# Argument in favour of acting on climate change



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 16, 2007)

Would you pick column B?

http://www.slide.com/r/6RZUZVtR7j8PGIACjIUTDLdR-W7eQlnZ


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 16, 2007)

wonderful. Thanks,Ned


----------



## aeneas (Oct 16, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Tue 16 Oct said:


> Would you pick column B?


No, of course I can't pick column B, because "the risk of non-action far outweighs the risk of action." Or so it looks like, in this precise case.

The argument seems rock solid. What bothers me is that this is precisely the type of reasoning that justified the invasion of Iraq and is now used again to justify the invasion of Iran. When imagining the worst result of non-action, action always looks like a better choice. OTOH, ecological actions can only be good IMO, because they are taken in the benefit of all, not in the benefit of few.

When fighting the dark side of nature (maladies, etc.), the humans' actions worked wonders. But it was always far harder for humans to fight the dark side of their own _human_ nature (greed, etc.) I am a skeptical optimist though. :wink:


----------



## rayinstirling (Oct 16, 2007)

Who are WE, OUR, and THEY

I'll do my bit. I'll try and use less oil and electricty.
If we're talking about betting on the future of the human race I would bet a virus with no ready vaccination has more chance of reducing our ability to effect the earth than a few airplanes in the sky not to mention thousands of coal fired power stations in China. The buffalo that roamed America before they were nearly wiped out by incomers produced a hell of a lot of green house gases before the power stations and steel mills were built. Sorry but I just don't get it. We as individuals have an insignificant life span which to me means we have an insignificant effect on the planet. The suggestion being made here is that we the human race should never have started using fossil fuel to improve our living conditions. We should tell peasants in Africa to stop using wood to burn to have hot food to eat and warmth in the night. And while I'm at it I better switch off these computers using energy for nothing more than giving pleasure.

Have a nice day

Ray


----------



## sbkp (Oct 16, 2007)

Actually, I think the peak American bison population was around 60 million. And there are about 100 million cows in this country right now (presumably producing the same stuff), and then there are all the machines 'n' such on top of that.

And as for the rest, I think it's clear that 6 billion humans can have a significant impact on the planet. Who said we never should have started using fossil fuel?

In any case, I think we're better off talking about where we're going than where we've been.


----------



## Ed (Oct 16, 2007)

rayinstirling @ Tue Oct 16 said:


> I'll do my bit. I'll try and use less oil and electricty.
> If we're talking about betting on the future of the human race I would bet a virus with no ready vaccination has more chance of reducing our ability to effect the earth than a few airplanes in the sky not to mention thousands of coal fired power stations in China



What does this mean? 



> The buffalo that roamed America before they were nearly wiped out by incomers produced a hell of a lot of green house gases before the power stations and steel mills were built. Sorry but I just don't get it.



So you're saying animal flatulence has contributed _more _to ozone layer depletion than burning fossil fuels and releasing poisons gases into the air as waste products of factories?



> *We as individuals* have an insignificant life span which to me means we have an insignificant effect on the planet.



Except we as *humanity *can and do have a significant effect on the planet. Your argument seems to say that its okay to litter the streets because we as "individuals" are only able to drop so much litter. 



> The suggestion being made here is that we the human race should never have started using fossil fuel to improve our living conditions.



I think its the _abuse _of fossil fuels is what is being said. The fact remains even if climate change had nothing to do with humanity, fossil fuels will eventually run out. And to put it another way; what will happen when US cant attack anymore countries for its oil anymore because there isnt any left in the world? We simply cannot go on as we are.



> We should tell peasants in Africa to stop using wood to burn to have hot food to eat and warmth in the night.



Caricatures arent going help people take you seriously. You shouldnt need it if you have a good argument.


----------



## José Herring (Oct 16, 2007)

I don't know what this guy is trying to prove with his sophomoric powers of reasoning? How about this. How about a column "c"?

In column C we have China. China tomorrow decides to take out the western part of the united states because they finally decided that the world would be better off without Hollywood and those terribly immoral people in San Francisco. Al-Kaida following suite decides for the heck of it to send a few more planes to midtown Manhattan. Of course America can't put up with this so they have to retaliate unleashing the entire power of the US arsenal at China and the middle east thereby solving the problem once and for all. Russian now scared that they're next decides to unleash it's missiles at the US. US sees this and decides that it's going to send it's eastern European missiles at Russia.

Say for the sake of argument that this makes the planet Earth too radioactive to sustain life and the remaining population die off in the following years with the worst radiation sickness and poisoning imaginable. 

Radioactive hot......or the slight possibility our Earth is 2 degrees hotter in the year 2300. You decide.

Oh and don't even get me started on Column "D" ~o) 

Jose


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 16, 2007)

http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GFMCnew/2003/0729/20030729-brazil_xingu__nasa_eo_sml.jpg (http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/GFMCnew ... eo_sml.jpg)

Ray, that's a satellite picture of the Brazilian rainforest. The red dots are fires.

And of course what's happening to the rainforest is only one of a number of ecological disasters.

It's beyond me what logic could possibly lead you from short lives to the impossibility of humans affecting the planet.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 16, 2007)

There are some major mistakes in that guy's logic, by the way. Of course I agree with his disaster scenario if we do nothing, but it's not at all true that we're risking a global depression for no reason by taking action. First of all it's not for no reason - we're going to have to switch from oil anyway when it becomes too expensive to get at (expected to happen sometime in the next few decades).

But even if it were unnecessary we'd just have a different energy economy, and if we make the transition gradually the cost could be relatively minor. In fact it could turn out to be less expensive if we don't have to spend money attacking countries to keep the oil flowing cheaply.

