Global Warming

[Wynni]

What it entails, sweetie, is being smart. Scoping out what renewable options a place has realistically, and making the most of them. Installing more energy harvesters in an area than it needs is just as environmentally unsound and wasteful as an old fashioned coal burning factory. Other than fat, I haven't seen many efficient storage capabilities, or methods of long distance transmission.

[CaptainBaconMan]

Don't know if you guys have seen this.
http://www.landartgenerator.org/blagi/w ... ed1000.jpg

Also, what do you guys think of space based solar? I know Japan is supposedly going to have a system by 2030, but I think it's a bit of a waste of money, it could have been spent on something less far fetched then long distance energy transfer. Sure, the physics behind it is bad [censored], but I feel like the money could have been put to better use simply making existing solar cells more efficient.

And @Locke, to your response forever ago.
Lol, why am I not surprised Wal-mart was number 2 on the list?
Anyways, I know it seems stark, but I'm not talking about Oil companies converting, they may or may not, but I'm talking about entrepreneurs, and companies that are small enough to change. For instance, the company that supplies energy to my state is only 80% based on fossil fuels, and the rest is nuclear, hydro, solar, and biomass.

But, here's an opportunity for me to point out something I hate about the 'green' movement (same thing with the 'organic' food movement). Georgia power (the company I'm referring to), is attempting to sell people 'green energy'. Now, to their defense, on their page they say this.

Customers who participate in the program cannot be guaranteed that they will receive the actual kilowatts produced by a green energy generation method, but you can rest assured the green energy you are supporting is being produced and delivered to Georgia Power customers.

But, on the monthly pamphlet they send out to customers and in their ads they say nothing of this, most people would have no idea that the magical green energy electrons are the exact same as the old fashioned fossil fuel generated ones. I still find it bad that they're misleading people into donating money so they can make more renewable energy, even if it is for a good cause.

Just take a look at this page.
http://www.georgiapower.com/green/pdf/Greenelabel.pdf

It says nothing like the above quote, and to make matters worse, it tries to insinuate that regular customers don't get the energy from solar and biomass like the 'premium' customers do.


And as for my earlier arguments, I'd still say that we go with a mix of the incineration and landfill, but both still have the NIMBY problem, and there really isn't a fix for it.

But, if you are so adamant about not have incinerators, then there are other waste to energy practices.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_depolymerization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_arc_gasification
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_digestion (which is what the landfills already do)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_fermentation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical ... _treatment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refuse_derived_fuel

I've got to say though, I think pyrolysis is pretty awesome, especially since it can be used to sequester carbon too.

[Insomniac]

I debated with myself for about an hour whether I should revive this old thread, and I'll admit the video I'mma link to is a bit on the old side, but...Well, y'all be the judges.

[primalcaller ergos]

i'd say it's a good idea to bring this one back.

anywho, i always did find it to be so laughable that people often seem to forget various facts like:

-if methane is many times more potent than carbon dioxide in this regard, why does the kyoto protocol not regulate that as well?
-this makes an excellent point.
-why are people treating this like some sort of apocalypse hype? as in, of the y2k variety?

honestly, people would be better off putting in more effort into building systems to feed the poor instead of obsessing over this.

[Ryusen]

I don't remember hearing that "the debate is over". If that were true, and we had a solid, scientific consensus, would we be having this conversation? It seems more that, once "global warming" became a new buzzword in the media, people like Al Gore thought their work was done (or at least opposition had been seemingly silenced). Certainly we are more aware of our effects on the planet, and that may not have happened without An Inconvenient Truth, but popular opinion doesn't hold a candle next to scientific fact. And the facts are, well, convoluted. Scientists (perhaps I'm using that term too loosely, given the evidence in the video) on both sides seem to have some degree of supporting arguments. To say one side has "won" over the other seems to ignore evidence in favor of recognition.

I haven't given much thought to global warming over the past year, but my opinions are relatively unchanged. I still support environmental awareness, I still acknowledge the rise in temperatures, and I still believe that human effects are only one of many contributing factors. My original post still holds true to my opinions.

[Kinuki]

Well, y'all be the judges.

Okay, then let me judge.

Any 'scientists' who claim anthropogenic climate change hasn't been fully proven to exist by the massive amounts of evidence and research do not deserve that title. 'Cause if you deliberately abandon the scientific method to let industrialists pay you for misleading the gullible lay public you ain't one. The only uncertainty is whether we're in for a bad or a [censored] ride.

It's sickening how [censored] like the Koch brothers bankroll such brainwashing efforts only to save their corporate empires from perceived threats and thereby stall important work that's needed to soften the blow. How many people have to die through so-called 'freak weather' and 'mysterious crop failures' till something gets done?

[Insomniac]

Well, y'all be the judges.

Okay, then let me judge.

'Cause if you deliberately abandon the scientific method to let industrialists pay you for misleading the gullible lay public you ain't one. The only uncertainty is whether we're in for a bad or a [censored] ride.

