GLOBAL WARMING (AGAIN WITH THE CONTRAVERSY...)

Posts

Adon237
if i had an allowance, i would give it to rmn
1743
author=facesforce
author=kentona
A nuclear bomb can a global event, btw, if it eject enough material into the stratosphere. The blocked sunlight by the particles in that upper atmosphere (which can stay aloft for 5 or more years) could be enough to decrease the average worldwide temperatures by a couple of degrees.

.
..
...
The solution to global warming is nuclear war!
You know what? I completely endorse this. Every one, Let's have a global thermonuclear war to save the planet.

...Okay, I admit the entire alchemist thing got way out of hand. There.

Yes it was way out of hand. I actually thought you were joking. It's a good thing that you aren't in charge, I would be afraid of what would happen.
Ahahaha, Adon if I were in charge, I would move man into space and beyond, bringing war with us to the cosmos. My greatest dream, the most beautiful thing and most noble thing on this planet is that which is known as war. I would build a nation designed to collapse, and fall into a revolution so man never grows stagnant. A world of constant conflict... A universe of constant conflict where man must prove his devotion to his ideals. That, is the reason why I am not in charge. Yet.

I have a hard time understanding irony, so most of my jokes are mistaken and I make the mistake of taking everything too seriously.

EDIT: And~ I need to stop myself before I sound like a fanatic. Oh well, the struggles being a romantic.
Nightowl
Remember when I actually used to make games? Me neither.
1577
Well, I could try unplugging every machine in the house in case of flood that is caused by global warming. Y'know, like in Eddsworld.
I heard global warming was caused by cows farting too much.

I don't generally debate this kind of topic, but here's a little insider info from Canada: Climate change is happening, and the government of Canada knows that is happening. The main concern right now is the eventual forced migration of millions of people due to climate change. It is estimated that there might be 200 million climate change migrants by 2050.
Oblic
Once a member of RMN, always a member of RMN!
1937
Damn... I look away for a couple days, and shit gets real. I'll try to form my opinion as delicately as possible. For now, I have to get ready for work, and if there is a lull, I'll type up my two cents, even though my thoughts were pretty much covered by others.

(I now realize a large group of drunken, belligerent engineers in a hot crowded bar is far less unruly than the internet at large... I mean that in the nicest way possible! :) )
Oblic
Once a member of RMN, always a member of RMN!
1937
Alright, let me first make a distinction between how the terms "global warming" and "global climate change" have been defined, at least to the best of my knowledge. (I avoided this early on to try to hide my true colors and avoid offending anyone off the bat)

Global warming is a pseudo-scientific term that was extremely bastardized by the media and many political organizations, most notably, Al Gore. When global warming was first brought to light (at least in recent years), Al Gore jumped all over it and more or less manipulated (not him personally, I'm sure) some of the data to make some TRUE finding to look far worse than they really were. It was an interesting scientific thought that was destroyed by overzealous people that cared a bit too much about it, mostly for the wrong reasons.

Global climate change is a much more objective and scientific view of essentially the same thing. It seems to me, this term was created to reboot interest in a topic that was so bastardized and tainted, that people started to lose interest. It looks more at the whole picture as to how and why the global climate is changing, not just the human impact.

Now, I truly and wholeheartedly (damn, that's all one word?) believe that global climate change happens. This has been supported with countless pieces of scientific evidence. It is commonly believed that the earth has gone through several ice ages, caused by different things. It is also believed that the earth was much MUCH hotter (an average of 60 C) at one point, before one of these ice ages. But, the question that is on most people's minds is not what has happened. Rather, people are more worried about what is happening now, which makes sense.

What do I believe? For the most part, I think we are in one of the warming points of the natural cycle. Are we, humans, having an effect? I'm sure we are; it would be ignorant to think we weren't. But what I question is the degree to which we are having an affect. Honestly, I don't think we are contributing a great deal to this cycle. Less than 1% (if it is possible to quantify such a thing).

That being said, I want to clarify that I don't think we should go nuts and squander our resources and destroy, or otherwise make uninhabitable, a habitable planet (not directed at you facesforce; I find your philosophies intriguing, if nothing else). I think pollution and littering is stupid, if for no other reason than it looks, smells, feels, and sometimes even tastes and sounds shitty.

My point? Conservation is important, but I think people need to focus more on what is plausible and tangible, rather than a concept that is still in contention, even amongst the scientific community.

Sorry I took as long as I did to respond. I was hoping to get more points of view before weighing-in.
I'm going to side with facesforce on most of what he said.
If man's impact on global climate change is actually significant and worth making amends for*, the solution doesn't lie in regressive dumbassery like carbon taxes or dopey treaties/protocols that all the polluting nations ignore. Technology and innovation will be the salvation. It's better to keep pushing technology forward with specific goals in mind than to devise new methods of stifling progress so that we can all live in mud huts while being monitored by the Global Climate Stasi.

If what he says about bringing war is true, well, I digress there. Mankind won't be zipping around space if we don't outgrow this stupid war shit. War is nothing but young men dying to protect old men's private property.