Even before that, he starts off with the rhetorical counter-argument that we've survived in the past therefore we'll get out of this some way or another. Well, he ought to read Collapse by Jared Diamond. History is full of civilizations that have failed when faced with the same kind dilemma we're faced with, albeit on a smaller scale. There are also civilizations such as Japan that survived and thrived because they did take action.

And the world population is about 6-3/4 billion, not just 6!


----------



## wonshu (Oct 17, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 17 said:


> There are some major mistakes in that guy's logic, by the way. Of course I agree with his disaster scenario if we do nothing, but it's not at all true that we're risking a global depression for no reason by taking action. First of all it's not for no reason - we're going to have to switch from oil anyway when it becomes too expensive to get at (expected to happen sometime in the next few decades).
> 
> But even if it were unnecessary we'd just have a different energy economy, and if we make the transition gradually the cost could be relatively minor. In fact it could turn out to be less expensive if we don't have to spend money attacking countries to keep the oil flowing cheaply.
> 
> ...



I've been saying this in the other thread as well... but it got buried:

Pushing towards new technology has _never_ hurt the economy... never.

And doing so again will give a global economic boost and growth that we haven't seen in decades, if ever! There is absolutely _no_ argument against purely economic decisions.

Best
Hans


----------



## wonshu (Oct 17, 2007)

rayinstirling @ Wed Oct 17 said:


> I’m not against making sensible decisions in how we look after our environment, but I think in the bigger global picture, sun spot cycles, cloud formations over oceans and what’s going on in the depths of these oceans have a greater effect on the planet than even 6 billion of us do.



Hmmm.... no argument can live up against this statement, so there you go. 

That's your opinion, and that's fine.

Personally, I don't think this particular way of looking at things should be the basis of policy making because strategically it's narrow minded and will lead to decisions like we have them at the moment: it doesn't matter, we don't have an effect anyway, at least we can't prove we do...

I do not subscribe to that point of view and will not go on living my (!!!!) life like that. I will try and convince everyone that acting responsibly even if it turns out to not be necessary is better than not to. But that's just me.

You may do whatever you want.

Hans


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 17, 2007)

aeneas @ October 17th 2007 said:


> Also, I noticed that pornography and war work both very well economically...



Whats wrong with pornography? You really can't be implying it is as bad as war in that statement...


----------



## aeneas (Oct 17, 2007)

rayinstirling @ Wed 17 Oct said:


> I think in the bigger global picture, sun spot cycles, cloud formations over oceans and what’s going on in the depths of these oceans have a greater effect on the planet than even 6 billion of us do.


We can do of course nothing about sun, clouds, oceans, etc., but we can keep clean the earth, the water, and the air around each one of us. In the end, small little things can go a long way and will make a world of difference.



Moonchilde @ Wed 17 Oct said:


> aeneas @ October 17th 2007 said:
> 
> 
> > Also, I noticed that pornography and war work both very well economically...
> ...


Of course, there can be nothing worse than killing, so war truly is the ultimate evil. But I didn't address their comparative degree of 'bad-ness', I just said they both work well economically, for some people - I should add. For some people that are less than pigs, to be more precise.

I think _cleanness_ is a fine word. So far the game has been won by the dirty guys. Enough with that. Clean up time. Times they are a-changing. :wink: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8rD1GpIgpo ("then you better start swimmin' or you'll sink like a stone")


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 17, 2007)

Can you tell me what is wrong with pigs, too? You seem to compare evil men to them a lot. They're just animals, and they don't go out of their way to purposely harm others. That is something humans do.


----------



## aeneas (Oct 17, 2007)

Pigs are dirty, but they can't help it. Humans can. And should. Pigs are a good example for dirtiness and mindless greed. Humans are not supposed to behave like pigs, yet some do. That was all I meant. I am not the pigs' enemy. Sorry for offending those animals by comparing them with some people. 

EDIT: ok, I take back "some people that are less than pigs", and replace it with "dirty mindless greedy pigs behave better than some people". Would that be OK?


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 17, 2007)

What makes a pig mindless and greedy? Pigs are rather smart animals, and they don't ask for anything other than giving them food and some mud to sleep in. And they don't even ask for that, we just give it to them, to fatten them up. I wouldn't call that greedy at all, they aren't hording money at the expense of others nor do they seek to harm people.

Sure, they're dirty and like sleeping in mud, but they aren't bad animals and far from greedy.

Anyway, what does pornography have to do with farm animals?  Why is it such a dirty evil to you? Some guy on this forum made some money scoring a few porno films, FYI


----------



## aeneas (Oct 17, 2007)

Moonchilde @ Wed 17 Oct said:


> Some guy on this forum made some money scoring a few porno films, FYI


And some guys on other forums may be butchers. And then you will say "What's wrong with butchers - it's an useful business", right? ( :? ) BTW, here is what a real animals' friend has to say: “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian.” (Sir Paul o/~ )

This 'pigs OT' may be fun, but I have only use them _tangentially_, as a metaphor, for they are dirty, and truly greedy ( just watch them a bit closer... ) Metaphors may be clichés to you, but when we talk peace we use the pigeons as metaphor, when we talk trustfulness we use dogs as a metaphor, when we talk cruelty we use sharks, etc. Those metaphors are all oversimplifying generalities of course, but let's leave them at the poetic level and let's not enter into the real pigsty. :lol: 

To sum up, I only wanted to say: people should all behave like humans (i.e. responsibly), and not worse than animals. And here I believe we are in perfect agreement. o-[][]-o


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 17, 2007)

I really don't have a problem with butchers either, so long as the meat doesn't go to waste. However, too much of it does, but that isn't their fault either.

