P2P-Zone - Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak

P2P-Zone (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/index.php)

- Political Asylum (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/forumdisplay.php?f=34)

- - Leading Global Warming Skeptic changes mind after watching Al Gore Speak (http://www.p2p-zone.com/underground/showthread.php?t=22747)

Quote:

nobody will ever be able to agree on the proper way to use forthcoming global climate control technologies.

so that's what happened to the hurricanes ?
:BL:

anyway I would have to agree with most of that

The White House says it might prevent deaths from hypothermia. Hypothermia sucks ass! There are also other health benefits to global warming.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2...house-glo.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer (Post 259445)

If you're all done being dramatic, give this little talk posted at www.ted.com a look and let me know what you think.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/192

This guy makes two important points that to my knowledge no other climate scientist has publicly spoken of: that global warming won't harm everybody and may indeed help some people, and that because there are people who benefit from global warming, nobody will ever be able to agree on the proper way to use forthcoming global climate control technologies.

No methodology, no raw data; he might as well be a global warming scientist with all the information he ignores. "Trust me, not data or formulae." -doesn't cut it with me.

That lack of data had a lot to do with the venue in which this talk was given. At TED conferences the speakers are only allowed 18 minutes, just enough time to present an idea. But his methodology and data didn't need to be presented because he wasn't actually trying to explain how to geoengineer the planet. The focus of his talk was that the taboo subject of geoengineering should be pulled out of the closet, discussed publicly and actively investigated by more climate scientists, possibly with government funding.

I was intrigued by this talk because he questioned many of the assumptions people make about global warming, primarily the the one that global warming is bad for everyone. What was so damn great about the global climate 200 years ago anyway? And if we can reverse global warming, should we really make it that cold again? People don't ask these sorts of questions nearly often enough and it's a good sign when scientists ask them. Hopefully more people will actually think about the answers to those questions instead of simply assuming that preindustrial temperatures are preferable.

Here's a link to the Economist article he referenced in his talk.

In my opinion, pollution is bad. Even if it makes it a bit warmer for my Canadian buddies. That's what all these global warming emmisions are. Pollution. There aren't any big air polluters here in the valley I live in, but there are still at least a dozen days a year that the schools and alot of parents won't allow the children to play outside because the air is so bad.
The problem I see with the thinking that maybe some global warming might be good is that where does it stop? Someone is bound to say that if a little is good, wouldn't alot be great. Where do we stop? You know those penguins might like to live in a tropical paradise, so let's heat this place up some more. Sure maybe living in a little warmer climate might be better for some, but why pollute our atmosphere to do it. It might be easier if people just moved to warmer climates.
Nature is going to automatically warm and cool the planet in cycles. Sure we should look more fully into the questions of global warming and how it effects humans and how humans effect it. I don't see the need to continue poisoning our atmosphere and planet, just to study what the best temperature is for mankind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer (Post 259451)

People don't make that assumption, they're fed bullshit propaganda telling them that. I read long ago about increased agricultural productivity, lower heating bills, easier transportation, and general economic benefit from global warming but the mass media filters those results and dishes out stupid crap about colder/hotter/wetter/drier-disaster scenarios to get a rise out of the moronic masses.

What really needs discussed is the deceptive and hypocritical people who are turning climate science into a battle of public manipulation and how to dissuade them when their idiot idolizers don't care how many lies they tell or how much global impact they create as long as they can bathe in their magnificent presence.

A firing squad seems appropriate, but throwing them out into a cold winter night in their undies has a certain poetic appeal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vernarial (Post 259454)

You may consider CO2 to be a pollutant but scientists do not. The 75 PPM increase in CO2 concentrations that have been observed over the past four decades are a minuscule fraction of the amount of CO2 it would take to make the air poisonous. But the other products of fossil fuel combustion such as nitrous oxide, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide are pollutants and we should be minimizing those emissions as much as possible. The schools in your area are keeping kids indoors because of those pollutants, not because of greenhouse gas emissions.

Obviously I'm not arguing that we should be turning up the thermostat just to see what happens, it would serve no scientific purpose whatsoever. But I am asking the question why should we turn the thermostat down? I wasn't alive before the industrial revolution so I have no basis for comparing our current climate, but I am quite accustomed to this climate and I don't think I want things to be cooler than they are now; Colorado winters are more than cold enough for me. I'm just using myself as an example, and because of me and others like me the world will never be able to agree on how warm or cold the climate should be. There may be a consensus on the fact that the earth is warming, but there certainly is no consensus on whether the earth should be warming or cooling.

I think albed is right to an extent. The study of the global climate really needs to be divorced from the politics of climate change. Killing the people who are guilty of politicizing this issue is unnecessary, but calling them out for the opportunists and manipulators they are would benefit us all. The vaunted scientific consensus has brought us no closer to discovering a course of action that would please everybody, but there is no reason why we all can't profit in some way from environmental stewardship. It's becoming less and less likely that the solution is political; carbon taxes won't do the trick, buying carbon credits is a gimmick, and government subsidies for alternative energy have outlived their usefulness. Since the government doesn't hold the key to protecting the environment we should be ignoring the politicians who talk about environmental protection so we can take stewardship of the planet into our own hands.