*I, personally, don't believe it's worth making a fuss about. I recall a report that the Icelandic volcano eruption in 2010 voided all 'gains' from carbon emission cutback programs. If true, well, just goes to show how trivial we are as far as global temperature.
CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
On sunny days, I go out walking
1142
okay that's great except researching more ecological-friendly sources of energy (like, for example, thorium reactors, which are HI-TECH AS HELL) does not impede expansion in any way, shape, or form regardless of what alchemical beliefs you subscribe to. you are caught in a false dichotomy, and frankly, I did not expect such a thing from a langrisser fan.

A nuclear bomb can a global event, btw, if it eject enough material into the stratosphere. The blocked sunlight by the particles in that upper atmosphere (which can stay aloft for 5 or more years) could be enough to decrease the average worldwide temperatures by a couple of degrees.

it's ultimately useless to talk in hypotheticals like this. what can be is not what was, and this is not what was meant by the destruction of man at the hands of "Nuclear Man" in any case. i'm a dog
In what way is the pursuit of technological achievement as a means to solve problems a 'false dichotomy'?
Human history is made up of technology solving one problem, only for us to encounter a new one. It's a pretty natural cycle, and is unavoidable no matter how far you recede civilised society to.
Of course, there will always be the Malthusian ideaologues, End-of-Worlders, and other forms of uninspired idiots who believe we've hit Peak Technology and there's nothing left to invent. You just have to ignore them.

As for thorium, I'm not in a position to comment on it, but whose to say it isn't as wasteful and impotent as windmills? Time will tell as investment pours in (or out).
CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
On sunny days, I go out walking
1142
In what way is the pursuit of technological achievement as a means to solve problems a 'false dichotomy'?

Because you are asserting that technological innovation and ecological sustainability are mutally exclusive. You don't have to choose between them, just like Erwin doesn't have to choose between helping the racist goddess and siding with the demon tribe.

we've built a molten-salt reactor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment#Results. the waste produced by thorium has useful applications, although there is very little of it.
Oblic
Once a member of RMN, always a member of RMN!
1937
Okay, I want to make one more thing clear: I agree with Dyhalto. Moving forward is better than just complaining about the problem. One of my biggest issues is people either a.) sticking to an idea that isn't plausible or down-right wrong or b.) only bitching that something that needs to be and not doing anything about it.

I'm not sure if I made that clear in my last post.
author=Oblic
It is also believed that the earth was much MUCH hotter (an average of 60 C) at one point, before one of these ice ages.

60C? Really? A quick googling puts the biggest average temperature difference at around 10C and that's hundreds of millions of years apart. (with the top average temperature at 8C)

Of course the source I had (wikipedia :) only went back 500 million years. So the early earth was probably more extreme.
I'm definitely digging the passionate debate/discourse in this topic and I'm learning quite a bit. Hopefully it doesn't get closed on account of some crybaby logic.
Adon237
if i had an allowance, i would give it to rmn
1743
Oblic's post is my view exactly.

After I read Dyhalto's my point of view changed and or I saw another point.
But, who said we would have to live lower quality lives to be more environmentally friendly?
Moving forward moving forward, yes yes, that is important, but aren't there other things to worry about from our emissions? I mean the haze and poisonous smog that regularly visits some cities a problem?
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
In what way is the pursuit of technological achievement as a means to solve problems a 'false dichotomy'?
Because you are asserting that technological innovation and ecological sustainability are mutally exclusive. You don't have to choose between them, just like Erwin doesn't have to choose between helping the racist goddess and siding with the demon tribe.

we've built a molten-salt reactor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment#Results. the waste produced by thorium has useful applications, although there is very little of it.
Yeah, the mindset of "Economy vs Environment" is a false one. It's more like the economy is a subset of the environment (and if we fuck over the environment too much, we won't have much of anything left, economy or otherwise).
Oblic
Once a member of RMN, always a member of RMN!
1937
author=Shinan
author=Oblic
It is also believed that the earth was much MUCH hotter (an average of 60 C) at one point, before one of these ice ages.
60C? Really? A quick googling puts the biggest average temperature difference at around 10C and that's hundreds of millions of years apart. (with the top average temperature at 8C)

Of course the source I had (wikipedia :) only went back 500 million years. So the early earth was probably more extreme.


I wish could site my source... I saw it on a documentary. At that point in history (again, according to this source) there were no ice caps. The only reason the earth cooled was because the few bacteria that existed at the time made their energy through metabolizing methane, which is what was making the earth so hot. After the bacteria ate all the methane, the earth cooled to an ice age.

I am guessing this occurred VERY early in the history of living creatures (so about a billion years ago or so). But again, I can't recall where I got my information... if I had to guess, I was watching something on the science channel.
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
Because you are asserting that technological innovation and ecological sustainability are mutally exclusive.