What. Not just the frak, but all of the fraks, what. Did you even watch the video I linked to? Those four scientists that the host is talking with from about 4:40 on? The ones who say that the IPCC isn't even entirely comprised of scientists? Who weren't paid a dime for their stance of defending real science? Who received threats of violent death for their stance? Kinuki, with one post, you've shown yourself to be exactly the kind of person that these scientists, who live middle class or lower lives because of their stance, are speaking out against. At least the video I linked to sited evidence, rather than shouting I AM RIGHT BECAUSE LOOKIT THE POLAR BEAR ON THE CRUMBLING ICE! Speaking of which, 2:00 into the video. At the time the program was aired, polar bear populations were stable, some increasing.

What happened to you, Kinuki? I know I'm not the only one who remembers the liberal grounded by intelligent debate. I can't be the only one who remembers when you said things with a basis in reality and not just to be a radical. What messed you up so much?

[Kinuki]

Laughed out loud at the 'death threats' part, btw, but still, there are only two kinds of ACC deniers - shills of the oil/gas/coal industry and wingnuts whose ideology clouded and subsequently broke their rationality, unable to deliver anything but shoddy, biased research.

At the end of the day, they're not any different from the Holocaust deniers. Same evil, just different packaging.

As to what made me wake up - rather violently, I might add - getting thrown out on grounds of antediluvian attitudes is a good start to explain it, but it had to cover the all-permeating, rampant reactionism in general, too. So the question is more like what messed up America, what made a formerly progressive state go [censored]. But lets not dwell on that, regression to the Dark Ages is quite a hot topic these days.

[Wynni]

I AM an environmental scientist, trained by an environmental scientist, and I sure ain't on ANYBODY'S dime. and i'm HORRIFIED by the nonsense Gore put in 'An Inconvenient Truth" because he used so many easily disproven false arguments to 'prove his point'. The entire effect of An inconvenient truth was to undermine all the real science that had gone into Climate Shift.

And Kinuks, more than a few of us were willing to come get you. Heck, still might have to help Somni get down here since his home life ain't all that grand either atm.
And from here, it looks more like my darlin' Kinuks let a bad situation finally bring him down, and he's now stuck somewhere reinforcing that dark view of life.


But Hey, Somni? Income tax season! We could possibly get you here in style if it comes to it. Better yet, he keeps threatening you, tell him fine, you have a place ready waiting and welcoming.

[Sebbie]

Kinuki, the philosophy that "we scientists all agree, and anyone who doesn't agree with us clearly isn't a scientist and has no right to express his opinions" is the complete opposite of what defines a good scientist. Have you ever interacted with real scientists? The vast majority are far from radical; they understand that some of the most paradigm-changing scientific revolutions (heliocentrism, the theory of the atom, quantum mechanics) came precisely from fringe beliefs, and so fringe beliefs should be given a change to support themselves. In fact, the fanaticism you express discredits someone's scientific ability, because it makes it clear that they follow emotion over data.

I think Bertrand Russell put it best when he said

The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

[Kinuki]

Sure, scientists are humans. That's why science can be corrupted into junk science.

There are 'scientists' who propagate intelligent design, but do you know why this stays fringe science? Because there are mountains of empirical and deductive evidence that prove evolution is a fact. Nothing has been brought forward that falsified it, so the vast majority of experts in that field adopted the theory.

Same thing with ACC. It grew from a fringe topic to a certainty through evidence. I dare to say the ones that are still in denial of the hard evidence and, well, argue fanatically against it conduct nothing but Lysenkoism.

Some nutjobs argue that the Earth's flat. Should we start to listen to them again just because they're a fringe group? Should we discount the majority opinion of the experts and bank on the opinions of persons that have nothing to do with the field (like ACC deniers like to do)?

I may have no degree in something, but even I notice that's no science.

[Phantom]

Briefly read the last posts, noticed that its starting to move onto something else >.<

Getting back to Global warming, I saw a documentary a while ago, that looked at Ice core research, and that noticed a trend. The earth would heat up, it would get hot, then a super volcano (like the one at Yellowstone.) then errupts, covering the earth in a thick later of ash in the atmosphere, which then leads to an ice age. So i belive that we are just going through a cycle. All that we do, is make it a bit more violent then it was in the past. (( Im looking for that documentary and will post when i find it))

As it goes for green movements, I say keep Nuclear power. If you look at the amount of energy it produces compared to the poultion it creates (some radio active material which isent cleaned every changed in the long run.) I don't Understand why we are getting rid of the most clean and efficitent mass producing energy source. Ok so there was a problem in Japan, Hell Switzerland had its Plants since 1965 and it today represents 50% of our power. We just got out of a Siberian cold, where we were even buying power from Germany. I say its Stupid. Ok, Radio active waste? Why not bury it in the desert? Its a big empty space with hardly any form of life to begin with. Pay the countries and build secure areas, would even help those desert countries earn abit.

I saw on youtube Georges Carlin's Belief of Gobal Warming and i think i agree.

[Insomniac]

Here's an idea for green energy. Fill all the deserts in the world with solar cells. Build wind farms on land that typically gets a crapload of wind. That sort of thing.

[Kinuki]

[Insomniac]

Kinuks, do I have to repeat myself AGAIN? The scientists in the video I linked to weren't paid a dime for their position. You're losing more of our respect with every post and acting more like a fanatic than a scientist.