I already understand the basic chemistry. If you can figure out how to disassociate the greenhouse gasses from the toxic pollutants in the real world then thats great. I can see I assumed right from your first paragraph that you already understand the basic emmissions from burning fossil fuels also. I wasn't trying to point out facts to you, but present an opinion. Anyway...

I wish I could hold your optimism in the ability of the people to take stewardship of the planet and do a good job of it. There are good examples of individuals and even communities that have started down this road. I just don't think a signifigant enough job will be done without government regulation and/or assistance. I'm sorry to say, I don't have much faith in the majority of the population to make the right descisions and stick to them. Part of that would come from my belief that they are either being mis-informed or are just un-informed. I don't see it as a problem with the political process, but a problem with politicians. And lobbyists. And big industry polluters. After all, in a perfect world the government would be run by the people and the politicians would work for the people. And the people would have stewardship of the planet, through the political process.

Quote:

I wish I could hold your optimism in the ability of the people to take stewardship of the planet and do a good job of it.

if we don't cut the crap, and at least try to clean up our act, for the sake of future generations...the planet will be doomed to the same fate as the other similar planets in our solar system, thinking it is in god's hands is just letting it go to shit and negating any resposibility. stewardship = the need to learn how to maintain our atmosphere

Sitting in the stand of the sports arena, waiting for the show to begin.
Red lights, green lights, strawberry wine, a good friend of mine
follows the stars.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by vernarial (Post 259462)

I just don't think a signifigant enough job will be done without government regulation and/or assistance.

Assistance? Maybe, but regulation? No, that hasn't gotten us anywhere 'cause the people running the bureaucracies are same misinformed/uninformed people as the rest of the public.

Quote:

Originally Posted by multi (Post 259465)

The cuckoo clock strikes twelve....lol. Back on the dope again loony?

I agree that we need to do something, Multi, but I just don't think that the people as a whole will. I try to do my part, but from my point of view, I am in the minority. That's what I mean. Out of all the people I see and know, the majority doesn't care enough to actually put forth much if any effort.

I guess you could say that is true, Mazer. We have had government regulation that I consider to be good, but when it comes to big polluters, they can just as easily lobby to get the regulations relaxed, changed, or removed. Or just pay the fines they might get for breaking regulation, because it is still more economical for them to keep polluting and pay the fine. And because, as you said, the politicians are just as misinformed/uninformed as the rest of the public.

Quote:

Back on the dope again loony?

shutup dickhead.. <yawn>

go back to the sad boring life in your head...

The life where there are other earthlike planets in the solar system? That one's yours.

Quote:

the majority doesn't care enough to actually put forth much if any effort.

Well Pope Gore doesn't exactly set an example for them does he? Does he really believe his own bullshit when he acts the way he does with his massive CO2 production? People aren't quite that stupid.

I mean the majority of course, not you.

Someday it will dawn on even the dimmest bulbs that global warming isn't the disaster they've been taught. Another mild hurricane season for the U.S. just slips out of the global warming propaganda that was shouting 'terrible storms' awhile ago.

What are ya ? a fucking doormat?

You must enjoy me wiping my feet on your face...

It is generally thought Venus and Mars were both earthlike planets at some stage of their existance with atmosphere and oceans

Since when are generals experts in planetary science? Get a brain of your own to think with and get the balls to state your own opinion so I can make fun of it.

Although a world stripped of water and melted by temperatures hot enough to liquefy lead, Venus may once have been a planet much like Earth. The vast oceans could have supported life, according to the latest discoveries of Venus Express, a European Space Agency (ESA) craft launched in November 2005 to investigate our "sister" planet.

"Our new data make it possible to construct a scenario in which Venus started out like the Earth, possibly including a habitable environment, billions of years ago, and evolved to the state we see now," said Professor Fred Taylor of Oxford University.

Once considered Earth’s twin planet, Venus became inhospitable for life due to a series of change events. The planet’s history led to loss of water, an atmosphere clogged with carbon dioxide and a runaway effect that gave rise to severe global warning.

The Venus Express, which has been orbiting Venus since 2006, has also helped to conclude why the climate of this planet is so severe, according to Prof. Taylor.

"It is now becoming clear why the climate on Venus is so different from Earth, when the planets themselves are otherwise quite similar," he said.

...more

Quote:

Instrument on Venus Express allowed the scientist to notice that the main ions escaping Venus’s atmosphere are oxygen, helium and hydrogen. Moreover, hydrogen and oxygen ions were shown to be escaping in the same proportions as they are found in water,

Quote:

"Our new data make it possible to construct a scenario in which Venus started out like the Earth, possibly including a habitable environment, billions of years ago,

Heck they can "construct a scenario" with no data at all and that's pretty much what they did. Hydrogen and oxygen ions = vast oceans; what a load of bullshit.