I used to work in a grocery store. We would prepare whole chickens cooked on a spit, probably about 20 a day and that is being conservative. People rarely bought them, so at the end of the night they get thrown out. Do the math, there are about 15 stores within 20 mins of where I live, so that is 300 chickens a single day being wasted. Slaughtered to eat, and then not even eaten. How pathetic. Just imagine that on a national scale, and you'll see how disgusting it is.

I don't have a problem with eating meat, as long as the animal didn't die for nothing and actually gets eaten. Its natural to do what we have to do to survive, and animals are a food source, for us and for each other. At the same time, they shouldn't be mistreated in the process and they certainly shouldn't go to waste either.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2007)

Ray - first, it's perfectly fine to have a discussion and disagree. It doesn't mean we hate each other, it just means that I'm right and you're wrong.

But we do disagree, and the reason is that I feel you're basing your opinion about whether man is causing the current global warming crisis on anecdotal philosophical opinions that frankly don't really have anything to do with reality.

And for the umpteenth time I'm going to re-post that link to the story last week. Crude summary: average temperature rise leads to the rise in average humidity that we're seeing; subtracting man-made greenhouse gases from the computer model zeroes it out, pointing directly to human activities as the cause.

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2007-10-10-humidity-increase_N.htm?csp=34 (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate ... htm?csp=34)


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 17, 2007)

His chart is incomplete, where's column C with "zombie apocalypse"? Something else seems missing though in column A the bottom box he fails to include the global depression again and just puts cost and a smiley face.  I think he should have also listed the things that would go along with global depression...death, disease, war... starting to sound like column B.


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Oct 17, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Tue Oct 16 said:


> History is full of civilizations that have failed when faced with the same kind dilemma we're faced with, albeit on a smaller scale. !


Safe to say that for every failed civilization there were a hundred predictions of doom safely ignored. There will always be people fascinated with calamity, real or threatened, and others making a living telling people about it.

All of which has nothing to do with the veracity of claims regarding greenhouse gases and the like. But I think it's worth noting that, whatever the truth of the underlying issues, there are other dynamics running parallel.

I'm struck by the religiousity of much of the environmental movement. With the decline in the developed world of simple faith in traditional religions (at least among the intelligentsia) has come a replacement: "the earth," a simple faith if there ever was one. It is the new religion, replete with zealots, heaven and hell, angels (Al Gore!) and demons (George Bush!). And an animosity for human life on earth unrivaled even by Christianity.


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 17, 2007)

Who cares about all this jibber jabber about global warming and methane gas related BS. The world is over in 2012 anyway, so lets enjoy the next 5 years to the fullest!


----------



## rayinstirling (Oct 17, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 17 said:


> Ray - first, it's perfectly fine to have a discussion and disagree. It doesn't mean we hate each other, it just means that I'm right and you're wrong.
> 
> But we do disagree, and the reason is that I feel you're basing your opinion about whether man is causing the current global warming crisis on anecdotal philosophical opinions that frankly don't really have anything to do with reality.
> 
> ...


Nick – I don’t hate at all! not here, not anywhere, other than I hate people who say they hate things. You may be right in your mind but I’m right in mine and neither you nor anyone else will give an explanation to me why I have my opinion. My opinion is a totally personal thing compiled by someone who has already looked death in the face via heart attack then unstable angina followed by heart bypass surgery involving 5 bypasses while having a chest infection. This does not give me a right to say everyone else is wrong, only that I have an opinion that only I can change. On this thread I have read nothing that changes my opinion.
Now here is where I really annoy people. You quote usatoday.com for info.
Excuse me, but don’t more than half the population of USA not feel the need to concern them selves with anything happening outside the USA, and I’m not saying this as a criticism. Just an observation which has been published on numerous occasions. 

The word “we” keeps getting used, I assume “we” refers to some unknown like-minded group most hope are called “mankind” “the human race”. I’m an insignificant example of there being no chance of that. Our global environment is beyond “our” control. We live in a “me, me” society. This Earth will survive and “we” will need to adapt to survive on it. Now back to having fun, playing with virtual instruments for me.

Kind Regards

Ray


----------



## aeneas (Oct 17, 2007)

Moonchilde @ Wed 17 Oct said:


> Who cares about all this jibber jabber about global warming and methane gas related BS. The world is over in 2012 anyway


Again?!? 

:mrgreen:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2007)

Ray, I'm sorry about your heart. That doesn't sound like a lot of fun.

However, most of everything you're saying seems like a series of non sequiturs. I actually agree that too many people in the US aren't concerned with anything past the ends of their noses. But that has little bearing on whether an article in USA Today reporting on two studies in turn published in the journal Nature has any merit. Just the name "USA" doesn't mean it's false.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2007)

"Safe to say that for every failed civilization there were a hundred predictions of doom safely ignored. There will always be people fascinated with calamity, real or threatened, and others making a living telling people about it."

Johnny, I'm not talking about the end is nigh nonsense. I'm talking about real ecological collapse that could have been prevented: Easter Island, the Norse Greenlanders (400 years before they ended up starving), the Mayan civilization, the Anasazi in North America, more recently Rwanda, Haiti if you compare it to the Dominican Republic on the other half of the same island...

Some societies - such as the Dominican Republic - survived only because of steps they took to prevent collapse. One of the shoguns in Japan realized they were headed toward disaster and started managing their forests, even planting trees as a crop. That's why they survived.

