is not constructive, it creates schisms and people end up taking sides rather than opening their minds to alternative ideas. If you have a point make it and then expand on it i reckons

Its very true biofuels will be able to offset the huge drop in hydrocarbons in only a very small way and they will cause a huge drop in the amount of food produced. They are not a sensible alternative. My basic idea here is that global warming whether its taking place or not is rather a moot point, as hydrocarbons are basically on the verge of "extinction" anyway.

[Nicknackerski]

Yeah, yeah, I know all that, been through it several times in my own head. But there is the possibility you are wrong as well, that we will find someway to squeak through. As I pointed out to you the other day, you are imagining a scenario first projected by Thomas Malthus, and he was wrong, and this scenario has always proved wrong the many times that someone has proposed it since. Don't get out your graphs on me, I know all about peak oil, I've been warning my family and friends of doomsday since before I can remember. Sounds like you've decided to make your life about preparing for that eventuality, I don't blame you but that's not my path. I choose the more optimistic version where civilization doesn't completely collapse, we manage to convert to alternative energies before we have nuclear wars over the last drops, etc. Human nature being what it is one might say that your version is more likely than mine, but all I can say is, "At least I'm enjoying the ride" .

Perfect perfect response. i for one choose an optimistic view.

Well fair enough, we have different versions of what optimism is. I find optimism to be helping those around me prepare for an eventuality. I have always been an optimist and always will be. But blind optimism does nothing against cold hard fact. I mean if you were in a car with a driver dead at the wheel hurtling towards a cliff, you could either

sit there thinking, "oh everything will turn out alright, he'll probably go limp at the last second and swerve back onto the road (blind optimism) .

You could alternatively grab the wheel and do something about it (optomism)

or thirdly you could sit there and think "why does this always happen to me, oh well nothing i can do about it now" (pessimism)

I fall into the second camp, you fall into the first. I believe against immense odds that the human race can continue to exists, but not in its current culture.

Anyway it will be good, we'll be able to steal all the music that has been created over the last few centuries and pass it off as our own.

You missed the speech quotation marks off the end of sentence 1.
Its optimism not optomisim.
The human race continues to exist not exists.

tut tut!

[Emissary]

]

You missed the speech quotation marks off the end of sentence 1.
Its optimism not optomisim.
The human race continues to exist not exists.

tut tut!

woops, i never pretended to be literate. sorry.

[LoopStationZebra]

Funny. What I never see in any of the articles is anything remotely embracing the technology factor. A whole lot of doom and gloom and 'Mother Jones' style anti-corporate babbling which is fucking USELESS, but nary a glimmer of hope that technology may hold real answers. For instance:

Short term:
More nuclear. Better nuclear. France is on the cutting edge; including great new developments in fast breeder reactors. It's a bandaid solution. But a FUCK of a good one. Better than, say, let's all grow veggies out back and ride our bikes more. ffs.

BTW Em, the consumption of energy required/amount of waste generated in order to build just one nuke plant doesn't even remotely compare to if you don't build that plant.


Long term:
Once the stuff of scifi, things like anti-matter hold great promise. Not something that's going to materialize overnight, but definitely conceivable that we would have working anti-matter generators in the next 100 years. Right about the time the uranium runs out. Nice. We would just have to make sure that we don't rip open a hole in the fabric of space/time with the stuff.


A lot of you are ready to throw in the towel. I'm gonna hold out hope that at least a few of our scientists are Star Trek fans and that there's a geeky way out of this mess.

[Nicknackerski]

Funny. What I never see in any of the articles is anything remotely embracing the technology factor. A whole lot of doom and gloom and 'Mother Jones' style anti-corporate babbling which is fucking USELESS, but nary a glimmer of hope that technology may hold real answers. For instance:

Short term:
More nuclear. Better nuclear. France is on the cutting edge; including great new developments in fast breeder reactors. It's a bandaid solution. But a FUCK of a good one. Better than, say, let's all grow veggies out back and ride our bikes more. ffs.

BTW Em, the consumption of energy required/amount of waste generated in order to build just one nuke plant doesn't even remotely compare to if you don't build that plant.


Long term:
Once the stuff of scifi, things like anti-matter hold great promise. Not something that's going to materialize overnight, but definitely conceivable that we would have working anti-matter generators in the next 100 years. Right about the time the uranium runs out. Nice. We would just have to make sure that we don't rip open a hole in the fabric of space/time with the stuff.


A lot of you are ready to throw in the towel. I'm gonna hold out hope that at least a few of our scientists are Star Trek fans and that there's a geeky way out of this mess.

This is why this thread (and the last one) narks the shit out of me.
You've just managed to put into a few sentences what i've been trying to debate for about 15+ posts in the previous thread.
Theres actually more than just Uranium, theres also Plutonium and Thorium.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

I like the idea of Anti-Matter, very very cool,

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/an ... eship.html

[Emissary]

Funny. What I never see in any of the articles is anything remotely embracing the technology factor. A whole lot of doom and gloom and 'Mother Jones' style anti-corporate babbling which is fucking USELESS, but nary a glimmer of hope that technology may hold real answers. For instance:

Short term:
More nuclear. Better nuclear. France is on the cutting edge; including great new developments in fast breeder reactors. It's a bandaid solution. But a FUCK of a good one. Better than, say, let's all grow veggies out back and ride our bikes more. ffs.

BTW Em, the consumption of energy required/amount of waste generated in order to build just one nuke plant doesn't even remotely compare to if you don't build that plant.


Long term:
Once the stuff of scifi, things like anti-matter hold great promise. Not something that's going to materialize overnight, but definitely conceivable that we would have working anti-matter generators in the next 100 years. Right about the time the uranium runs out. Nice. We would just have to make sure that we don't rip open a hole in the fabric of space/time with the stuff.


