Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Global Warming as Mass Neurosis
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:
Stop being so literal. I didn't mean abolish tax, or that taxes aren't relevant. I meant that deeply unpopular tax increases and public spending seems inferior to comparatively far cheaper anti-global warming technology.


Which particular deeply unpopular tax increases and instances of public spending are you saying become needless in the face of the admittedly very interesting cloud ships you mentioned?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mises



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If they actually start trying to "fix" the climate with half-brained ideas it is then that tearing cities apart in protest becomes necessary for survival. They can't tell you what will happen next week with the climate. If they start trying to fix it with even more hair-brained ideas, we're completely screwed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bacasper



Joined: 26 Mar 2007

PostPosted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Global Warming as Mass Neurosis Reply with quote

Cordova wrote:


The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years.

Would someone please explain why state-size chunks of Antarctica have broken off into the ocean?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sergio Stefanuto



Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:

Which particular deeply unpopular tax increases and instances of public spending are you saying become needless in the face of the admittedly very interesting cloud ships you mentioned?


Is "needless" what I said? ("....deeply unpopular tax increases and public spending seems inferior to comparatively far cheaper anti-global warming technology" and I'd already stressed that this is a short-term solution only).

Anyway, $45 Trillion Needed To Cut CO2 Emissions 50% By 2050. And this means cut them from what they are now, not taking into account vastly growing demand for energy. Yes, there are benefits to the costs - but the costs are a hard sell to many. My view is - or was - that the cloud ships buy us time to decarbonize more slowly perhaps.

But I just read the project reviewed by realclimate.org and I may have gotten overexcited.

Quote:
Bickel and Lane ignore the effects of ocean acidification from continued CO2 emissions, dismissing this as a lost cause. Even without global warming, reducing CO2 emissions is needed to do the best we can to save the ocean. The costs of this continuing damage to the planet, which geoengineering will do nothing to address, are ignored in the analysis in this report. And without mitigation, SRM would need to be continued for hundreds of years. If it were stopped, by the loss of interest or means by society, the resulting rapid warming would be much more dangerous than the gradual warming we are now experiencing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:
I absolutely hate the topic.

My view is that the science is on very solid ground, but the poisonous intrusion of the political left turns many away. And rightly so! Many skeptics aren't really 'skeptics' at all - they just don't want insane politics.

Science and capitalism - and technological innovation - are the solution, not taxes and leftists. Take this, for example.....

That article is absurd on so many levels... assuming global warming is just a crock, and that the earth's temperature is determined just by increased/decreased solar output, then what that article portrays is pretty much worse case scenario: corporatism from hell. The thought of the government taxing us to death on carbon emmissions, while building gigantic fossil-fuel guzzling boats to shoot sea water into the air (seriously, wtf?), in order to mimic volcanos (which spout more CO2 into the atmosphere than anything else), is just taking the stupidity to a whole new level.

The whole point of shamming the public into believing global warming is caused by carbon emissions, is to pass carbon taxes. Fossil fuels are cheap and abundant (though I fully support replacing them with alternative, cleaner energy), and the whole peak oil notion is a problem of economics (because our entire economy is based on a ponzi scheme monetary system) not of resources. Ask the question again, who benefits from lying about global warming? The same people who control the fossil fuel industry (people like the Rockefellers, the Bushes, Al Gore, the usual suspects). It means they get to create artificial scarcity in the name of saving the environment, oil prices go up at the same time that carbon taxes are passed, and the public gets squeezed even further.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mises



Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired

PostPosted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

"Global warming" is not happening. Sorry. There are good reasons to limit what we dump into the air, but "global warming" (or "climate change", now that we're likely becoming more cool) ain't one. It is group think and propaganda. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Watermelon as public policy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 2:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mises wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

"Global warming" is not happening. Sorry. There are good reasons to limit what we dump into the air, but "global warming" (or "climate change", now that we're likely becoming more cool) ain't one. It is group think and propaganda. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Watermelon as public policy.


Even if I were to entertain this idea, the rapid acidification of the oceans is a very real and dire threat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
mises wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/

"Global warming" is not happening. Sorry. There are good reasons to limit what we dump into the air, but "global warming" (or "climate change", now that we're likely becoming more cool) ain't one. It is group think and propaganda. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Watermelon as public policy.