Again, read Collapse by Jared Diamond. It's probably the most important book in the world - no hype.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond

There you go. At the bottom is a link to a video of him presenting Collapse as a lecture. I haven't watched it, but if it's about the book it's worth watching. And I promise you the book is worth reading - it's eye-opening.


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Oct 17, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 17 said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Diamond



And while you're at it, don't miss 1968's _The Population Bomb_.

Written by Stanford professor Paul Ehrlich, the book was the rallying point of the environmental movement in those days and a permanent fixture in public policy discussions, its arguments considered unassailable by those that believed.

The book's central thesis was that hundreds of millions of people were going to starve to death in the 1970's and 1980's in an unavoidable mass famine due to overpopulation.

The population about doubled. Food production rose exponentially.


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 17, 2007)

What about in the 1980's when we weren't going to have clean drinking water by 2000? Drinking water is pretty abundant now, too. We also have both biological and synthetic filtering systems to recycle water for drinking.

Also in the 1980's, we were going to run completely out of oil and the world was goòÿ
   dŸjÿ
   dŸkÿ
   dŸlÿ
   dŸmÿ
   dŸnÿ
   dŸoÿ
   dŸpÿ   dŸqÿ   dŸrÿ   dŸsÿ   dŸtÿ   dŸuÿ   dŸvÿ   dŸwÿ   dŸxÿ   dŸyÿ   dŸzÿ   dŸ{ÿ   dŸ|ÿ   dŸ}ÿ   dŸ~ÿ   dŸÿ   dŸ€ÿ   dŸÿ   dŸ‚ÿ   dŸƒÿ   dŸ„ÿ   dŸ…ÿ   dŸ†ÿ   dŸ‡ÿ   dŸˆÿ   dŸ‰ÿ   dŸŠÿ   dŸ‹ÿ   dŸŒÿ   dŸÿ   dŸŽÿ   dŸÿ   dŸÿ   dŸ‘ÿ   dŸ’ÿ   dŸ“ÿ   dŸ”ÿ   dŸ•ÿ   dŸ–ÿ   dŸ—ÿ   dŸ˜ÿ   dŸ™ÿ   dŸšÿ   dŸ›ÿ   dŸœÿ   dŸÿ   dŸžÿ   dŸŸÿ   dŸ ÿ   dŸ¡ÿ   dŸ¢ÿ   dŸ£ÿ   dŸ¤ÿ   dŸ¥ÿ   dŸ¦ÿ   dŸ§ÿ   dŸ¨ÿ   dŸ©ÿ   dŸªÿ   dŸ«ÿ   dŸ¬ÿ   dŸ­ÿ   dŸ®ÿ    dŸ±ÿ    dŸ²ÿ    dŸ³ÿ    dŸ´ÿ    dŸµÿ    dŸ¶ÿ    dŸ·ÿ    dŸ¸ÿ    dŸ¹ÿ    dŸºÿ    dŸ»ÿ    dŸ¼ÿ    dŸ½ÿ    dŸ¾ÿ    dŸ¿ÿ    dŸÀÿ    dŸÁÿ    dŸÂÿ    dŸÃÿ    dŸÄÿ    dŸÅÿ    dŸÆÿ    dŸÇÿ    dŸÈÿ    dŸÉÿ    dŸÊÿ    dŸËÿ    dŸÌÿ    dŸÍÿ    dŸÎÿ    dŸÏÿ    dŸÐÿ    dŸÑÿ    dŸÒÿ    dŸÓÿ    dŸÔÿ    dŸÕÿ    dŸÖÿ    dŸ×ÿ    dŸØÿ    dŸÙÿ    dŸÚÿ    dŸÛ              òÿ    dŸÝÿ    dŸÞÿ    dŸßÿ    dŸàÿ    dŸáÿ    dŸâÿ    dŸãÿ    dŸäÿ    dŸåÿ    dŸæÿ    dŸçÿ    dŸèÿ    dŸéÿ    dŸêÿ    dŸëÿ    dŸìÿ    dŸíÿ    dŸîÿ    dŸïÿ    dŸðÿ    dŸñÿ    dŸòÿ    dŸóÿ    dŸôÿ    dŸõÿ    dŸöÿ    dŸ÷ÿ    dŸøÿ    dŸùÿ    dŸúÿ    dŸûÿ    dŸüÿ    dŸýÿ    dŸþÿ    dŸÿÿ    d  ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d 	ÿ    d 
ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d  ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d ÿ    d  ÿ    d !ÿ    d "ÿ    d #ÿ    d $ÿ    d %ÿ    d &ÿ    d 'ÿ    d (ÿ    d )ÿ    d *ÿ    d +ÿ    d ,ÿ    d -ÿ    d .ÿ    d /ÿ    d 0ÿ    d 1ÿ    d 2ÿ    d 3ÿ    d 4ÿ    d 5ÿ    d 6ÿ    d 7ÿ    d 8ÿ    d 9ÿ    d :ÿ    d ;ÿ    d <ÿ    d =ÿ    d >ÿ    d ?ÿ    d @ÿ    d Aÿ    d Bÿ    d Cÿ    d Dÿ    d Eÿ    d Fÿ    d Gÿ


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Oct 17, 2007)

This is a darn good read:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html


----------



## choc0thrax (Oct 17, 2007)

You guys need to realize that Stephen Colbert has now entered the presidential race and soon all these problems will be a thing of the past.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2007)

Johnny and Moonchilde, the fact that there have been incorrect predictions in the past - just as there will be in the future - has exactly nothing to do with the fact that this one is real. You're just arguing empty words; I and everyone else rational is talking about real, measurable evidence that is impossible to refute without resorting to faulty logic like solar flares and man can't possibly have that much of an effect and Al Gore is only out for self-aggrandizement and we've heard the sky is falling before therefore every prediction of doom is wrong and everyone who believes this is closed-minded or has religious fervor or whatever BS it is.

