Which is the best policy for climate change, that of deniers or believers?

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Sep 13, 2020.

  1. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You seem to not understand who the actual players are. Did it not occur to you that a US president can't determine the outputs of other nations, like China, or India? More, do you suppose that the entire unmodern world will stay that way? What power will drive the modernization and development of those nations and improve the lives of their people unless cheap quality energy is available to them? The myopia here is extraordinary, and your willingness to impoverish billions is telling.
     
  2. TomFitz

    TomFitz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    40,409
    Likes Received:
    15,894
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The sad thing is that when someone like this buys his first electric car or truck, and sees his operating costs drop by two thirds, and near zero maintenance, it will be a revaluation.
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  3. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,987
    Likes Received:
    11,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I wonder why we have not heard about this previously?

    I admit that is a stupid question.
     
  4. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,987
    Likes Received:
    11,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They must be giving away replacement batteries.
     
  5. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    [/QUOTE]

    Where to start... Yes, the state and local policies of CA cities and it's residents abuse of the land is at fault here. The "higher temps" are somewhere in the .2 to .3 degrees farenhiet. I doubt you could possibly distinguish that. You suggest that you're in a drought, but that brush was watered by a time when it rained, and what did you do about the brush then? Nothing? You assert that you're against man made causes, but I suspect that you, like ever other family unit in CA drives, and you drive a lot. Did you suddenly stop driving? Why is your air quality so poor? If we want to solve at the root, why is CA so over populated? Why do you demand that the entire world suffer for your own local conditions? You suggest that you don't have enough water, but you have hundreds of miles of coast line and access to the largest ocean on the planet. What are you, Kalifornians, doing about it?

    The arsonists in your state all seem to support BLM or ANTIFA. Why is that? And now that your state as well as OR and WA state are polluting a large area of the nation, what compensation package are you going to offer the rest of us who have to live with your mismanagement of your own smoke output?

    The thing about folks, like you, in CA is that you see the world through a prism of entitlement that never makes you, the Kalifornian, the cause of the pain you cry about and demand others to fix for you. No more virtue signaling. Try fixing yourselves.
     
  6. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,358
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It was described in the text of IPCC's 3rd AR, but not in the Executive Summary nor, AFAIK, in later Reports. A number of top scientists have examined this with scientific precision. For example Lindzen wrote two detailed papers; the first took him over two years to get published because almost all journal reviewers are biased and prejudiced against anything that questions the "accepted" science.
     
  7. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,987
    Likes Received:
    11,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is another version of "fake news". News you don't get because it hurts their cause.

    The bias by the reviewers also answers that question of why "97%" of published articles support AGW.
     
  8. Quantum Nerd

    Quantum Nerd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    18,024
    Likes Received:
    23,347
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You seem to be under the impression that I am against biofuels. I am not. I am FOR good biofuels. Corn based ethanol is not one. it is basically a subsidy to corn farmers, and is almost energy neutral.

    Sugercane based ethanol is better than corn ethanol not because Brazilian scientists are better (I can see what you implied here), but because sugarcane has higher EROEI of up to 10, due to higher energy density and easier harvesting. You can spin this all day long based on your political preconceptions, at the end politics don't matter for energy supply, what matters is the fundamental physical principles behind different energy sources, which no amount of politicizing can change.

    Trump fans can cling to "our kind of energy", i.e. to fossil fuels, as much as they want, that doesn't change the fact that hey are non-renewable and won't be available for future generations. Now, if they want to leave future generations empty-handed, that's up to them. Normal people rather want their children and grandchildren to have a better life, not a worse one.
     
  9. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,987
    Likes Received:
    11,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not spinning anything. Biofuels are being researched and most likely will be produced efficiently. While that process is going, we have sufficient non-renewable to get us by in the mean time.
    No one said they will last forever. However, they will probably last longer than most predictions for a couple of reasons. Over time vehicles are getting more efficient and no one seriously believes that we have discovered all such sources.
     
    RodB likes this.
  10. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Corn pop? Is that you? I have no clue what you're talking about.
     
  11. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,371
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course conservatives support biofuels. They produce them.
    You either have misleading information not accounting for all resultant energy or you have very old data. Nationally we average EROIE of 2 to 1. In some states it’s 4 to 1.
    Low oil prices are the limiting factor. Not corn production.