Even if I were to entertain this idea, the rapid acidification of the oceans is a very real and dire threat.

I'm not an expert nor have I read in depth into this idea, so at the risk of putting my foot in my mouth, I won't say it's impossible. However, that video seemed to have a lot of the same scare tactics as global warming (reminds of the that Leo Dicaprio documentary), talking about disaster and how the end is near... At one point, one of them mentioned that the oceans have gotten so acidic that seashells are dissolving... It seems intuitively obvious to me that carbon dioxide (which forms a very weak acid, we're not talking about hydrogen sulfate here) is not going to turn the oceans to acid...

I'd like to see some concrete scientific data (none shown in that clip) that makes a better case. As I understand it, the oceans' pH has only gone down by less than 0.075 since the pre-industrial era. Hardly enough to make an impact (assuming that data is even correct). Corals etc. may be rather fragile, but lets not get carried away...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sergio Stefanuto



Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
Sergio Stefanuto wrote:
I absolutely hate the topic.

My view is that the science is on very solid ground, but the poisonous intrusion of the political left turns many away. And rightly so! Many skeptics aren't really 'skeptics' at all - they just don't want insane politics.

Science and capitalism - and technological innovation - are the solution, not taxes and leftists. Take this, for example.....


building gigantic fossil-fuel guzzling boats to shoot sea water into the air (seriously, wtf?)


They aren't fossil-fuel guzzlers. They're wind-powered.

Visitorq wrote:
in order to mimic volcanos (which spout more CO2 into the atmosphere than anything else), is just taking the stupidity to a whole new level.


Volvanos cause ice ages. They block out the rays of the sun.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visitorq wrote:
It seems intuitively obvious to me that carbon dioxide (which forms a very weak acid, we're not talking about hydrogen sulfate here) is not going to turn the oceans to acid...


As you say, it forms a very weak acid. But even a fairly small rise in acidity can be problematic for creatures that are immersed in it every second of their lives.

visitorq wrote:
I'd like to see some concrete scientific data (none shown in that clip) that makes a better case. As I understand it, the oceans' pH has only gone down by less than 0.075 since the pre-industrial era.


Considering the utterly immense amount of water in the ocean, and the relatively short time that has passed since the pre-industrial era, that's a pretty big change, especially considering that the rate of change will only increase if we don't change the way we do business.

Just another reason that a lot of the changes required by climate change would be good to make even if it turned out climate change was all a lie.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rusty Shackleford



Joined: 08 May 2008

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
visitorq wrote:
It seems intuitively obvious to me that carbon dioxide (which forms a very weak acid, we're not talking about hydrogen sulfate here) is not going to turn the oceans to acid...


As you say, it forms a very weak acid. But even a fairly small rise in acidity can be problematic for creatures that are immersed in it every second of their lives.

visitorq wrote:
I'd like to see some concrete scientific data (none shown in that clip) that makes a better case. As I understand it, the oceans' pH has only gone down by less than 0.075 since the pre-industrial era.


Considering the utterly immense amount of water in the ocean, and the relatively short time that has passed since the pre-industrial era, that's a pretty big change, especially considering that the rate of change will only increase if we don't change the way we do business.


You both need to present some evidence. It's all he said, she said at this point.


Quote:
Fox said
Just another reason that a lot of the changes required by climate change would be good to make even if it turned out climate change was all a lie.


At what cost?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sergio Stefanuto wrote:
visitorq wrote:
Sergio Stefanuto wrote:
I absolutely hate the topic.

My view is that the science is on very solid ground, but the poisonous intrusion of the political left turns many away. And rightly so! Many skeptics aren't really 'skeptics' at all - they just don't want insane politics.

Science and capitalism - and technological innovation - are the solution, not taxes and leftists. Take this, for example.....


building gigantic fossil-fuel guzzling boats to shoot sea water into the air (seriously, wtf?)


They aren't fossil-fuel guzzlers. They're wind-powered.

Ok, so they're in the realm of science fiction then... Just look at the picture of them, there's no wind turbines, just gigantic floating behemoths spewing climate changing amounts of vapor into the air. The amount of energy that would require would have be powered either by nuclear or huge amounts of petroleum. And no matter what it would be expensive as hell, both to put in place and to sustain.
Quote:

Visitorq wrote:
in order to mimic volcanos (which spout more CO2 into the atmosphere than anything else), is just taking the stupidity to a whole new level.


