global warming - worse than we think?

[Turnip]

ConstipatedCraprunner wrote:

Enviormental Scientists have to find reasons to exsist to. What better reason then trying to prevent the evil corporations from destroying the peacful rainforest full of bunnies and monkeys? Chriton wants to make money, but Greenpeace wants to create a religion. Only person I really trust is probably Bjørn Lomborg, because he's dreamy.

Bad example, one could use the same argument against policemen, doctors, psychologists, the fire-brigade and charity organisations, which would not be acepted as argument by most people.

Editne word

 

[John Uskglass]

Polcemen, Doctors, PSychologists work in the real world, and thier effect on society is not based on some idea that without massive change against 'sin' (in this case exploitation of natural rescources), man will bring about an apocolypse.

 

[Sander]

Polcemen, Doctors, PSychologists work in the real world, and thier effect on society is not based on some idea that without massive change against 'sin' (in this case exploitation of natural rescources), man will bring about an apocolypse.

Neither do environmental scientists. You have people who do this with that goal, and you have the actual scientists who try to find out what is happening, which is the point of science.

 

[John Uskglass]

So scientists are not likely to be wrong? Puh-leeze. Scientists are as devouted and likely to be irrational in the face of imperical evidence in defence of thier pet thesis as anyone else. Need I quote Huxley?

"The great tragedy of Science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

 

[Turnip]

But, and this is important, not by will, as a psykologist or a policeman tey fail once i a while, but not all the time.
And claiming that all scientist will rather ignore a fact than smash their own theory is just wrong.
Some might, not all.

 

[Sander]

So scientists are not likely to be wrong? Puh-leeze.

Were the bloody hell did you pull that from? That isn't even close to what I wrote.

Scientists are as devouted and likely to be irrational in the face of imperical evidence in defence of thier pet thesis as anyone else. Need I quote Huxley?

"The great tragedy of Science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

So what you are claiming is that you will trust a fiction writer, but not a single scientist, and only your own mind that doesn't actually know all that much about the subject? Now I can see rationality in tha- no wait, I can't.
First you claim that Crichton is as much a scientist as scientists who've studied the matter for the larger part of their lives, obviously false, then you claim that all environmental scientists don't care about facts and only tell their version of the truth, again verifiably false since several studies claim that the effects of glbial warming are largely unknown, or that there are no real effects etc. To then twist it around you somehow try to make it sound logical that scientists don't know anything about what they've studied, and that a fiction writer would know more about it than they. Excuse me if I shudder at the sight of such monstrosities you dare call "logic".
No, scientists aren't automatically right, and no they don't always (or perhaps even often) have their own agenda, but, newsflash, the scientists aren't proportionally worse at that than others, and since the words 'impartiality', 'facts' and 'evidence' are stuffed in their heads from the moment they even come near a study you can reasonably expect them to be more on the mark than other people, especially if you can actually go read their explanations and check them yourself.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

So scientists are not likely to be wrong? Puh-leeze. Scientists are as devouted and likely to be irrational in the face of imperical evidence in defence of thier pet thesis as anyone else. Need I quote Huxley?

"The great tragedy of Science -- the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."

CCR...

The nature of science is to question everything. In order to make conclusions they not only make their own, but let others take them apart to see if their true. Are you trying to compare them to such people as authors whom only concern is to entertain?

No offense I like you a lot though.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Solar power isn't the only source of currently available renewable power. Wind and geothermic generators are also available.

Wind and geothermal power are a viable alternative to fossil fuels as much as bicycle pedals are a viable alternative to a V12 engine. If you took all remaining oil in the world and used it to build windmills, you would be producing enough power to meet only a small part of our present consumption and but a fraction of our future needs.

Global warming? Massive extinctions happen all the time, as do periods of global warming and cooling, the current one is a piss in the ocean compared to several that have happened over smaller periods (end of Eocene, end of Cretascious, even in the premodern era in Greenland; the icecaps where'nt always there, you know).

Let's deal with human issues before we deal with animals. More human suffering going on in Africa going on right now than at any other time in history, including Germany during the War. I could not care less in any way that some species of butterfly is about to go extinct when such things as AIDS are an issue, and Malaria is still killing millions.

So you are saying we shouldn't give a damn about global warming because massive environmental disasters affect butterflies and not humans? I don't think millions of Africans who are starving because their once-fertile land became desert would agree with your point of view. And once New York and L.A. dissapear underwater, you too will probably be singing a different tune.

