Shut Down Your Console To Save The Planet

Status
Not open for further replies.
w1retap said:
Yes, we've seen all this happen throughout the history of the earth, many many many times over. It's nothing new. I'm not worried about climate change.
Click to expand...

Ditto-

Every ten years we get some morons screaming about something bad.

Global Cooling!
Year 2000 bug!
Dixoins!
Love Canal!
Global Warming!

Piss off you bunch of wankers, you don't have a clue. As long as yobs keep screaming about the sky falling the research grants keep coming in.
 
w1retap said:
How about going for a quadruple post?

Get a grasp on historical timelines and what has been happening with the earth over the past 300 million years. Nothing we're seeing is "new" and "shocking". All your cherry-picked global warming studies are relying on of NASA satellite data from the past 30 years. If you look who is in charge of those NASA data collections, you'll see he has been purposely manipulating data to make the anthropogenic global warming argument look even more realistic, and he was caught doing it.

Please, step back into reality for the sake of sparing us the drone minded catch phrase comments.
Click to expand...

Youre talking about a period of 300 million years... but humanity has only existed for the last million or so... you really think our species would survive the types of ups and downs our climate as suffered?

I actually advocate a scientific answer to this. We already have a degree of control of our own environment, so why not go further? According to various futurists, humanity will not reach the next plateau of advancement with oil nor will it get there without being able to control climate and weather. I believe the Cambridge blueprint is a good first step towards achieving the latter goal. Why not deploy those mirrors into orbit and control the amount of incoming solar radiation?

History is replete with mankind trying to alter his environment to suit his needs... and this would be the next major advancement towards a controlled climate. In the hands of capable, intelligent people, this can do much more good than relying on the haphazard whims of Mother Nature.
 
A-L-E-X said:
Carefully read the first post--

Notice that I mentioned that both sides are doing this? I refuse to take sides here, because BOTH are cherry picking the data to fit their own agendas.

Im talking about more than just data-- im talking about possible elimination of arctic ice from the polar regions for the first time since the Cretaceous period. However, I know the GW crowd is hyping this thing past all levels of science, but we also cant be ignorant and proclaim the other side right, because they are burying their heads in the sand as well. The answer probably lies somewhere in between...

The fact of the matter is, we should be doing EVERYTHING possible to get away from oil, even if it impacts our economy, for a MULTITUDE of reasons, this not even being the main reason.
Click to expand...
You refuse to take sides, but according to you, every problem in the natural world somehow gets pinned on the "George Bush crowd"? lol, if you can buy yourself a vowel, you'll at least add some credibility to yourself.

If you want to really make an argument, do you want to know what the biggest greenhouse gas is? Water vapor. It has the single most influential power over global climate that we know of today. Actually 24,000x more influence than CO2 does. If we want to have any effect whatsoever on global climate, we'll have to control the rate at which sunlight hits the earth. CO2 pales in comparison, and is just a blip on the chart. Beyond this, there is a lagtime of over 800 years that monumental increases on CO2 have any effect on global temperature. We've seen times throughout history when CO2 levels were at several thousand parts per million in the atmosphere, yet the climate regulated itself up and down just fine during those time periods. It does not worry me one bit when I look at the actual history, not some manipulated 30 year stretch of satellite data.
 
w1retap said:
There is a difference between harmful toxins/pollution, and greenhouse gases. I agree we should recycle and not pollute harmful chemicals into our environment. Paying price premiums on "green" products just doesn't do it for me though. If anything, companies should offer them at lower prices to encourage people to do the right thing. The "green" technology wave has been hijacked and slapped with a yuppie label. I don't buy into it unless it makes sense for my budget and environmental feasibility outlook.
Click to expand...

I laugh at "green" products, people have no clue on how green some are not.

Lets apply some critical though shall we? Which is greener?

1) Item one is a glass bulb consisting of 2 wires in a vacuum with a third wire that glows when current flows through it. It is made of the most common of elements in abundent supply.