Volvanos cause ice ages. They block out the rays of the sun.

Even if this is the case, it's a terrible idea, and I can't believe it's even being considered. Slow gradual heating would still be preferable to a bunch of science-fiction freaks trying to forcefully block out the sun, affecting the whole planet, with a their machines and risk causing a goddam ice age... Just spewing that much water into the air (making clouds!) would screw up the weather patterns all over the world and do way more damage than anything they'd be trying to fix.
I'm no expert but I took an oceanography course back in college and know that weather patterns, rainfall, temperature, and ocean currents are in relative equilibrium. Slowly changing things still allows other parts to adjust, doing something drastic could bring the whole house down.


Last edited by visitorq on Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:49 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Shackleford wrote:
Fox wrote:
visitorq wrote:
It seems intuitively obvious to me that carbon dioxide (which forms a very weak acid, we're not talking about hydrogen sulfate here) is not going to turn the oceans to acid...


As you say, it forms a very weak acid. But even a fairly small rise in acidity can be problematic for creatures that are immersed in it every second of their lives.

visitorq wrote:
I'd like to see some concrete scientific data (none shown in that clip) that makes a better case. As I understand it, the oceans' pH has only gone down by less than 0.075 since the pre-industrial era.


Considering the utterly immense amount of water in the ocean, and the relatively short time that has passed since the pre-industrial era, that's a pretty big change, especially considering that the rate of change will only increase if we don't change the way we do business.


You both need to present some evidence. It's all he said, she said at this point.


Don't be silly, I don't need to provide evidence for his claim. He says the oceans pH has merely changed by 0.075. In response, I pointed out that's a substantial amount of change given the volume of water we're talking about. Saying that is neither confirming nor denying that what he said is actually true.

Rusty Shackleford wrote:
Fox wrote:

Just another reason that a lot of the changes required by climate change would be good to make even if it turned out climate change was all a lie.


At what cost?


I don't know. That doesn't make the changes less beneficial. If you have some information about how much they'd cost in total if implemented with reasonable efficiency, feel free to mention it. Whatever it is, I suspect I'd be willing to pay it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
visitorq



Joined: 11 Jan 2008

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Rusty Shackleford wrote:
Fox wrote:
visitorq wrote:
It seems intuitively obvious to me that carbon dioxide (which forms a very weak acid, we're not talking about hydrogen sulfate here) is not going to turn the oceans to acid...


As you say, it forms a very weak acid. But even a fairly small rise in acidity can be problematic for creatures that are immersed in it every second of their lives.

visitorq wrote:
I'd like to see some concrete scientific data (none shown in that clip) that makes a better case. As I understand it, the oceans' pH has only gone down by less than 0.075 since the pre-industrial era.


Considering the utterly immense amount of water in the ocean, and the relatively short time that has passed since the pre-industrial era, that's a pretty big change, especially considering that the rate of change will only increase if we don't change the way we do business.


You both need to present some evidence. It's all he said, she said at this point.


Don't be silly, I don't need to provide evidence for his claim. He says the oceans pH has merely changed by 0.075. In response, I pointed out that's a substantial amount of change given the volume of water we're talking about. Saying that is neither confirming nor denying that what he said is actually true.

This is an easy fact to find... here's on wiki (cited page) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

And the onus is not on me here... I was responding to another poster who said ocean acidification is a real and serious danger. I see no proof of this, or any evidence that a rise in pH of that much is any problem at all. For all I know, ocean pH is cyclical and goes up and down over the millenia. Anyway, I'd like to research it more, but don't really have time at the moment...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rusty Shackleford



Joined: 08 May 2008

PostPosted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 11:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rusty Shackleford wrote:
Fox wrote:

Just another reason that a lot of the changes required by climate change would be good to make even if it turned out climate change was all a lie.


At what cost?


I don't know. That doesn't make the changes less beneficial. If you have some information about how much they'd cost in total if implemented with reasonable efficiency, feel free to mention it. Whatever it is, I suspect I'd be willing to pay it.[/quote]

Don't you think the cost, and more importantly the net benefit (or loss), should be a prerequisite piece of knowledge that should be obtained before you commit to a course of action?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International