Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1281  
Old 01.04.2013, 19:17
Pancakes's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Zurich-ish
Posts: 3,665
Groaned at 144 Times in 96 Posts
Thanked 6,726 Times in 2,627 Posts
Pancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond reputePancakes has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

It seems a bit pointless, to me, that anyone should argue or debate about global warming at this point, since the real issue should be climate change in general. It's my understanding that scientists aren't yet entirely certain what the exact effects will be. e.g. Some areas may freeze while others may warm.

Regardless, any even slight but continuous change in temperature can cause dramatic changes to earth's fragile ecosystem. Sure, it's natural that changes and disturbances to the ecosystem occur. However, when a rapidly growing population relies on a relatively stable ecosystem, therein lies the problem.

It just dumbfounds me that anyone could NOT believe that such a rapidly increasing population, coupled with the sudden effects of the Industrial Revolution, etc. could NOT be a "shock to the system," so to speak.


Source: http://bixby.berkeley.edu/research/population/

Last edited by Pancakes; 01.04.2013 at 19:55.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank Pancakes for this useful post:
  #1282  
Old 01.04.2013, 20:10
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
It just dumbfounds me that anyone could NOT believe that such a rapidly increasing population, coupled with the sudden effects of the Industrial Revolution, etc. could NOT be a "shock to the system," so to speak.
The AGW agenda for global taxation and regulation does not address over-population. I don't think AGW proponents fully realize the economic, social and political ramifications of what they are asking for, all based on unfounded and manufactured fears. It has absolutly no effect, unless it is intended as a stepping stone towards more radical measures to curb liberty.


That poster cites Communists. It also applies for Nazis.

Yeah, I'm sure some wish they would close such a frank discussion on this thread.
Reply With Quote
The following 5 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #1283  
Old 02.04.2013, 01:57
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,680
Groaned at 141 Times in 97 Posts
Thanked 4,465 Times in 1,778 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

@Jobsrobertsharpii......No response but baseless name calling. When you can't answer the question, you attack the person who asked it (attempting to relegate them with any label you think may fit). You undermine your own credibility and avoid the issue altogether (Re: Global warming - what's behind it?)

Moving on,
Quote:
View Post
Unfortunately the few Western countries that have introduced carbon taxes will have no measurable effect on the global levels of the things you mention. Reason is the Asian countries who are building more and more fossil fuel power stations; think of King Canute!!!
Like I said, I agree. However, I don't feel that is any justification to do nothing.

If the two of us were sitting on a tree limb, and I started hacking at the limb so that it could potentially go crashing to the ground, would you stop me, do nothing, or help me to swing the axe?
Quote:
View Post
My own view is that if the theory of global warming is correct then it is too late to reverse it. Our efforts should concentrate on learning to cope.
As you mentioned, it would take 1000 years for CO2 levels to even out, even if CO2 emissions were to stop completely. But this is no reason to do nothing but continue to burn fossil fuels unabated ( Even if the idea of human related climate change is a fallacy, there are other undeniable ill effects of using fossil fuels). In a response to a recent post of yours, I said that i guess the planet is totally screwed. In the long run, I truly feel that we will make the planet uninhabitable for ourselves(at least in such quantity) in one way or another, and that the population graph will follow a somewhat predictable bell curve. But I would like to think that healthy populations of other species will remain after our demise, besides cockroaches...
In the short term, learning how to cope is the only option. Id like to think that I could have kids that lead somewhat healthy and happy lives, and their kids in turn...
For many people on this planet this is no longer possible. I was recently in Istanbul, where the air is so polluted that I became sick with a cough and sore throat after 2 days, and same for my wife. The smell of burning plastic filled the whole neighborhood where we were staying, which is known for it's many shoe manufacturing businesses. The locals are used to the pollution, and seem somewhat happy, but I wouldn't say that they lead healthy lives. I left cursing the air but wearing a new pair of shoes such is the dilemma.

Last edited by pilatus1; 02.04.2013 at 02:26. Reason: typo
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank pilatus1 for this useful post:
This user groans at pilatus1 for this post:
  #1284  
Old 02.04.2013, 02:05
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 13,829
Groaned at 271 Times in 177 Posts
Thanked 16,944 Times in 7,169 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?





Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #1285  
Old 02.04.2013, 03:37
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,680
Groaned at 141 Times in 97 Posts
Thanked 4,465 Times in 1,778 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

It's slightly off topic- but in case anyone is interested in the truth about electric cars, here's from wikipedia regarding the film Who Killed the Electric Car:

"The California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed the Zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate in 1990 which required the seven major automobile suppliers in the United States to offer electric vehicles in order to continue sales of their gasoline powered vehicles in California. Nearly 5000 electric cars were designed and manufactured by GM, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Nissan, and Chrysler; and then later destroyed or donated to museums and educational institutions.
At the time GM's EV1 came to market, it came with a lead acid battery with a range of 60 miles.The second generation EV1 (and those released by Honda, Toyota, and others) from 1998 to the end of the program, featured nickel-metal or even lithium (Nissan) batteries with a ranges of about 100 or more miles...With laptop computer lithium ion batteries, the EV1 could have been upgraded to a range of 300 miles per charge....The company which had supplied batteries for EV1, Ovonics, had been suppressed from announcing improved batteries, with double the range, lest CARB be influenced that batteries were improving. Later, General Motors sold the supplier's majority control share to Chevron/Cobasys....GM killed the EV1 to focus on more immediately profitable enterprises such as its Hummer and truck brands instead of preparing for future challenges. A portion of the film details GM's efforts to demonstrate to California that there was no consumer demand for their product, and then to take back every EV1 and destroy them.... A few were disabled and given to museums and universities, but almost all were found to have been crushed. GM never responded to the EV drivers' offer to pay the residual lease value ($1.9 million was offered for the remaining 78 cars in Burbank before they were crushed)..... In 2003, the CARB, headed by Democrat Alan Lloyd, finally caved to industry pressure and drastically scaled back the ZEV mandate after defending the regulation for more than 12 years."

Appalling and disturbing. There are solutions out there, only they are often withheld from the public by those in power with the aim selling more junk goods and maintaining profits. (ex: planned obsolescence). This is not a conspiracy theory, or a politically motivated and rhetoric filled attack on capitalism- it's just a small ugly snapshot of the current reality that we have created. GM was in a position to be a global leader in a very promising emerging industry, and threw it all away for greed. Less than 20 years later they filed chapter 11 and we are left breathing the smog and picking up the tab from the bailout.(GM received $49.5 billion)
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank pilatus1 for this useful post:
This user groans at pilatus1 for this post:
  #1286  
Old 02.04.2013, 11:22
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: -
Posts: 1,641
Groaned at 26 Times in 22 Posts
Thanked 2,932 Times in 1,202 Posts
Russkov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond reputeRusskov has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

It's a doubly-compounded problem and no one is blameless. Governments and private enterprise can work together to find long-term efficient solutions, but it turns into a fruitless tug and pull of impractical energy standards vs. short-term profit maximization. Going to more and more desperate extremes such as deep sea oil drilling (the Gulf oil spill goes without saying) is just an example of how these old paradigms are becoming obsolete and running on fumes, so to speak. And they actively lobby for these things to remain the case as long as possible, as we saw with electric cars in the 90s. At the moment, the stop-gap "greener" solution is cheap shale gas, and it's been the next big thing in the States for the better part of the last decade. Even though it's been clear to everyone in the industry for years that it's a bubble waiting to burst.

Honestly, I see debates such as this almost besides the point because make no mistake, if/when the social and political consequences of over-population and pollution come to a head, it's not the energy companies that have a vested interest in solving the problems, they'll just be able to go out of business with no consequences or take their money and run. Very rarely, almost never in fact, are the leaders in one technological paradigm able to adapt to become the leaders in the next one. They're almost always beat out by new competitors and innovators. The fact that governments are being hindered from propping up innovators through various means is undeniable. It's also undeniable that governments are very often going about environmental protection in misguided and impractical ways, but then, they'll be the ones that will actually have to deal with it when all is said and done. I wish climate change skeptics put as much energy into finding new and better solutions as they do into shooting holes in what's currently being done. It's a deadlock that leaves only those with no vested interest in our future well-being, and who are running current infrastructures into the ground (literally), laughing straight to the bank.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Russkov for this useful post:
  #1287  
Old 02.04.2013, 16:33
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: ZH
Posts: 142
Groaned at 4 Times in 4 Posts
Thanked 147 Times in 80 Posts
mustard has earned some respectmustard has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

"This is our planet: planet Earth. It contains an astonishing variety of landscapes and climates. Since life began, around 4,000 million years ago, it has gone through extraordinary changes in its climate and in the species that live on it. But now it seems that our planet is being transformed — not by natural events, but by the actions of one species: mankind."
('Are We Changing Planet Earth?', a programme about global warming, May 2006)

“We are a plague on the Earth. It’s coming home to roost over the next 50 years or so. It’s not just climate change; it’s sheer space, places to grow food for this enormous horde. Either we limit our population growth or the natural world will do it for us, and the natural world is doing it for us right now.”
(Radio Times, January 2013)

These statements were made by David Attenborough, who used to be sceptical about the belief that global warming is predominantly caused by humans and waited until, as he put it, “the proof was conclusive that it was humanity changing the climate.”