Not to mention the potentially disasterous effects extinction of entire species could have on natural balance, as Ozrat pointed out.

Nuclear power is probably the best hope we have right now that we can get our hands on and we know works. Yes, it does produce pollution in the form of radioactive waste...

Simply put, no. We barely have enough uranium to last us four decades at present rate of consumption. Just think how quickly its production would peak if we started using it as a substitute for oil.

I only said that a hydrogen plant would probably use more conventional means for power. I was alluding to the validity of a hydrogen powered car with today's technology. A lot of research has been done on nuclear fusion power generation, and I think that by, say, 2040, that this will make a hydrogen-powered car vary feasible.

By 2040 it will be too late. Hell, by 2020 it will be too late.

Please, let us focus on technologies that we do posses. "But scientists say we will have <insert a generic sci-fi buzzword here> by 20xx, so what' the problem?" isn't a valid argument, but a completely irrelevant assumption. The only hope we have of overcoming the upcoming energy crisis lies with resources and technologies we already have at our disposal. Only when you come to understand and accept that fact will you see how horrible the humanity's position is.

-Isn’t there hydrogen somehow involved?
-Is the reaction hydrogen + hydrogen -> helium, or can it be used with other elements?

'Nuclear fusion' is just about any process where atoms fuse to form new atoms. The best known fusion reaction is the deuterium-tritium (deuterium and tritium are hydrogen isotopes containing one neutron and two neutrons in the nucleus, respetively) fusion that produces helium as a result. A mass defect occurs in the process, manifesting as a release of tremendous amounts of energy. This isn't the only known fusion reaction though - for example, scientists propose helium 3-deuterium fusion as an alternative to the somewhat messy deuterium-tritium reaction.

How do you heat matter to a plasma state?

Not sure. Ask Fusion (the forum member, not the reaction ). It requires lots of energy, and I think that's what they need nuclear fission for. Even bigger problem is storing plasma - they store it in a "magnetic bottle", which is a kind of a tunnel where a series of extremely powerful magnets direct plasma movement and prevent it from dispersing. Needless to say, these magnets consume a lot of power.

Does nuclear fusion generate electricity by heating water to steam and then using the steam to turn turbines, like nuclear fission?

I don't know. It's irrelevant, I would say. The biggest challenge regarding nuclear fusion is producing energy, not utilizing it.

So scientists are not likely to be wrong? Puh-leeze. Scientists are as devouted and likely to be irrational in the face of imperical evidence in defence of thier pet thesis as anyone else.

My suggestion - not that you will take it - is that before you attempt to become involved in a scientific discussion you actually familiarize yourself with scientific facts. Most science-inclined people here don't give a damn about what some sci-fi charlatan wrote, but they would love to see some actual arguments from you rather than absurd relativizing and a marching army of straw men.

 

[John Uskglass]

So you are saying we shouldn't give a damn about global warming because massive environmental disasters affect butterflies and not humans? I don't think millions of Africans who are starving because their once-fertile land became desert would agree with your point of view. And once New York and L.A. dissapear underwater, you too will probably be singing a different tune.

Enviormentalism has proven to kill millions; look at holding back DDT in Africa causing the deaths of millions due to Malaria. Global Warming has killed no one, and despite the poles supposedly melting faster then ice creme in the Sahara.

Not to mention the potentially disasterous effects extinction of entire species could have on natural balance, as Ozrat pointed out.

The natural balance is not a Fabrige Egg. That's the reason we still have multicellular life after the Cretacious.

My suggestion - not that you will take it - is that before you attempt to become involved in a scientific discussion you actually familiarize yourself with scientific facts. Most science-inclined people here don't give a damn about what some sci-fi charlatan wrote, but they would love to see some actual arguments from you rather than absurd relativizing and a marching army of straw men.

I would say the exact same thing; that all arguments for 'the natural balance' are bullshit as Nature is durable, and that all arguments for some kind of massive, devastating global warming are equally bullshit as we are not close to the pre-medivel era that saw an almost green Greenland.

 

[Ozrat]

Unlikely to the extreme. Butterflies having defences against a human disease is extremley unlikely. More likely is them having some manner of cure for genetic defect, and that can be cured without taking the genetic code from something besides a butterfly, and could be concived sui generis in any situaiton.

Since when are you an expert on animal biology? Anyways, my point stands as I only choose a butterfly since you mentioned that scenario in your previous post.

