QOTD : Are we all fucked?

-=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- (c) WidthPadding Industries 1987 0\|659\|0 -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=- -=+=-
Socoder -> Question of the Day -> QOTD : Are we all fucked?
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 02:10
Afr0	I've been reading about the climate crisis lately, and most political commentators in Norway, at least, seem to believe that Obama will drop the climate conference in Copenhagen for the Nobel Peace award in Oslo. Knowing that he's risking most of his politicial reputation at home trying to get the Welfare Bill passed, I don't really blame him. But this leads to a problem - without the US to front an international treaty, most big nations and conglomerations like EU and China, not to mention the poor nations of the world, will try to get away as cheaply as possible (I.E continiue like before). One thing I'm wondering is what'll happen if nothing comes out of the Copenhagen meeting? According to this article, the meeting is 'widely billed as the last chance to save the planet from a temperature rise of 2C or higher, which the EU considers dangerous.' The article also claims that the EU accuses the US of trying to make sure that every nation will decide on it's own how much (if at all) carbon emission to reduce (this is also something I've read about in several Norwegian newspapers). If this happens, it'll surely mean most nations won't cut carbon emissions at all, and in turn it'll mean we're all fucked! Won't it? Edit: Representatives from the US will most likely be at the meeting in Copenhagen, but if Obama's not there it won't have the same impact. It could also indicate that they are indeed proposing the alternative that EU is accusing them of. -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 04:29
9572AD	No, because man-made carbon emissions have fuck-all to do with global warming. -=-=- All the raw, animal magnetism of a rutabaga.
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 05:21
JL235	9572AD No, because man-made carbon emissions have fuck-all to do with global warming. Agreed. Plus the climate has been warmer hundreds of years ago. At that time the UK had a thriving wine industry and did very well. With the north-west passage also opening up, it will be a booming time for the economy.
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 08:06
Phoenix	Ditto. The earth has been warmer. If this conference fails then it's all for the better, because that means that we won't have to suspend usage of our fully functioning energy sources more than we already have, in favor of incredibly ineffective (but politically correct) sources.
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 08:38
Afr0	'Socoder - The site where it's correct to be politically incorrect!' -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 09:35
steve_ancell	I agree with 9572AD and JL235. G-W is just a way of scaremongering an excuse for higher taxes. If cars were really killing us off, then they would be banned right now, end of story !
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 09:38
steve_ancell	On the subject of energy, here's a site with a wealth of ideas for generating power for yourself, without fattening-up government fat-cats ! www.overunity.com/ \|edit\| You need an open mind to sort the horsecrap from the bullcrap though ! \|edit\|
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 09:58
mole	At the ISOS lecture this year, one of the speakers was talking about global warming. He was a little crazy, but his ultimate point seemed fair: do not threaten economic output by making firms reduce their pollution, rather invest in geo-engineering projects, such as the trillions of mirrors in space idea. The problem with such projects is that they are phenomenally expensive, and particularly now with many countries in relative financial dire straits, this is not appealing. Banning cars is nonsensical; it would send us back into the dark ages. More development in hybrids/batteries is required to mass produce viably cheap, low/zero emission cars. The car industry is already seeing a decline in demand for the larger cars, be it because they cost a lot to run or that people are changing their attitude to global warming. The speaker at ISOS also mentioned that we could paint the Earth white. Time to buy shares in Dulux? As an interesting side point, in National Geographic I read that to power the whole of the United States, one would require a total area of solar panels of 100 miles^2. Bring on nuclear power! (And solar. I like solar.)
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 10:01
Mog	First it was warming up, then cooling down, now they're spouting nonsense about 'it's just changing' - Of course it fucking is, just look up the weather patterns over the millenia and you'll see that it follows a trend. Like all things, it IS just a way to scare you. O noes! end is coming, hell fire, ice burgs, hurricanes, and your aunt that you hate are coming to kill you! ....also, fuck all, we're becoming crack-pots. -=-=- I am Busy Mongoose - My Website Dev PC: AMD 8150-FX, 16gb Ram, GeForce GTX 680 2gb Current Project: Pyroxene
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 10:10
steve_ancell	If we all stopped driving and started walking or cycling, they would find another way to tax the crap out of us. They'll be making us buy Catalytic Converters for our arses next
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 10:39
Mog	They'll hike up the price on those fruity biker get-ups, and charge an obscenity tax because of how much of a tosser you look like. As for walking, there will be a leg tax for using your legs... because they can, but at least when people walk, they usually do not wear skin-tight spandex, erghhh.. ...god i hate cross-country cyclists... -=-=- I am Busy Mongoose - My Website Dev PC: AMD 8150-FX, 16gb Ram, GeForce GTX 680 2gb Current Project: Pyroxene
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 11:46
Nolan	If cars were really killing us off, then they would be banned right now, end of story ! Cars kill over 40,000 people every year in the U.S. alone, and we still use them. -=-=- nolandc.com
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 11:49
Stealth	Knowing that he's risking most of his politicial reputation at home trying to get the Welfare Bill passed, I don't really blame him. Do you mean the healthcare bill? We already have welfare in America and it's already quite abused. Obama will drop the climate conference in Copenhagen for the Nobel Peace award in Oslo. That would be very off nature of Obama. He didn't really want the Nobel Peace award anyways. Obama loves participating in "hot topics", climate change being one of them. I just don't see much good coming out of anything passed by climate conferences. Just more government control, and that's something us in America have enough of. We need to see companies putting forth the effort to be more green, and we need citizens choosing companies that are in fact environmentally friendly. In the computer industry, Apple is leading the way with green products (all their new products meet ENERGY STAR Version 5.0 and are rated EPEAT Gold). But it's expensive to be green. Theres just too many people with the attitude of "the government will take care of it". No--you need to take care of it. Our government is going massively in debt to try to please mindless Americans, and it's ridiculous. -=-=- Quit posting and try Google.