    To answer your question on renewable hydrocarbons, we have the options of methane production through anaerobic microorganism digestion of organic waste, we have syngas production by gasification of biomass, and “power to gas” using excess wind or solar to produce hydrogen by electrolysis and then harvesting atmospheric CO2 to produce methane.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140106094557.htm
     
  12. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The point of all that is that the climate alarmists don't understand the technical details of the complex systems they intend to radically change. When you point that fact out you're ironically called a science denier. An alarmist says, let's just replace gasoline vehicles with electric ones. When you point out the specifics and limitations of that proposition out comes the climate denier hammer.

    Gas engines have about a 30% efficiency. A gallon of gas has about 120 million joules of energy, so we use about 36 million joules to power our vehicles per gallon of gas we burn. We use 390.98 million gallons of gas per day. That's 1.4x10^16 joules of energy that we need just to power vehicles. Not only do we need some way to store that energy and transport it from one place to another, but we need a way to produce it. You need millions of acres of solar and wind farms just to cover our transportation energy budget. Talk about environmental impact...
     
    drluggit likes this.
  13. Mr. Friscus

    Mr. Friscus Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2020
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, the premise of your question is already flawed.

    Simply pitting people into "believers" or "deniers" is silly. There aren't many people who deny scientific shifts in the climate, the questions are:

    1. How much is caused by man and how much is nature?
    2. Are the man-made causes extreme enough to justify the amount of alarmism?
    3. Would Democrat policies for the USA make a significant change?
    4. Are extreme Democrat policies, based on the amount of change they would make, able to be made without massive political implications such as enforcing an extreme rise in wealth distribution and socialism, along with other extremist notions such as reparations, abortion until birth, transgender theory, etc.?

    I invite you to consider those issues, as it makes the discussion more complex and accurate.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2020
    drluggit likes this.
  14. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Do you, or do you not, support the contention that climate change is upon us and, to a greater extent than lesser, man made?
     
  15. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
  16. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hmmm... ok, I bought one. I haven't seen any of those benefits. And since the car was literally twice as expensive as a comparable non electric car, the costs you're referring to are more than covered over the life of the car compared to regular maintenance. It still requires all of the regular consumables, tires, fluids, etc, and the application maintenance is a nightmare. There is no such thing as "zero maintenance". All of the mechanical components are subject to them still. Things like HVAC or Suspension parts, or brakes, (and ceramic ones are literally 8Xs as expensive) all still have to be maintained, and serviced. Unless you intend to just throw it away when you're done? And which superfund site are you going to open to accommodate that?

    I see folks getting all romantic about cars like this, and frankly, it's the worst 100+K I ever wasted on a car. I find that the 60K BMW I bought is superior to the Tesla s in every meaningful way. I recently drove the Porsche Tycan, I should have waited. At least that car is actually useful.
     
  17. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I find the technical depth of most of the AGW faithful to be skin deep at best. These aren't the discussions they are interested in having. They just want to virtue signal and feelz better about themselves in a world that is frankly way to difficult to understand for most of them.
     
  18. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,963
    Likes Received:
    28,434
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Umm.... so, are you differentiating the fact that climate has, does, and always will change from the narrative that it is anthropogenic? No one disputes that climate changes. In fact, isn't it much better for the world in general that it has? Do you really yearn for miles of ice piled on most of the northern hemisphere's land masses? Is that what you want? And for the record, how can you demonstrate any of your contention here? How much has man contributed to what we know to be a cyclic rebound from a previously cold period? Was it only supposed to warm ~.4C instead of ~.8C? And frankly, when you consider that what you're complaining about is ~<1F, how do you even measure it's impact? Does it mean more sweater days for you are more appealing to your fashion sense, and why does that have anything to do with science?

    So here's your problem. You've declared a position that is both scientifically illiterate, and politically destabilizing, all in one ill crafted sentence. For that, I should be demanding a refund for the tax dollars that led to such a horrific outcome from the public education system. And you still haven't answered any of the questions from the previous conversation that asked you directly how much responsible, in your terms, actions you've taken to ensure that you aren't still contributing to the problem you're whining about. I see you still here, on the internet, and relying on that MASSIVE amount of energy that frankly isn't green at all to provide you this forum.
     
  19. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In order for energy to move from one place to another there cannot be equilibrium between those two points. So yes. Does the climate change? Yes. That's a fact we can't disagree on. Do we have an effect on that change? Yes. Another fact where we cannot disagree. Is that effect inherently bad? That's a value judgement. We can disagree on that.
     