2) Item two does the same job but has many more parts which are more harmful to the enviroment to produce (ballast, caps, transformer, etc) plus uses mercury in it's design. They breaking and release of aformentioned mercury in one bulb exceeds U.S. federal guidelines for chronic exposure.

No one talks about the energy it takes to make a fluorescent compared to a normal bulb nor the impact to the environment do they? There is no free lunch.
 
A-L-E-X said:
History is replete with mankind trying to alter his environment to suit his needs... and this would be the next major advancement towards a controlled climate. In the hands of capable, intelligent people, this can do much more good than relying on the haphazard whims of Mother Nature.
Click to expand...

We have people who can't control the remote for the TV and you want them to tinker with the weather? No thanks!
 
It's not just about climate change. I really feel, as someone who is actually knowledgeable on the subject, that most of the folding projects are simply a complete waste of fossil fuels.
 
flegg said:
It's not just about climate change. I really feel, as someone who is actually knowledgeable on the subject, that most of the folding projects are simply a complete waste of fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Not all our power comes from fossil fuels.
 
w1retap said:
You refuse to take sides, but according to you, every problem in the natural world somehow gets pinned on the "George Bush crowd"? lol, if you can buy yourself a vowel, you'll at least add some credibility to yourself.

If you want to really make an argument, do you want to know what the biggest greenhouse gas is? Water vapor. It has the single most influential power over global climate that we know of today. Actually 24,000x more influence than CO2 does. If we want to have any effect whatsoever on global climate, we'll have to control the rate at which sunlight hits the earth. CO2 pales in comparison, and is just a blip on the chart. Beyond this, there is a lagtime of over 800 years that monumental increases on CO2 have any effect on global temperature. We've seen times throughout history when CO2 levels were at several thousand parts per million in the atmosphere, yet the climate regulated itself up and down just fine during those time periods. It does not worry me one bit when I look at the actual history, not some manipulated 30 year stretch of satellite data.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is why I was advocated idea of controling incoming solar radiation... that is going to make the quickest impact on climate than any other method. Of course H20 is the biggest greenhouse contributor, and every schoolchild knows that.

Youd like to argue the point with me that Bush is the "antiscience" president? Do you know that is something that has received nearly universal agreement-- both from scientists AND historians? And his image in other parts of the world aint so rosy either-- this cowboy mentality that worked during the frontier age lost its luster a long time ago. Grow up!

BTW, its not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that matters as much as the rate at which it increases-- be that as it may, I agree with you that we need to control the amount of incoming solar radiation. The greatest change to the climate was created when the clean air act was passed in the 1970s-- the resultant removal of pollutants from the atmosphere caused a net increase in incoming solar radation and the temperature spike.

The reason for weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels are for a multitude of other reasons (dependence on unstable foreign countries, offshore drilling's impact to the environment, fossil fuels will run out before the turn of the next century anyway...)
 
gdonovan said:
Not all our power comes from fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

The less power you use the less fossil fuels get burned in the United States. Even if you are 100% wind solar, if you are connected to the grid the less power you use the more power you can contribute to the grid.
 
The simplest yet most difficult solution is to control the human population.
 
"Lets apply some critical though shall we? Which is greener?"

Sorry, should have stated the following-

Lets apply some critical THOUGHT shall we? Which is greener?

Beer and turkey on a Sunday don't mix well with forum posting.
 
gdonovan said:
We have people who can't control the remote for the TV and you want them to tinker with the weather? No thanks!
Click to expand...

Well, (and this is a long way off, but something that has and continues to be studied)... if you could lessen the frequency of hurricane strikes by increasing wind shear or affecting the heat content of the ocean, and thereby save thousands of lives a year and billions of dollars to our economy, dont you think its worth the effort? I have friends in the military who say this area continues to be studied and would be one of the fruitful products of a controled climate. How far off would this be? He says 100-200 years.
 
A-L-E-X said:
Yes, this is why I was advocated idea of controling incoming solar radiation... that is going to make the quickest impact on climate than any other method. Of course H20 is the biggest greenhouse contributor, and every schoolchild knows that.