The evidence that we are destroying the world through unsustainable consumption and pollution is plain to see, except to the greedy and wilfully blind... for them, it's business as usual.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at mustard for this post:
  #1288  
Old 02.04.2013, 17:00
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I wish climate change skeptics put as much energy into finding new and better solutions as they do into shooting holes in what's currently being done.
What is exactly being done?

My issue is that I don't believe the narrative, as the science is clearly disputable, and the stakes are incredibly high. There are huge economic and political motives.

I think those who truly believe it should do their utmost to model a lifestyle according to their conviction. Don't drive a car, don't use light bulbs, freeze their butts in winter, and don't cook your food. Its about all you can do. But under no circumstances should they dictate to others how they should live their lifestyles. That is the main sticking point for me. Because I know these same people do not practice what they purport to preach.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #1289  
Old 02.04.2013, 17:29
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,680
Groaned at 141 Times in 97 Posts
Thanked 4,465 Times in 1,778 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
What is exactly being done?

My issue is that I don't believe the narrative, as the science is clearly disputable, and the stakes are incredibly high. There are huge economic and political motives.

I think those who truly believe it should do their utmost to model a lifestyle according to their conviction. Don't drive a car, don't use light bulbs, freeze their butts in winter, and don't cook your food. Its about all you can do. But under no circumstances should they dictate to others how they should live their lifestyles. That is the main sticking point for me. Because I know these same people do not practice what they purport to preach.
Your logic is full of holes. Just because each of us as a human being has an impact on our (shared) planet, it does not give anyone the right to impact the planet as much as they like to maintain the convenience of their personal lifestyle. We all have to breath the exhaust that comes out of the tailpipes, to name one shared consequence. If you wanted to dump a few tons of nuclear waste into the Zürichsee, just for fun or because it is part of your lifestyle, you obviously don't have that right. Labeling everyone who is pursuing progressive changes in environmental stewardship and human ecology as a hypocrite is an easy way to justify what seems to be a deliberately wasteful lifestyle. Your philosophy (I imagine you are American, and therefore are predisposed to cling to the idea of rugged individualism) is a relic from the wild west mentality, and does not work in the modern world which obviously has finite resources and an ever increasing population. Nobody is claiming that they don't consume any resources or have any sort of detrimental impact on the planet and it's inhabitants, only that by working together we can increase our understanding of, and potentially lesson, the detrimental effects of our species. Your argument boils down to: "save the planet, kill yourself..."

Last edited by pilatus1; 02.04.2013 at 17:53.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank pilatus1 for this useful post:
The following 3 users groan at pilatus1 for this post:
  #1290  
Old 02.04.2013, 22:44
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Your logic is full of holes. Just because each of us as a human being has an impact on our (shared) planet, it does not give anyone the right to impact the planet as much as they like to maintain the convenience of their personal lifestyle. We all have to breath the exhaust that comes out of the tailpipes, to name one shared consequence. If you wanted to dump a few tons of nuclear waste into the Zürichsee, just for fun or because it is part of your lifestyle, you obviously don't have that right. Labeling everyone who is pursuing progressive changes in environmental stewardship and human ecology as a hypocrite is an easy way to justify what seems to be a deliberately wasteful lifestyle. Your philosophy (I imagine you are American, and therefore are predisposed to cling to the idea of rugged individualism) is a relic from the wild west mentality, and does not work in the modern world which obviously has finite resources and an ever increasing population. Nobody is claiming that they don't consume any resources or have any sort of detrimental impact on the planet and it's inhabitants, only that by working together we can increase our understanding of, and potentially lesson, the detrimental effects of our species. Your argument boils down to: "save the planet, kill yourself..."
Nonsense. Do you drive a car, or ever get into one? Do you turn on the lights at night? Do you use a refrigerator? Do you heat your home, or cook your food? Where did you get the electricity that allows you to get on the Internet? If so, before you start condemning others, start with yourself and your own lifestyle. What you are calling for is a dystopic world of backwards authoritarianism - for everyone else except you. All for unfounded fears. Screw your commie technocratic collectivism. It's not going to happen.