Environmental Science is a very young field as well as it only started roughly a century ago. You cannot expect any sort of scientific field to be anywhere near perfection in that sort of time frame, especially when we are talking about something as large as the planet's ecological system itself. If you doubt the validity of environmental science, look at how the Dust Bowl of the 1930's was caused and overcome.

Then take into consideration the extreme reproduction rate that humans currently have on a global scale. Look at the amount of energy and resources it takes to sustain each and every person, and tell me how we can possibly expect to accomodate this population explosion if we are struggling now when we still have a relatively low bodycount.

The Environmental Movement itself is only 50 years old itself, and look at the progress we've made with that so far with the EPA and the pollution levels in urban centers in the US. Here's a short list of things you can thank US Environmental Laws (and the people who helped create them) for. Chicago would be nowhere the near the same conditions that its in right now if these actions hadn't taken place, just to put that into perspective for you CCR.

And if we do not owe protecting the world to ourselves or the natural world around us, how about at least for future generations?

EDIT: As for CCR's most recent post:

Enviormentalism has proven to kill millions

Link please? linkorstfu

That goes for the rest of your post too.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Enviormentalism has proven to kill millions; look at holding back DDT in Africa causing the deaths of millions due to Malaria. Global Warming has killed no one, and despite the poles supposedly melting faster then ice creme in the Sahara.

Nonsense. Deserts spreading in Magreb region due to global warming have already taken their toll. And that was but a gentle prelude to what is about to come.

The natural balance is not a Fabrige Egg. That's the reason we still have multicellular life after the Cretacious.

I would say the exact same thing; that all arguments for 'the natural balance' are bullshit as Nature is durable, and that all arguments for some kind of massive, devastating global warming are equally bullshit as we are not close to the pre-medivel era that saw an almost green Greenland.

Yes, climatic changes have happened many times before, but never so rapidly, and always resulting in extinctions of millions of species. Just because some species adapt and survive doesn't make these events any less cataclysmic. Humanity will face same challenges dinosaurs did 65 million years ago, with the exception that dinosaurs didn't posses thermonuclear weapons. Do you find comfort in the likely possibility that most, but not all people will starve to death and that most, but not all of Earth's surface will become an uninhabitable wasteland in the upcoming decades? And all scientific (yes, scientific, not science-fictional) research indicates that we are already past the point when this process can be stopped.

 

[Tannhauser]

We need to make it an official quote:

Arguing with CCR is like trying to make love to a rabid wolverine outside in the snow during a blizzard, except it's snowing sawblades.

Slightly modified from Commissar Lauren's statement on PsychoSniper.

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Heh, most of us have come to that conclusion long ago.

Regardless, we still love our CCR! *hugs and cuddles*

 

[John Uskglass]

And if we do not owe protecting the world to ourselves or the natural world around us, how about at least for future generations?

This is a perfectly legitimate argument, and the primary reason you don't see me calling for unrestricted exploitation of natural rescources. This argument makes alot of sense, as I would want my children to get a kick out of watching a Phillipene Eagle when they are old enough to appreciate it.

Again, I'm not calling for any kind of peelback of enviormental policies; rather, that the world is not going to collapse due to global warming and that exctinction for some animals and possible enviormental damage are worth paying when one can save millions of human lives.

Link? DDT and Malaria.

There have been widespread claims that a Western environmental agenda, from Rachel Carson's Silent Spring onwards, has created perverse restrictions on DDT use. [6] (http://www.junkscience.com/malaria_clock.htm) [7] (http://www.acsh.org/healthissues/newsID.442/healthissue_detail.asp) [8] (http://www.igreens.org.uk/malaria_and_the_ddt_story.htm) [9] (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/bate200406030904.asp) [10] (http://www.csrl.org/malaria/) [11] (http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/000000005591.htm) The implication is that Green ideas are directly responsible for malaria deaths counted in tens of millions in tropical countries where the disease had been under control.

These claims are vigorously opposed by Greens, often on the basis that many of the individuals behind the claims appear to be spokespersons for corporate interests. [12] (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Malaria_and_DDT).

The Green defence of restricting DDT has, in its turn, its own critics. [13] (http://www.newaus.com.au/042302oakley.html)

In the recent case of Zimbabwe, DDT was re-introduced in December 2004 for use in its indoor residual spray (IRS) program, but the only complaints were from medical researchers (for reasons of neurological and immune deficit, and human cancer) not environmentalists [14] (http://allafrica.com/stories/200412130644.html).