Youd like to argue the point with me that Bush is the "antiscience" president? Do you know that is something that has received nearly universal agreement-- both from scientists AND historians? And his image in other parts of the world aint so rosy either-- this cowboy mentality that worked during the frontier age lost its luster a long time ago. Grow up!

BTW, its not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere that matters as much as the rate at which it increases-- be that as it may, I agree with you that we need to control the amount of incoming solar radiation. The greatest change to the climate was created when the clean air act was passed in the 1970s-- the resultant removal of pollutants from the atmosphere caused a net increase in incoming solar radation and the temperature spike.

The reason for weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels are for a multitude of other reasons (dependence on unstable foreign countries, offshore drilling's impact to the environment, fossil fuels will run out before the turn of the next century anyway...)
Click to expand...
Stop shifting and changing your argument every time I make a new point debunking it. Yeah, go ahead and put some solar deflecting devices way out there in space between the Earth and the Sun to control our planet's climate. rofl.. get a life.
 
flegg said:
The less power you use the less fossil fuels get burned in the United States. Even if you are 100% wind solar, if you are connected to the grid the less power you use the more power you can contribute to the grid.
Click to expand...
I hope you realize we need thousands of gigawatts of base load capacity on our grid, especially going into the future. Solar and wind are only reliable <30% of the time. They're great methods to reduce your energy bill and rely a little less on the grid, but they're not going to replace the need for base load power supply.
 
w1retap said:
Stop shifting and changing your argument every time I make a new point debunking it. Yeah, go ahead and put some solar deflecting devices way out there in space between the Earth and the Sun to control our planet's climate. rofl.. get a life.
Click to expand...

Are you a moron, or just illiterate? Go back to my first post where I talk about the Cambridge study involving mirrors placed in geostationary orbit to reflect a percentage of incoming solar radiation. Or are the words too big for your feeble mind to handle? Really, youre embarassing yourself...
 
I don't understand what you are trying to tell me w1retap. I think you missed my point.
 
A-L-E-X said:
Are you a moron, or just reading impaired? Go back to my first post where I talk about the Cambridge study involving mirrors placed in geostationary orbit to reflect a percentage of incoming solar radiation. Or are the words too big for your feeble mind to handle. Really, youre embrassing yourself...
Click to expand...
There's no need to make personal attacks here. You keep shifting ideas and arguing in circles every time you get trapped. The idea of controlling our planet's climate is utterly hilarious. We can't even predict the weather accurately 24hrs in advance. The last thing I want to do is let some elitist say they can accurately control the entire earth's climate to what they deem is an acceptable level. I'll leave the earth to take care of itself. Go back to blaming everything on George Bush and turn off your computer to save the planet. Do us all that favor at least. :rolleyes:
 
w1retap said:
Stop shifting and changing your argument every time I make a new point debunking it. Yeah, go ahead and put some solar deflecting devices way out there in space between the Earth and the Sun to control our planet's climate. rofl.. get a life.
Click to expand...

Are you a moron, or just functionally illiterate? Go back to my first post where I talk about the Cambridge study involving mirrors placed in geostationary orbit to reflect a percentage of incoming solar radiation. Or are the words too big for your feeble mind to handle? Really, youre embarassing yourself...
 
A big problem I see with reflecting solar radiation:

The geostationary orbit between the sun and the earth is unstable, and when you reflect light you gain momentum. Basically keeping the stuff where you want it, on top of all the other challenges associated with this method, imposes severe design challenges.
 
A-L-E-X said:
Are you a moron, or just reading impaired? Go back to my first post where I talk about the Cambridge study involving mirrors placed in geostationary orbit to reflect a percentage of incoming solar radiation. Or are the words too big for your feeble mind to handle. Really, youre embrassing yourself...
Click to expand...

w1retap said:
I understand quite well, I work in the power production industry.
Click to expand...

Obviously the high EM voltage has fried your brain cells.

Folks, take everything this man says with a grain of salt-- he has vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Now why does that not surprise me, with his unenlightened views?
 
In fact if you read the first post I made on this thread you'll see that you simply repeated what I said.
 