But who could argue with scientists of this caliber?

Quote:

Now the atmosphere on Venus is similar to "19th century London on a smoggy day with sulphuric acid in the air and a general haze."

Yeah they're reliable sources.

Quote:

The truth is, if it were not for this unholy trinity of greed, cowardice, and bribery, all of us would already be living in solar or wind powered homes and driving electric cars to and from work.

Here are the facts:

1) According to the U.S. Department of Energy, the amount of solar energy that hits the surface of the earth every hour is greater than the total amount of energy that the entire human population requires in a year. Another way of looking at it is that roughly 100 square miles of solar panels placed in the southwestern U.S. could power the entire country.

2) The Department of Energy also states that all U.S. electrical energy needs could be met by the wind in Texas and the Dakotas alone.

3) In 1977, the Office of Technology Assessment published a nonpartisan report that concluded that if the federal government offered substantial tax credits and incentives to speed up the mass production of renewable energy technologies, these technologies "could be made competitive in markets representing over 40% of U.S. energy demand by the mid-1980s." At that rate, they would be competitive in almost all markets today.

4) The technology to produce photovoltaic panels and modern wind turbines has been around for decades, and thousands of Americans already have installed these renewable technologies on their homes and businesses, cutting their energy bills by significant margins. Recently, a New Jersey resident named Mike Mercurio installed both an array of solar panels on his roof and a wind turbine in his back yard and cut his energy bill from over $300 per month to about $10 per month.

This immediately begs the question: If we have the renewable technology at hand and we know it works, why don’t we use it in place of heavily polluting energy sources like oil, gas or coal? And why have so few people installed solar panels or windmills on their homes and in their backyards?

The primary reason is because the cost of renewable energy is still relatively high compared to fossil fuels, although the gap is closing as the cost of natural gas and oil continues to climb. For example, the price to install an array of photovoltaic panels on the average home-- notwithstanding some modest tax incentives and rebates from the government-- is anywhere from $20,000 to $40,000. At this price, only those who are well off can afford to have solar panels installed on their homes.

Of course, anyone with half a brain knows that once a product is mass produced, its price per unit plummets. But in order to facilitate this process and make it happen over a period of years and not decades, the federal government (with help from the states) needs to institute a massive, full-scale national renewable energy program, something equivalent to the Marshall Plan, something that would transform our entire society within a decade.

It can begin this process with a four-point plan: 1) Mandate tight pollution standards on the fossil fuels industry and stiff penalties for not abiding by them. This will get the carbon-based boys to start thinking about divesting some of their money into renewable energy. 2) Impose high CAFE standards on auto manufacturers and stiff penalties if they don’t implement them post haste. This will get the bright boys at GM to start thinking about electric cars in a big way. 3) Implement a windfall profits tax on oil companies and remove tax incentives to the entire fossil fuels industry. This will create billions of dollars that can be used to promote renewable energy. 4) Offer generous tax credits and incentives to the renewable energy industry to facilitate mass production of its technology and equally generous tax credits and incentives for homeowners to buy it.

If Congress made this four-point plan a reality, it would literally reverse the brain-dead energy policy that has been in effect for the past 27 years, ever since Ronald Reagan, Big Oil’s Bad Boy, strutted into office, decimated Jimmy Carter’s renewable energy program, and created energy bills and tax policies that favored the fossil fuels industry at the expense of renewable technology.

But how much money would it actually cost to institute a full-scale national renewable energy program in the United States? Hundreds of billions, no doubt, which is a lot of money, but not that much when you consider that over the past seven years, the Bush regime has already blown a half trillion dollars on Iraq and another trillion on tax cuts for the rich.

...more

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mazer (Post 256084)

The other is the use of microalgae to make biodiesel instead of rapeseed or palm oil. It turns out that certain species of algae are very oily with lipids accounting for 50% or more of their mass. Various farming techniques are being tried right now, but the National Renewable Energy Laboratory theorizes that future algae farms will yield up to 10,000 gallons of biodiesel per acre per year, compared with palm oil's 635 gallons and rapeseed's 127 gallons. Like switchgrass, algae grows very fast and it doesn't need to be grown on fertile land because it grows just fine in seawater. Imagine sunny southern California dotted with algae farms fed with water from the Salton sea or the Pacific Ocean, and local fuel prices well below the national average. We'd never hear pisser complaining about gas prices again.

I thought I'd come back to this post and provide an update. A joint effort between Global Green Solutions and Valcent Products has built a test facility in El Paso, Texas to demonstrate their VertiGrow algae bioreactor technology. This is just one of many possible designs for algal biofuel farms, but I wanted to show it to you all because they've produced a video explaining their design and a comparison to open algae pond systems as well as other sources of biofuel. Here's a direct link to the video.