It's very simple: the CO2 level and temperature have been rising together since the industrial revolution. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That explains the current climate change, therefore we must change course to avoid catastrophe. Duh.

By the way, overpopulation (and by extension limited resources) is *the* major problem in the world! Pointing to that as an argument against these realities seems a little odd.


----------



## aeneas (Oct 17, 2007)

JohnnyMarks @ Wed 17 Oct said:


> This is a darn good read:
> 
> http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html


True, darn good, I enjoyed it, thanks for posting it! Here is one gem I extracted: "military intelligence bears the same relation to intelligence as military music bears to music." o=<


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2007)

I just read some of it, and that guy is an imbecile who's using his position to spread BS. What a fool.

The predictions are very easy to make based on what we see happening: the climate is rising at an ever-accelerating rate. Even a layman can see that his protestations about the chaotic nature of climate are an irrelevant tangent.


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 17, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ October 17th 2007 said:


> It's very simple: the CO2 level and temperature have been rising together since the industrial revolution. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That explains the current climate change, therefore we must change course to avoid catastrophe. Duh.
> 
> By the way, overpopulation (and by extension limited resources) is *the* major problem in the world! Pointing to that as an argument against these realities seems a little odd.



I don't need simplification, I can read. I don't recall bringing up over-population as an argument against global warming. I'm not even arguing against global warming, so what is the problem here?


----------



## JohnnyMarks (Oct 17, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ Wed Oct 17 said:


> I just read some of it, and that guy is an imbecile who's using his position to spread BS. What a fool.
> 
> The predictions are very easy to make based on what we see happening: the climate is rising at an ever-accelerating rate. Even a layman can see that his protestations about the chaotic nature of climate are an irrelevant tangent.


Oh come on Nick, this kind of rabid, spittle-flying attack, ad hominem etc., is beneath you. If I wanted unthinking bickering and name-calling, I'd go buy a television.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2007)

I wasn't bickering until now, Johnny, and my name-calling is completely thought through. So are all my positions, as you can see from all my other posts. That guy is simply an ass. Please remove him from my internet.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 17, 2007)

Moonchilde, it was Johnny who posted about The Population Bomb. Sorry about that. The only thing you said I don't really agree with is that we can't predict what's going on. It seems to me that there's plenty of evidence that shows what's happening very clearly.

I just get excited about stuff like saving civilization. Sorry if I get carried away - I don't mean to insult you.

And I didn't read your posts all the way back, which is why I thought you were saying the same thing as Johnny...not that I mean to insult Johnny either.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 17, 2007)

Actually, Freeman Dyson is considered quite the brainiac. In fact,the Dyson Sphere is something he came up with. It's a planet size shell in which to live if things get uncomfy.

And I am qualified to know what smart is as I once owned 9 cats. In your face, Einstein.


----------



## aeneas (Oct 17, 2007)

Actually, the Dyson sphere was imagined to have the radius of approx. 1.5 AU (astronomical units, not Audio Units  ) which would result in something like 900 million times the surface area of the Earth. Something à la Darth Vader...

Also, that sphere it's meant to capture the energy of the Sun (all of it!), and not to live in it - but to live "upon" it.

http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... sonsp.html


----------



## wonshu (Oct 17, 2007)

Moonchilde @ Wed Oct 17 said:


> It really doesn't matter what it is politically, the fact is we're going to run out. Cold hard fact. Another fact, China is buying more oil. They are the second largest oil consumer in the world, next to the USA. At some point, they're going to want more. Then what will the USA do? Now we have a big competitor, so that means more people buying a dwindling supply. Reality is, we are better off doing it for that simple fact alone vs a political reason. We have no choice in this situation, we have to find an alternative.



Please explain to me how what you just wrote is _not_ a political reason???

But, on the other hand, it doesn't matter for what reason we change energy policy, as long as we change it. I couldn't care less if it is because the 9 cats need more surgical beauty enhancements... 8)


----------



## Moonchilde (Oct 17, 2007)

What is political about that? I'm simply saying there is a finite source and we aren't the only buyers. Instead of getting caught up in the oil race, we need to just step to the side and develop our own means of supplying energy. I don't see how that has anything to do with politics.


----------



## wonshu (Oct 17, 2007)

Then we don't need to argue further as I can see that your concept of politics is a very different one from mine.


----------



## artsoundz (Oct 17, 2007)

aeneas @ Wed Oct 17 said:


> Actually, the Dyson sphere was imagined to have the radius of approx. 1.5 AU (astronomical units, not Audio Units  ) which would result in something like 900 million times the surface area of the Earth. Something à la Darth Vader...
> 
> Also, that sphere it's meant to capture the energy of the Sun (all of it!), and not to live in it - but to live "upon" it.
> 
> http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... sonsp.html




I do tend to think small. Dyson is much more practical. 

Thanks for the link. Cool site....


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 18, 2007)

rayinstirling @ 17/10/2007 said:


> What ever happened to Ned



I'm here, but I'm doing my part against global warming by limiting my hot air footprint.

Seriously, though, I was kind of hoping that no one would have much to say really, and people would just pass on what I consider to be a very simple and urgent message. You see, I really think there's not much to argue: is the risk of being wrong about how little influence we have on the changing climate worth our (the West) continued prosperity? I think not.