A lot of you are ready to throw in the towel. I'm gonna hold out hope that at least a few of our scientists are Star Trek fans and that there's a geeky way out of this mess.

This is why this thread (and the last one) narks the shit out of me.
You've just managed to put into a few sentences what i've been trying to debate for about 15+ posts in the previous thread.
Theres actually more than just Uranium, theres also Plutonium and Thorium.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

I like the idea of Anti-Matter, very very cool,

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/home/an ... eship.html

Cool, but what are we going to eat? kind of an important point dont you think?

Also i think you put way too much hope in scientists. They are just ordinary people, not some super duper race of uber minds. No one is debating that science will come up with some answers, but the cold hard facts are this

we have used several billion years worth of the suns stored energy in about a century. Just let that sink in for a second. Nothing will ever replace hydrocarbons ever. The potential of oil and natural gas is so ridiculously far ahead of any power nuclear can generate that its a bit comical to compare the two (plus it was massively cheaper). Nuclear energy powers 15% of the world. Hydrocarbons do the rest. You have to make up a shortfall of 85% before you run out of enough energy to actually build the things (which take about 10 years) We are running out of energy NOW! something is going to have to give somewhere. Be it a global war or a mass famine. This isnt the end of the human race, its the end of our current civilisation. Hopefully from the ashes will rise an informed generation that will finally be able to learn from our mistakes.

Yes you can HOPE that a scientist will make a breakthrough and develop infinite energy and crops that increase yields by 300% whilst not needing any kind of fertile soil to grow and a total immunity to pests. But its a very tiny glimmer of hope. And aren't you just then simply moving the problem along to another generation? without meaning to be rude i call that the pinnacle of selfishness, not optimism. The reason we are in this shit is because every generation before us in human history has had this exact same outlook of "oh they'll fix it, them, you know those ones" Whilst a blind faith in humanity is endearing, it is proven wrong every day and through every chapter of history. They are Us. It would be nice to finally take responsibility for our and our ancestors wrong choices and continue down a different path.

[Nicknackerski]

Don't know about food but i'm going to get myself one of these next



Awesome!

[LoopStationZebra]

Cool, well thats energy sorted out, but what are we going to eat?

[ethios4]

Goes well with the population problem, eh?

[Emissary]

something fucked up there with my post but anyway i will make my point again. ahem....

Also i think you put way too much hope in scientists. They are just ordinary people, not some super duper race of uber minds. No one is debating that science will come up with some answers, but the cold hard facts are this

we have used several billion years worth of the suns stored energy in about a century. Just let that sink in for a second. Nothing will ever replace hydrocarbons ever. The potential of oil and natural gas is so ridiculously far ahead of any power nuclear can generate that its a bit comical to compare the two (plus it was massively cheaper). Nuclear energy powers 15% of the world. Hydrocarbons do the rest. You have to make up a shortfall of 85% before you run out of enough energy to actually build the things (which take about 10 years) We are running out of energy NOW! something is going to have to give somewhere. Be it a global war or a mass famine. This isnt the end of the human race, its the end of our current civilisation. Hopefully from the ashes will rise an informed generation that will finally be able to learn from our mistakes.

Yes you can HOPE that a scientist will make a breakthrough and develop infinite energy and crops that increase yields by 300% whilst not needing any kind of fertile soil to grow and a total immunity to pests. But its a very tiny glimmer of hope. And aren't you just then simply moving the problem along to another generation? without meaning to be rude i call that the pinnacle of selfishness, not optimism. The reason we are in this shit is because every generation before us in human history has had this exact same outlook of "oh they'll fix it, them, you know those ones" Whilst a blind faith in humanity is endearing, it is proven wrong every day and through every chapter of history. They are Us. It would be nice to finally take responsibility for our and our ancestors wrong choices and continue down a different path.

[LoopStationZebra]

Yes, Em, but the things many suggest we do NOW are simply unattainable. They are pipe dreams, and you're smart enough to know that. Sorry, but whether a breakthrough happens now or in 100 years it'll be the scientists that do it. There's going to be a curve where, yeah, things are going to get painful. I've no doubt of that. But it's not moving the problem to another generation. It's starting now, and solving it in another generation. It's the only way.

While it's rather nice and quaint to take personal responsibility and drive a Prius or ride a bike or grow mellons, in the end that's just not going to do shit except make oneself feel better.

The solutions to energy, food, and global warming will be made with Big Moves. Huge advances in technology. The Manhattan Project x1000. It could be done. You know it could. Real solutions won't come about from photo op fuckery conferences like Copenhagen (which is collapsing, btw). Those are merely worthless distractions.

[LoopStationZebra]

If I were Obama I'd sign an executive order that would compel the brightest minds in this country to get to fucking work. Personal freedom for those individuals be damned. Your country and the world needs you, lol. I'd even make sure Steve Jobs was a part of it so that the anti-matter reactor would not only be functional, but have a glowing Apple logo as well."

[ethios4]

[speculative rant] When deer run out of resources, do they have a conference and decide to stop procreating and eating? No, a lot of them die until things are back in balance again. As much as I don't like the idea, it seems like this whole problem has to do with humans thinking we are separate from nature when in reality we are part of nature. Nature brings things back into balance no matter the cost. Basically nature has a gun to our heads and we are trying to talk our way out of it...."But I'll change, I'll just consume less, or differently" and nature says "No, you don't get it...your whole way is flawed and I'm gonna fix it"....boooom!

Humans created this problem with science and technology, and science and technology are going to fix it?
[/speculative rant]