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 13:00
JL235	But I would say that pollution is bad. It might not be warming the planet, but it is being breathed in by those in the nearby area and in many countries is just openly dumped into people's drinking water. I would very much like to see more recycling and cleaner industries. This has nothing to do with climate change, this is simply to be respectful to your surroundings and to be more efficient with our use of resources.
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 14:11
deleted user	yeh, the stuff you see factories pump out (usually at night) is unbelievable, if you think there are millions of them all doing the same, so I think they should clean the factories up first, before they start slowly taking away more of our freedom, that'll clean the air up a little bit, and add a few years to peoples lives in highly industrial areas. They say more people should use public transport, I do but with the amount of ill people using them at this time and the poor quality of the drivers, I think they are a bigger risk to me than a 2 degree rise . -=-=- delete my account
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 15:16
mole	Something horrendous like 98% of tube users get a cold each year. I take the bus and every year get a cold...
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 17:06
steve_ancell	JL235 But I would say that pollution is bad. It might not be warming the planet, but it is being breathed in by those in the nearby area and in many countries is just openly dumped into people's drinking water. I would very much like to see more recycling and cleaner industries. This has nothing to do with climate change, this is simply to be respectful to your surroundings and to be more efficient with our use of resources. I also agree that cars do push out a lot of bad gasses, but not to cause warming. Once the electric cars replace the old ones, it will be easier to manage the crap that the power stations put out, because there are less power stations than cars. All they need to do is somehow condense the crap that is emitted from the power stations, and then safely dispose of it.
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 17:37
zebeste	Well, at least you guys seem to be against pollution in general. I'm taking a conservation biology course right now, and one of the topics we covered was climate change. We spent three weeks covering the science behind it and we also went into depth about the how the prediction models are created. Trust me when I say that once you see the evidence, its actually extremely convincing. Most of the arguments against it are based on misconceptions. I've actually started a website for myself and one of the things I'm putting on it is a somewhat detailed explanation of the facts, and of the misconceptions. Unfortunately there is such a large amount of science involved that its going to take a while to complete. But once I get it closer to completion, I'll be sure to post it here.
Mon, 02 Nov 2009, 17:54
zebeste	Oh, and Phoenix, if you are going to post links to graphs like that, maybe you should read the article. It attributes those spikes to Milankovitch cycles, and when the Earth is at angle of 24 degrees from the normal of the plane of the planet's orbit, the energy received from the sun is maximized. Currently we are at an angle of 23.44 degrees and decreasing, and we are supposed to hit the minimum angle in about 8000 years. This means we should actually be receiving less energy from the sun and therefore cooling off. This is one of the factors accounted for in predictive models of climate change, along with solar activity (solar flares, sun spots), volcanic activity, among other things.
Tue, 03 Nov 2009, 00:07
Phoenix	I guess I'll eat my hat then. Admittedly, I'm not very involved in the facts. I'm still not convinced about man-made global warming though, so hand me a link to the website once it's ready.
Tue, 03 Nov 2009, 06:41
JL235	If you can prove my beliefs wrong, then go for it. One of the issues with the arguments in favour of climate change is that there are a large number of groups who use it simply as a generic buzz word to promote their cause or research. This detracts from the any real scientific backing.
Tue, 03 Nov 2009, 07:17
zebeste	Glad to hear you guys will be open minded about it. JL235, your right, there are people that are going to take advantage of it. Combined with the way the issue has been politicized, I'm not even remotely surprised at the large amounts of skepticism that people have.
Tue, 03 Nov 2009, 07:56
steve_ancell	JL235 If you can prove my beliefs wrong, then go for it. One of the issues with the arguments in favour of climate change is that there are a large number of groups who use it simply as a generic buzz word to promote their cause or research. This detracts from the any real scientific backing. You just hit the nail, right on the head
Tue, 03 Nov 2009, 09:05
Afr0	We need to see companies putting forth the effort to be more green, and we need citizens choosing companies that are in fact environmentally friendly. In the computer industry, Apple is leading the way with green products (all their new products meet ENERGY STAR Version 5.0 and are rated EPEAT Gold). But it's expensive to be green. Guess what? This is one issue where 'we need' is always going to come in second priority to "I can't afford" (note the difference between 'we' and 'I'). Most people can't afford to be green most of the time, and the change isn't gonna come on it's own. Government control is clearly needed. That said, I'm disappointed in the way that alot of politicians seem to think that buying climate quotas from poor countries is gonna help anything. :\ -=-=- Afr0 Games Project Dollhouse on Github - Please fork!