Jump to content

***Official OT MMCC/Global Warming Thread***

Recommended Posts

norcaljeff    2

I don't really care if "95%" of scientists all believe carbon is pooping on us all, what I care about is what can possibly be done, considering the increase in carbon output by the rest of the world. Even if we spent more than the hundreds of billions (us only) we've already spent (with an effect? doesn't seem like much tbh), what possible difference will it make?

Is what Germany's doing feasable? will it even make a difference? from liek 2000 to 2005 china went from half our emissions to double. But using clotheslines and planting trees to offset flying to tahiti for a climate conference matters? really?

"But many companies, economists and even Germany's neighbors worry that the enormous cost to replace a currently working system will undermine the country's industrial base and weigh on the entire European economy. Germany's second-quarter GDP decline of 0.6%, reported earlier this month, put a damper on overall euro-zone growth, leaving it flat for the quarter.

Average electricity prices for companies have jumped 60% over the past five years because of costs passed along as part of government subsidies of renewable energy producers. Prices are now more than double those in the U.S."

http://online.wsj.com/articles/germanys-expensive-gamble-on-renewable-energy-1409106602

ps. make it happen, mods. merge so those morans will stop cluttering up other threads, arguing about nonsense with strangers. kthx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

norcaljeff    2

start with a link to $100s of billion spent.

and quit pimping the WSJ, can't read the article without subscribing.

why tf can I read it when Im not suscribed??

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

from 2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EyeKnows    0

why tf can I read it when Im not suscribed??

they'll preach to the choir for free but they want to stick it to us liberals.

According to the GAO, annual federal climate spending has increased from $4.6 billion in 2003 to $8.8 billion in 2010, amounting to $106.7 billion over that period. The money was spent in four general categories: technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, science to understand climate changes, international assistance for developing countries, and wildlife adaptation to respond to actual or expected changes. Technology spending, the largest category, grew from $2.56 billion to $5.5 billion over this period, increasingly advancing over others in total share. Data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Policy Institute indicates that the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/

from 2011

that forbes article indicates the need for a climate-change czar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

norcaljeff    2

they'll preach to the choir for free but they want to stick it to us liberals.

that forbes article indicates the need for a climate-change czar.

to better spend the hundreds of billions?

ps tldr the article

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dyzalot    89

why tf can I read it when Im not suscribed??

I think you can access a certain amount of articles for free per month or year from an IP before WSJ forces you to subscribe.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EyeKnows    0

to better spend the hundreds of billions?

ps tldr the article

well if we are spending the money and don't have an over-arching goal then a czar is needed, right?

it wasn't that long, I read it. and it's more of an editorial than an article. lol @ destroying jobs. yeah, change results in job loss sometimes. and lol @ forbes lamenting the loss of union jobs with a straight face.

ftr, I dgaf about climate change. chances are super slim it will ever impact my life in a drastic or dramatic way and I have no children. I just like to lol @ the conspiracy theorists that think this is just a vast money grab or the start of "omg! the fema camps are coming".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

EyeKnows    0

I think you can access a certain amount of articles for free per month or year from an IP before WSJ forces you to subscribe.

Obv eyeknows reads it more than you do...

LIES!!!

Pretty sure I'll be dead before gets really bad and since I will have no living desendents...

Fuck humanity.

b1cd4c4e3af40e3d9cea4c6178904017_view.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dyzalot    89

well if we are spending the money and don't have an over-arching goal then a czar is needed, right?

it wasn't that long, I read it. and it's more of an editorial than an article. lol @ destroying jobs. yeah, change results in job loss sometimes. and lol @ forbes lamenting the loss of union jobs with a straight face.

ftr, I dgaf about climate change. chances are super slim it will ever impact my life in a drastic or dramatic way and I have no children. I just like to lol @ the conspiracy theorists that think this is just a vast money grab or the start of "omg! the fema camps are coming".

What made Russian czars so great that we feel the need to emulate them?

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keyser Galt    0

These environmental people don't know what's going to happen. They have no talent to accomplish anything real so this way in 50 years when we're not underwater, they get to take credit for saving the world. It's envious mediocrity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dyzalot    89

U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from energy consumption and production declined 3.8 percent in 2012, reaching their lowest level since 1994, the Energy Information Administration said in a report released Oct. 21. The shift from coal to natural gas is responsible for nearly 60 percent of the reductions, the report said. The remainder is due to increases in renewable and nuclear power generation, it said.

http://www.bna.com/carbon-dioxide-emissions-n17179878821/

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest   

Guest
Pretty sure I'll be dead before gets really bad and since I will have no living desendents...

Fuck humanity.

Seriously loath our species.

Listen to tools song "right in two" sums it up.

I would loathe the species too if I seen what you seen when I looked in the mirror every morning/afternoon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

userid363    0

User, are you surprised that almost ZERO greenhouse gasses are Man Made? Just a fraction of a fraction. The rest is water vapor and methane.

not really--that's the kind of simple argument that works with a non-scientific brain on someone who begs to be convinced.

I sort of can't believe I have to explain what any semi-educated person can figure out...Do you have any idea what kind of temperature extremes are possible in our galaxy? Yes, I know our extremely limited experience here doesn't show us much, but if there were any significant % (using your type gross calculations) less of those gasses, we'd be frozen solid.

The gases that are there naturally are a "fixed cost," to put it in economics terms. The ones we put there, including cow farts, are the variable cost. Even some of the methane from the oceans they now think may be released from rising sea temperatures.

So yeah, even if CO2 is only 2% now, the others stay at their level but CO2 rises, it can still cause enough change to make a big difference.

The problem I have with much denial "logic" is that it takes an oversimplified statement, such as "CO2 is natural so it can't be harmful," or "it's only a small % of what's in the atmosphere," and then ends its analysis.

No, scientists don't have their results mapped out before they get their grant. Yes, too much of something non-laboratory made can be bad. If it's small, it can still hurt you. Hospitals didn't used to sterilize, you know, because the thought of something they couldn't see causing infection was considered absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dyzalot    89

Moving to Wind would do great things for the enviroment.

BwJeC_0IEAEtrrf.jpg

Pretty sure i covered alot of this in the Solar thread.

We can't "move to wind". It is way too expensive.

Wind. For the next decade or two, wind is the most practical and cost-effective renewable option and has been deployed in 27 states. Wind and geothermal are, on a percentage basis, the nation’s fastest-growing electric power sources. But even at the 2008 rate of growth (a historic high), wind will supply less than 2% of U.S. electric energy in 2020. If new policies aim to increase wind’s share to 13% of 2020 electric energy, it would mean increasing annual wind installations from 5,400 megawatts (MW) (in 2008) to between 40,000 and 70,000 MW per year by 2020. Total land area for wind farms would be 30,000 to 50,000 square miles, about the area of Ohio.

http://issues.org/25-1/apt-4/

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


    • Accolades & Cashes

  • Top 10 Ranked Players

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.