I never asserted any such thing. I only asserted that with the solving of one problem, you inevitably encounter new ones.
"We invented the plow and now it takes one guy to do what five hunter-gatherers did. But our new problem is long term food storage. We'll invent granaries. But now we have a population explosion and this land can only support so many. We'll invent boats to settle faraway lands. But the weather is harsh here and our tee pees aren't cutting it. We'll invent cabins. But now the roofs leak. We'll invent shingles."
All the while, "environmentalists" throughout history, from the neolithic old-wayer to the middle-age crisis baby boomer, have been saying "OMG! You're cutting down trees to make plows, granaries, boats, cabins, roof shingles, etc".
stfu.

author=Adon237
but aren't there other things to worry about from our emissions? I mean the haze and poisonous smog that regularly visits some cities a problem?

Carbon Dioxide and dirty flue gases are two different things. First world nations have mandatory cleanliness limits and constantly monitored stack emissions. Companies that spew dirty shit for more than 2 minutes get hit with a fine. I know this because I work in the fossil fuel trade.
The irony is that CO2 is the product of clean fuel burning. We could avoid CO2 emissions by emitting carbon monoxide instead. Note that you have a CO detector in your house.

Also, haze and poison smog in cities is caused by car congestion.

author=Adon237
But, who said we would have to live lower quality lives to be more environmentally friendly?

Technically, nobody in this thread did. But Cave Dog was making the implication that you can't have one without sacrifice of the other (or maybe I read into it wrong).
When that becomes your belief, environmental preservation efforts become regressive instead of progressive. Scientific investment becomes moderated by bureaucrats with quotas and limits. You can see it now with goofy things like carbon taxes, carbon emission limits, and even that Carbon Credit scheme that, once you understand how it works, turns out to be a rigged-market that commoditises production and makes a garden of eden for parasitical speculators.
The end result of those types of policies, intended or not, is deindustrialisation and scarcity. Backwardation and famine. No thanks.


If I were a nasty person, I would tell people my honest opinion.
I'd go around saying that environmentalists are a bunch of selfish, short-sighted, NIMBY whiny bitches. Indiscriminate chemical dumping in an African third world country? Shrug. But don't you dare build a Natural Gas plant in my neighborhood. I've got my house, my car, my iJunk, my bills paid for. How dare you cut more trees and mine more minerals and generate more electricity to build stuff for other people. There's a pie, I've got my piece, and there should be no more pie made. Other people will just have to tough it out in order to preserve our precious planet (a convenient cover that has the benefit of moral authority).
Great example? One of Global Climate Change's biggest proponents, Al Gore. He's one of those multiple-mansion, private jet types, and he goes around saying "There are too many of you. You all have to cut your standards of living back." Fuck him.
But I'm generally a nice guy and I try to avoid the debate.
CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
On sunny days, I go out walking
1142
nobody in this thread did. But Cave Dog was making the implication that you can't have one without sacrifice of the other (or maybe I read into it wrong).
um yeah that's absolutely the opposite of what I said. did you mean facesforce? Also, you did say that thing, for the record
"It's better to keep pushing technology forward with specific goals in mind than to devise new methods of stifling progress so that we can all live in mud huts while being monitored by the Global Climate Stasi. "
but I guess that doesn't matter so much now.


You also seem to have a rather hefty chip on your shoulder with regards to your strawmen environmentalists.


The end result of those types of policies, intended or not, is deindustrialisation and scarcity. Backwardation and famine. No thanks.


What evidence do you have to back this up? What countries that regulate carbon emissions are failing because of that? What empires have collapsed because they were too concerned about the environment? What is this about famine, a thing that is caused by the misappropriation of wealth?
Adon237
if i had an allowance, i would give it to rmn
1743
I see your opinion clearly, even though it might have a slight bias since you work in the fossil fuel industry. And don't cars count as emission?
author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
You also seem to have a rather hefty chip on your shoulder with regards to your strawmen environmentalists.

No, it's just an observation that most of them are selfish Haves (as opposed to Have-Nots). I form a strong opinion around that. Is that okay, or are you going to use my personal caveat as ammo against my character? Shoot that messenger.

author=CAVE_DOG_IS_BACK
What countries that regulate carbon emissions are failing because of that? What empires have collapsed because they were too concerned about the environment? What is this about famine, a thing that is caused by the misappropriation of wealth?

Don't be a child. Empires collapse because of misappropriation of wealth. Policies that detract from innovation and progress are blatant misappropriations of wealth anybody of moderate intellect can see. We aren't talking "No Smoking". We're talking taxes on everything, limited productive capacity, or minimum capital requirement for entrepreneurial pursuits. These are the tools of central planners, and when the central plan goes wrong, scarcity ensues.

author=Adon237
I see your opinion clearly, even though it might have a slight bias since you work in the fossil fuel industry. And don't cars count as emission?

It's more like, because I work with fossil fuels, I know that clouds of poisonous smoke are a thing of the past. Where I live anyhow. China knows no bounds.

And cars are a small part of emissions. I read somewhere that if everybody on earth stopped driving, total emission-pollution would only decrease by 3%. Cars are just more acute, since the exhaust is at your ankles and rises into your face, whereas smoke stacks emissions will blow around and may even totally avoid your town.