African: Jesus, I'm dying of Malaria!
Green: OMFG YOU ARE EVIL CORPORATION LYING!

See? Isanity.

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

Arguing with CCR is like trying to make love to a rabid wolverine outside in the snow during a blizzard, except it's snowing sawblades.

I would say I'm not as hardheaded as Sander, as my position here is largely rational and aviods extremes. For the most part.

 

[Ozrat]

I didn't ask for a recap about the DDT situation and a definition of Malaria, I asked for a link between fanatic environmentalist and mass deaths since you claimed it was proven.

 

[John Uskglass]

I didn't ask for a recap about the DDT situation and a definition of Malaria, I asked for a link between fanatic environmentalist and deaths since you claimed it was proven.

Porque? DDT outlawing lead to millions of uncalled for deaths, ergo Enviormentalism has been responsible for quite a few deaths as Malaria was almost wiped out thanks to our friend DDT.

You are right in that Enviormentalism has done quite a bit of good, however, I frankly do not think that the end of the world will be because of Enviormental factors, and as often as not it trades human lives for trite enviormental protection.

 

[calculon000]

Then take into consideration the extreme reproduction rate that humans currently have on a global scale. Look at the amount of energy and resources it takes to sustain each and every person, and tell me how we can possibly expect to accomodate this population explosion if we are struggling now when we still have a relatively low bodycount.

If you have a problem with exploding populations, talk to Asia. The countries that consume the least per capita are the ones contributing nearly all of the growth. My country, while consuming a larger amount per person, only has 1.6 fertility rate. Hell, even the USA has a fertility rate lower than the necessary 2.1 needed to maintain the number of people in a population. The major source of pollution in the future will be the development of the economies of developing nations. Not that they deserve for their countries to be first world any less than you or I do, but they have so many people that soon they will become a bigger and bigger source of pollution.

Besides, the US census bureau predicts that the worlds population will level off around 10 billion, as the poor, fastly-growing countries become more developed and start to decrease their population growth rates.

By 2040 it will be too late. Hell, by 2020 it will be too late.

Please, let us focus on technologies that we do posses. "But scientists say we will have <insert a generic sci-fi buzzword here> by 20xx, so what' the problem?" isn't a valid argument, but a completely irrelevant assumption. The only hope we have of overcoming the upcoming energy crisis lies with resources and technologies we already have at our disposal. Only when you come to understand and accept that fact will you see how horrible the humanity's position is.

Is making predictions about a problem’s solution any worse than making predictions about the problem itself?

 

[Ratty Sr.]

Is making predictions about a problem’s solution any worse than making predictions about the problem itself?

Yes, because we aren't making 'predictions' about the problem, but stating scientific facts. It is a scientific fact that if we don't find a way to slow down the global economic growth and find a supplement for increasingly scarce oil, by 2015 we will be facing a crisis so deep that it will shadow all other humanity has ever faced. On the other hand, it is pure speculation that we will find a way to utilize fusion by that time. A parallel may be drawn with a train headed at full speed towards a guy who just stands there and predicts he might grow a pair of wings in the next five seconds. Even if there is a possibility of something like that happening, the optimal course of action would nonetheless be to use the good old-fashioned legs to leap the fuck out of the way before it's too late.

 

[Sander]

I would say I'm not as hardheaded as Sander, as my position here is largely rational and aviods extremes. For the most part.

Nowhere in this entire goddamn thread did I even say one thing about anything even closely resembling the topic of this discussion. I only stepped in when you started to make bullshit derogatory comments on scientists and environmental scientists, but I did not say ONE thing about how I feel about this and what and who I support (And, by the way, you didn't even respond to that one post I made). And no, you don't know what my position in this matter is, CCR. The reason I didn't post at all was that I don't care much about this and don't know much about it, I never did any research on it and don't feel like it either. And I already explained why your position here is irrational, and mine isn't, and if you think I'm the one who's irrational and hardheaded, you're sadly mistaken and haven't read one word of the discussion I just had with Kharn.
In conclusion: go be ashamed of yourself for such a bullshit insult.

PS: Yes, I'm pissed about this.

 

[phoon]

Ok, at the risk of sounding like a pothead:

Diesel cars can run on hempoil (actually any vegetable oil) with only a few modifications (especially for older cars).

I know a few people who are already driving around without putting more co2 in the air than those plants took in their lifetimes.

Besides that, the remains of the plants (the fibers) could then be used for other purposes eg. much more durable paper and clothing, food...