----------



## rayinstirling (Oct 18, 2007)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Thu Oct 18 said:


> rayinstirling @ 17/10/2007 said:
> 
> 
> > What ever happened to Ned



I'm here, but I'm doing my part against global warming by limiting my hot air footprint.quote]

Ned,
I should have limited my hot air in the same way, along with the silent majority who will never take any notice of the arguments for action until and unless death stares them in the face. So if these predictions of catastrophe are correct WE ARE ALL DOOMED!!!!!!!!
Right I'm off to write a lament.

Ray


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 18, 2007)

Ned,

this is important indeed, and although the logic may be simple this does not make it obsolete, in the contrary. Thank you for posting this.

Hannes


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 18, 2007)

rayinstirling @ 18/10/2007 said:


> I should have limited my hot air in the same way, along with the silent majority who will never take any notice of the arguments for action until and unless death stares them in the face.



Ray, my point is that there's no need to add much more to this argument/video. We just need to make the message heard by as many people as possible, to pass it on: the consequences of being wrong about the supposed hype of man-made climate change are not as terrible as the risk of not doing enough to slow down the exponential burning of fossil fuels and the damage this causes to our environment.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 18, 2007)

Well, what he says is a little different from that. With all due respect, I found that video a little weak - for the reasons I've already mentioned.

"What is political about that? I'm simply saying there is a finite source and we aren't the only buyers. Instead of getting caught up in the oil race, we need to just step to the side and develop our own means of supplying energy. I don't see how that has anything to do with politics."

Agreed, and the geopolitical affects of China's and India's rise are major; as you say, a lot of this is directly tied to oil. The whole dance going on right now is very complicated.


----------



## wonshu (Oct 18, 2007)

I don't think it's complicated at all:

oil = increasing fight over acquiring it leading to serious financial stress on the markets.

renewables = technological advancement across the board in the realm of what the space race did for technology 50 years ago and independence of those idiots that just happen to have oil.

How that is so hard to comprehend and see as a viable strategy for future energy policy is beyond me. But then, a lot of things are, I guess....


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 18, 2007)

wonshu @ 18/10/2007 said:


> ... independence of those idiots that just happen to have oil.



Thanks!

:evil: 






:lol:


----------



## wonshu (Oct 18, 2007)

yeah I'm talking to you!!!

:evil:

LOL


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 18, 2007)

"I don't think it's complicated at all"

We're talking about two different things. Yes, the basic concept of "we want the oil instead of you getting it" is pretty simple.

But the diplomatic and geopolitical moves we're seeing are quite a dance. The race for oil is creating all kinds of new alliances. India and China are both cutting deals with all kinds of countries around the world, and that's creating conflicts.

And did you know that your president Bush agreed to share (civilian) nuclear technology with India last year? They haven't signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and before that there's no way they would have been allowed to get that technology without signing it.

Why did he do that? Apart from the fact that the current administration is beyond reckless in general, the idea is to try and cozy up to the Indians so they're on our side should we get into a fight with China. Bad move in my opinion, but we're seeing a lot of that kind of thing.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Oct 18, 2007)

Nick Batzdorf @ 18/10/2007 said:


> And did you know that your president Bush agreed to share (civilian) ...



Nick, Hans (Wonshu) is German. :wink:


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 18, 2007)

And I'm American.


----------



## rgames (Oct 18, 2007)

A couple of comments:



aeneas @ Wed Oct 17 said:


> Here is one gem I extracted: "military intelligence bears the same relation to intelligence as military music bears to music." o=<



I assume that you're implying that the similarity lies in the fact that both are defined by excellence. That must be the case because musicians in US military service ensembles are world-class and regularly wind up in seats in major orchestras after their service is complete. And, of course, it was military intelligence that built the first pieces of the infrastructure which you are currently using to browse the web. :wink: So, yes, I agree! Both examples of excellence!

But more to the point, I think there are a few things that deserve mentioning. First, Venus is an example of a planet with an atmosphere gone bad because of CO2 levels. Second, Yosemite used to have glaciers. And the fjords in Norway used to have glaciers, and the Grand Canyon used to be underwater, and, and...

So, planets warm. Planets cool. Glaciers form and melt. Sea levels rise and fall. I think we all agree on that. But unless you think Ford built a time machine and sent 100,000 SUV's back in time to idle for 10,000 years or so (and, of course, sent the same to Venus), you must concur that these phenomena _can_ be completely natural. (But wait! Ford - Fjord - coincidence? Maybe it did happen...)

OK so far? Now, the question of whether or not we are currently experiencing a warming trend. That's where it starts to get a bit tricky: given our limited data, it's actually not so easy to say because we're not really certain what constitutes a trend. Is the average temperature warmer than it was 50 years ago? Probably. But what does that mean in terms of changes that take 10,000 years to be fully recognized as such? It's a matter of time scales, very much like the relationship between hour-to-hour fluctuations in a stock market and it's monthly or yearly performance metrics. If I have a stock that has gained in each of the last three sessions, does that mean it will continue to rise? Of course not - a market, just like the atmosphere, is too complex a system to predict with any great certainty.

But let's say, for the sake of argument, that we are in a period of true global warming. Fine. Now comes the really tough question: why? This is where the punches start to fly, so get your gloves on! We've already determined that it can happen completely naturally. But, of course, we humans are producing significant amounts of greenhouse gases. So the question is: is it natural or influenced by humans? Aye, there's the rub! And, of course, both sides claim to have "indisputable scientific evidence" of their positions.