A-L-E-X said:
Obviously the high EM voltage has fried your brain cells.

Folks, take everything this man says with a grain of salt-- he has vested interests in maintaining the status quo. Now why does that not surprise me, with his unenlightened views?
Click to expand...
Nice argument. Keep the personal attacks coming. When we're all as elite and cool as you, our enlightenment will be fulfilled. Only someday we can hope. :rolleyes:
 
flegg said:
A big problem I see with reflecting solar radiation:

The geostationary orbit between the sun and the earth is unstable, and when you reflect light you gain momentum. Basically keeping the stuff where you want it, on top of all the other challenges associated with this method, imposes severe design challenges.
Click to expand...

Yes it does... let me give you some links to read. The challenges are why this is a few decades away.

http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/globalWarmingUrgency.htm


http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11572945/




http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/s...em&ex=1189742400&en=2b6b1443bf5021ee&ei=5087
 
flegg said:
In fact if you read the first post I made on this thread you'll see that you simply repeated what I said.
Click to expand...

I dont think he's actually reading our posts, and btw (to w1retap), that was not an ad hominem attack; I think its quite clear that youre making assumptions about people, without actually reading the content of the posts. A bit narrowminded dont you think? And as someone who works for a power production company, it does look like youre similar to one of those tobacco scientists who defended smoking.
 
My post you quoted was more insightful than all three of those articles combined, if you even consider them to be on the same topic.
 
Yeah, of course. When people make contradictory points and don't even follow their own logic, they have to be called out. Shifting an argument full circle is pretty funny, and it doesn't help when you're so dead set in a mind numbing trance of political and environmental objectives.
 
Yes, this is an ad hominem attack:

both of you are far too uneducated on the topic to be having any sort of meaningful debate
 
w1retap said:
Yeah, of course. When people make contradictory points and don't even follow their own logic, they have to be called out. Shifting an argument full circle is pretty funny, and it doesn't help when you're so dead set in a mind numbing trance of political and environmental objectives.
Click to expand...

Said the pot calling the kettle black.
 
flegg said:
It's not just about climate change. I really feel, as someone who is actually knowledgeable on the subject, that most of the folding projects are simply a complete waste of fossil fuels.
Click to expand...

Please, I implore you, tell us all..Exactly what special knowledge you possess that no one else in this forum or perhaps the world has?

flegg said:
The less power you use the less fossil fuels get burned in the United States. Even if you are 100% wind solar, if you are connected to the grid the less power you use the more power you can contribute to the grid.
Click to expand...

Well gee, if everyone made more power then they consumed why would we need a grid? Hell, keep the grid and take the credit for perpetual motion.

flegg said:
The simplest yet most difficult solution is to control the human population.
Click to expand...

Humm, population control…

Kill off the old folks or do more abortions?

Selective breeding would be a much better choice don’t you think?

Have you ever followed your family tree? Do the names Hitler or Mengele show anywhere?
 
And if you link me to one more unscientific article written by a moron with a degree in journalism I'm going to vomit on you.
 
A-L-E-X said:
Said the pot calling the kettle black.
Click to expand...
lol, just keep on throwing those cool catch phrases out there. You can't even refute what I say because you do the "I'm rubber and you're glue" attack. Seriously, it's getting old and somewhat pathetic.
 
flegg said:
Yes, this is an ad hominem attack:

both of you are far too uneducated on the topic to be having any sort of meaningful debate
Click to expand...

I admit Im not a climate scientist, but at least I dont work for a power production company... ulterior motives galore.
 
flegg said:
And if you link me to one more unscientific article written by a moron with a degree in journalism I'm going to vomit on you.
Click to expand...

The last two links I posted were from a climate scientist working at Harvard and the Harvard review.
 
A-L-E-X said:
I admit Im not a climate scientist, but at least I dont work for a power production company... ulterior motives galore.
Click to expand...
Where I work, we don't put out any of your precious greenhouse gases. I have no secret Bush tied underground vast right wing conspiracy destroy the planet ulterior motives. rofl..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top