  20. doombug

    doombug Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2012
    Messages:
    56,871
    Likes Received:
    22,778
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No one should accept such a thing as climate change without scientific proof. Otherwise anyone can mame any claim just to scare folks into supporting poppycock. Besides, NO ONE takes my gasoline powered vehicles just to be on the safe side of some cockamamie theory.
     
  21. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Let us divert to metaphor, to understand the problem.

    We are driving high in the andes, you are a driver and your friend on the right is an auto mechanic, we are driving on a road whose shoulders give just enough room to park, and the engine lamp is lit.

    There are two choices:

    1. Since most of the time the engine lamp lighting is due to needing about a quart or maybe slightly less of oil, so, no need to stop, we just continue driving until we get to the city where we can add oil.
    2. Since there is a remote chance it could be something far more dangerous, which could result in sudden failure and losing control of the vehicle, we stop and check to see if we can figure out what it is.

    So...

    #1. Assumes the problem isn't severe and keeps on driving.
    #2. Assumes the problem might be severe which could result in sudden failure whereby driver could lose control and car goes over the cliff..

    Which of the two is the wisest course to act upon?

    First. some will argue that the climate change problem cannot be reduced to this metaphor, and, the metaphor is simplistic.

    I'm saying that yes, it probably cannot be reduced to the metaphor, it probably is simplistic, but we should do it anyway. Why? Because of #2.

    To wit:

    Can we, with 100% certainty, rule out the possibility that climate change could accelerate whereupon an extreme climate induced dystopia, even mass extinction, or something near it, could occur within the next 20 - 30 - 50 years, that this possibility is upon us? Can we, as a society, rule out the possibility with 100% certainty?

    Yes or no? Either there is a reasonable path of logic that says it is, even if remote, or 99% of science says this possibility is totally unrealistic.

    Which is it?

    IF the answer is yes, then resources, whatever it takes, should be directed to solve the problem.

    I, as a laymen, cannot answer that question, as to where, how, and how much resources, I leave that to experts.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2020
  22. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    See #246
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...s-or-believers.578339/page-10#post-1072052028
     
  23. Fangbeer

    Fangbeer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2011
    Messages:
    10,670
    Likes Received:
    3,709
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What's astonishing to me is the idea that we can reduce so called "bad" energy use by using massive amounts of "bad" energy to manufacture less efficient systems that all have their own negative impacts on the environment. It's completely due to a hyper focus on one area of an incredibly complex system and an abject ignorance of the system as a whole.

    People need reliable, abundant, portable sources of energy to survive. But screw them because: how dare you steal Greta's childhood.
     
    drluggit likes this.
  24. Mr. Friscus

    Mr. Friscus Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2020
    Messages:
    8
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    3
    Gender:
    Male
    Yea, if you can't partake in the complexity and have to paint things in black and white... we can't have intellectual discourse.

    My opinion?

    Democrat policy wouldn't do much more than jack to change climate change for the world. Windmills? LOL. Most of the problem on earth is from countries who don't care or are now experiencing their own industrial revolutions, like China or India. Sure, we can do our part, but to act like putting up a bunch of windmills and solar panels will save the earth is ridiculous.

    Or, if you want to go more extremist leftist policy, a desire to destroy modern civilization and go back to the stone age would need rock solid proof which doesn't exist. "Expert" theory and models have been off decade after decade. We should be 10 feet under water by now if you listen to the alarmists. Meanwhile, scientific experts aren't a monolith. There are plenty who don't think we need Democrats in power in order to save the world, they simply aren't invited onto talk shows, or have to speak anonymously because their leftist globalist founding sources would be cut if they revealed their scientific opinion. It's not coincidence that environmental extremism sparked once the Soviet Union fell. Communism and environmental extremism are partners, and that's what this is largely about.

    It's politics, not science. The anti-capitalist rhetoric from environmental extremists is documented, constant, and undeniable. You're naive if you think simply putting Joe Biden into office would change much of anything on earth. We need other countries who are producing most of the man-made climate affects to improve. And we know Biden wouldn't dare even critique another nation out of fear that he'd be seen as a big ol' meanie, just like Obama.
     
    Last edited: Sep 16, 2020
  25. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But this president won't even try. We should have a leader that doesn't believe ACC is a 'chinese hoax'., who will sign the Paris Accord, and work with, persuade, etc., other nations to get with the program.

    I'm just giving the first step. Get rid of Trump. Because, without that step, nuthin''s going to happen.
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.

Share This Page