Here's an alternate view: every other planet that we're aware of is a barren wasteland. Maybe we're supposed to become one, also. So in fighting global warming, we're actually doing what is contrary to the natural environmental processes within the universe. Yeah - that must be it! There's an entire solar system full of "indisputable scientific evidence"!

As I always recommend, just act like it's a problem that we can fix; there are lots of other, _much better_, reasons to do so. And leave notes to your great-great-great-........-great grandkids to summon you from the dead and let you know who was actually right. Only time will tell.



rgames


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Oct 18, 2007)

...except that none of that is true, Richard. Didn't you see Inconvenient Truth? They've dug down into the polar ice and found that the CO2 level is the highest it's been in 400,000 years or something. Normal cooling/warming cycles are 40,000 years; the current warming has been happening since the industrial revolution.

You're anxious to take a middle ground, I know. Unfortunately that middle ground is between reality and a load of bullshit.


----------



## aeneas (Oct 18, 2007)

rgames @ Thu 18 Oct said:


> aeneas @ Wed Oct 17 said:
> 
> 
> > Here is one gem I extracted: "military intelligence bears the same relation to intelligence as military music bears to music." o=<
> ...


I suspect that Dyson meant something different. :wink: 

I personally see both military intelligence and military music as oxymorons, like waterproofed sponge, civilized warfare, and defensive strike. /\~O


----------



## Hannes_F (Oct 19, 2007)

The key question is whether we can learn to live without borrowing from futural generations - both in financial and ecological terms. And if the amount of fossil fuels that we use up within one year is bigger than what nature produces in the same amount of time then we _are _borrowing. Basically it is the same like spending more money regularly than earning. The results are debts towards the future.

If we can't stop this habit then this WILL have an effect. This effect may be smaller or bigger than natural fluctuations but it will be there because nature is a continuity.

Now quite some people say that futural technology will be able to repair everything - new energy sources, the ability to clean up etc., and so it is OK not to care too much for the moment.

This may the case or not. The question is whether mankind principally can break the habit of making debts towards the future. If we can't break it how can we expect this from the generation that we assign to clean up our waste?


----------



## wonshu (Nov 7, 2007)

See, what I said, we have to get away from oil:

not just because of climate change, but because the current pattern of consumption just isn't sustainable (...) anymore.

http://blog.wired.com/cars/2007/11/the-age-of-oil-.html


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 8, 2007)

None of that is anything new, wonshu, but it is a reasonably good article.

One point: the article talks about energy efficiency, but that's only half the equation. "Everything from cars to refrigerators" has already been made more efficient; that started with Jimmy Carter (in the US at least). But we've been using up that efficiency by driving bigger cars and adding second refrigerators for no net gain - in fact the energy consumption has gone way up. You know, our TVs are more efficient, but we have 50" ones instead of the 19" ones we were watching in the '70s.


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Nov 8, 2007)

Also: from what I've read it's no slam dunk that a hydrogen economy is only an engineering issue rather than a "scientific" one, as they say. I hope they're right that it could be done for $100 billion, and I hope it is the solution. And I've said over and over that we need to invest that kind of money in research.

But it sounds to me like the answer is to use a variety of new energy sources. Solar energy is great where the sun shines, wind is great where the wind blows, geothermal energy is great where there are geyers (such as Western US), hydroelectric energy is...well, it has to be part of the mix, unfortunately...and all of those can be used to make hydrogen.

But we need to start now, and that's a matter of politics. As I said, I like the position a lot of Democratic candidates are taking that this is going to create a lot of jobs. It's going to cost money, but the alternative is going to cost everything. And whatever it costs is a lot less expensive than wars are.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 8, 2009)

So, more than a year and half has passed, and I've now decided that we're screwed. So, FWIW, when it comes to my personal musical endeavours, the stuff that's really close to my heart, I'm only going to write requiems. I'll figure out which places in the world, which cultures are going to be the most/first affected, and will dedicate requiems as I go along. Call me a pessimist, but I just can't see how we're going to stop all those who only care about the bottom line. Greed wins.


----------



## gamalataki (Jul 8, 2009)

LA will surely be the first place to go, so start sketching.

Actually I hope not, since I've just made the commitment to totally do away with my grass lawn and replace it with California Native Drought Resistant Plants, shrubs, trees and hedges along with a drip irrigation system that should decrease my water consumption by around 80%. Yes, 80%!! I had a very inefficient system.

Finally after all this time there are some serious incentives and changes to the laws that will allow citizens to do the right thing, without breaking the law. Here in LA they're offering rebates of $1.00 per square foot to remove your lawn and some places are offering free trees. At least it's a start, but the majority of people here are still heavily addicted to having a competition for who's got the biggest, greenest lawn and unused swimming pool.

Any of you LA guys done this already? I've been interviewing landscape architects all week, while researching plants and trees and there's a wide range of concepts. Any recommendations would be cool.

Ned, I hope it's not too late, really, but what would your LA requiem sound like? Lots of TH stuff probably and maybe one of these?
http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/935/mutee.jpg


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 8, 2009)

Actually, I guess it would probably have lots of singing/vocals. Thankfully, though, not by me. :lol:


----------



## gamalataki (Jul 8, 2009)

Ned Bouhalassa @ Wed Jul 08 said:


> Actually, I guess it would probably have lots of singing/vocals. Thankfully, though, not by me. :lol:


Ah. a traditional requiem. For LA I would think a more mechanized movement might find it's way in there.  

I don't think most people realize how tight water is getting in California. Some farmers have had their water restricted to the point of not being able to plant. As with all things political, and it is largely that, there's many sides to the story. We import most of our water and the places we get it from want to keep it for themselves now, with the current drought conditions throughout the west. Then there's the save the rare short-nosed suckerfish arguments, the antiquated storage arguments, the farmers are wasteful arguments, but the bottom line is it doesn't rain enough to support 34 million people, predicted to be 50 million in 20 years, and grow enough fruits and vegetables for people to eat, let alone export.

So we're out of money, running out of power and water, ........
but we got strings baby, yes sir we got strings......


----------



## Niah (Jul 8, 2009)

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fusea ... d=42210510


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 9, 2009)

Beautiful video, thanks!

But I think it doesn't matter what we in the West try to do: Chinese want what we've had (and abused), India will go the same way as China, the immense power of the coal and oil lobbies will prevent global cooperation, cheap this and cheap that by the bucket-full has a price... goodbye polar caps and hello acid oceans, goodbye coral reefs, bye-bye fish, bye-bye us.


----------



## Stevie (Jul 9, 2009)

Niah, that's a wonderful video.
Btw, I dont have a driving license and neither a car.
I do everything by bicycle, foot or public transport.


----------



## chimuelo (Jul 9, 2009)

I have used 2 full tanks of gas since November.
I use my car to drive to the grocery store, and sound checks.
Public transportation in Vegas is chic, and we have learned to conserve water w/ the help of the water company. We don't need a bureaucrat from DC holding our hands.
People who waste water are fined as we have laws for that.
The citizens also voted on allowing the Bellagio water show if water was recycled.
Citizens are quite capable of handling their own districts by voting out corrupt people, and replacing them. Nevada actually enforces its laws. Just ask OJ Simpson, his " celebrity " status stopped at our border. 
As a nation we have the power to pass laws and pursue our huge natural gas reserves. But my God the lobbyists that flood our capitol in record numbers now wouldn't be able to pass ( purchase ) legisaltion.
Ned is right. Money runs our politicians, always has, always will. They keep being voted back in every term so what do we expect...??
In 2010 this could be solved by having access to Congessional members stock portfolios. Those who have stock in big oil companies should be voted out, but Congress votes itself a raise every year and protects itself by laws designed to benfit them, not us. 
Obama got my vote by promoting clean technology, but kissing the ring of the OPEC Gods only proved to me who still runs the show in Washington.


----------



## nikolas (Jul 9, 2009)

I use the bicycle to everywhere, sometimes more than 40 kms per day! I love it! I use the car for groccery shopping, taking the kids out, going for swimming, etc


----------



## hbuus (Jul 9, 2009)

One thing I really dislike about the climate change discussion is that so many people seem to think that everything possible should be done to cut down CO2 emissions completely regardless of the economic cost of doing so. "We owe it to our children and their children etc. to stop climate change from happening!", many people say. But if we do not take financial considerations into account, future generations will be poorer than they needed to be, all because we overspent while combatting climate change. Is THAT fair to our children and their children etc.?

Another interesting thing is how many environmentalists refuse to see nuclear power as a part of the solution, at least until the energy systems used around the world have made the transformation from fossile fuel to using a combination of solar, wind, wave and other renewable energy sources.

A third interesting thing is to look at the actions of environmental spokespersons, and then compare it to their words. Take Bono of U2 for instance. The band has just set out on a world wide tour involving a shitload of gear and (unnecessary) scene equipment. Somewhere I read that an environmental NGO has calculated the CO2 cost of various artists world tours, and that the result was that U2 was using an absurd amount of energy to facilitate their world tour compared to for instance Madonna's tour. Another thing is the way Al Gore lives. Again, I can't remember the details, but it's something like he's got this colossal house with a zillion rooms. Environmentally friendly? Not really. Conclusion: Talk is cheap.

To be honest I'm getting fed up with all this climate change talk. I'm Danish, and there is a lot of focus on the subject here at this moment, since the Danish capital Copenhagen is hosting a big climate change conference in December. Build a zillion nuclear power plants around the world, and decide on a global cooperation & funding strategy for further maturing renewable energy sources. Then perhaps we could start worrying about something else 

/Henrik


----------



## Nick Batzdorf (Jul 9, 2009)

"To be honest I'm getting fed up with all this climate change talk."

...hence the name "An Inconvenient Truth."

I'm not blindly opposed to nuclear power, but it still does have some obvious problems.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 9, 2009)

IMO, not only are there no clean solutions, but we're so running out of time, that it won't be about purchasing power but simply about species survival. And it's all great for us to do our part, but coal plants are going up weekly in China and Indians can buy cars for two or three grand...


----------



## hbuus (Jul 9, 2009)

Why don't the Western world simply decide that each nation must spend for example 5 percent of their GNP on renewable energy each year for the next 20 years?

This would create a tremendous & steady demand for renewable energy.


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 10, 2009)

So, we can all bike our way to wherever, but as long as crap like this exists, right in North America, there's no way in hell that the developing countries are going to do much of anything to curb carbon emissions:

http://petairways.com/


----------



## Ned Bouhalassa (Jul 18, 2009)

Just when I thought the argument was plasma vs LCD, it turns out to be about flat-screen vs...

A gas used in the production of these goodies is 17,000 more powerful than carbon dioxide:



> Exactly how dangerous NF3 might be to the environment remains a mystery, and will likely become a point of contention. Skeptics will point out that NF3 isn't one of the six gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol international climate change agreement, a legaly binding treaty designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, NF3 was only produced in tiny amounts when the treaty was signed over 10 years ago, and production has since skyrocketed. Today scientists estimate the gas to be 17,000 times stronger than carbon dioxide and warn it could cause more global warming than coal-fired power plants.


----------