But do let me know if you truly decide to live like a caveman.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #1291  
Old 02.04.2013, 23:06
Wollishofener's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Glattbrugg
Posts: 19,023
Groaned at 333 Times in 258 Posts
Thanked 11,716 Times in 6,858 Posts
Wollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond reputeWollishofener has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post




There were climate-changes long before human beings had any real influence. All scientists / experts say that those changes took 100s or 1000s of years to happen. And of course declare to be sure about their theories. But it might at times have happened within a few years. The outbreak of the Krakatau cooled down the temperatures even in Central Europe within two years and then it continued to be cold for a decade.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Wollishofener for this useful post:
  #1292  
Old 02.04.2013, 23:23
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,680
Groaned at 141 Times in 97 Posts
Thanked 4,465 Times in 1,778 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Nonsense. Do you drive a car, or ever get into one? Do you turn on the lights at night? Do you use a refrigerator? Do you heat your home, or cook your food? Where did you get the electricity that allows you to get on the Internet? If so, before you start condemning others, start with yourself and your own lifestyle. What you are calling for is a dystopic world of backwards authoritarianism - for everyone else except you. All for unfounded fears. Screw your commie technocratic collectivism. It's not going to happen.

But do let me know if you truly decide to live like a caveman.
I do all of those things at times, and I have never denied it. As I said in my post, nobody is claiming to not use any resources or to not have any detrimental impact on the planet. In an earlier post on this same thread I made it very clear that I am equally guilty as everyone else who uses fossil fuels. (In fact, it appears that you copied my post almost verbatim) I have not condemned anyone, and I do put myself and my own lifestyle under my own microscope. You are quick to make assumptions, however you don't know me at all. I have spent over half of my adult life living outdoors, not heating a house, not having electricity, not having a refrigerator, not owning a car, and not ever riding in one for that matter. And in no way was I living like a caveman... (However I think the few remaining cultures on this planet that do continue to exist without using fossil fuels would agree that you are an arrogant idiot for comparing them to or calling them cavemen).Im not claiming to be superior than anybody else, or less impactive on the environment (after all, I recently flew here to CH, using more fossil fuels on that one flight than many humans use in their entire lifetime). Rather than a dystopic authoritarianism, I hope to help create a society that at least works towards a utopic world that embraces education, reason and logic. For everyone, including me. For example, the mainstream mentality towards smoking cigarettes has changed considerably in the past 50 years. There are far fewer smokers (at least in the US) these days than there were 20 years ago. What was once seen as a glamorous or cosmopolitan habit is now largely viewed as lowly, dirty, and uneducated. This is progress. It did not happen because of dystopic authoritarianism, but because of the evolution of our collective and social mentalities. Just as blood-letting is no longer viewed as a valid medical treatment, there are a million other examples of progress that have occurred independent of authoritarian rules or laws.
I'm no communist or technocrat, and i don't identify with any label that you might try to put on me besides male, human, or earthling. What I am sure of is that your rugged individualist take on living cannot possibly work in a closed system with limited resources and a growing population.

Last edited by pilatus1; 02.04.2013 at 23:36.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at pilatus1 for this post:
  #1293  
Old 03.04.2013, 00:12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

You're an idealist. I'm a realist compared to you. The shortcoming of your idealism is that it is virtually worthless in the practical world, and dreaming accomplishes very little in the world. You want to impose your ideals on everyone else, but the problem is many have opposite ideals from you. You will likely try to find other like minds who agree with you so that together, you can try to impose your idealism on everyone else. You are not advocating for reason. You have problems with those who don't share your idealism. You are advocating for brute force primitivism, maybe without realizing it. And no, you are not as evolved as you fantasize people would see your thinking as. It is relatively easy for intelligent minds to see through. Evidenced by some of your conversations on this thread.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #1294  
Old 03.04.2013, 00:31
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,453
Groaned at 390 Times in 338 Posts
Thanked 16,593 Times in 8,990 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
It's slightly off topic- but in case anyone is interested in the truth about electric cars, here's from wikipedia regarding the film Who Killed the Electric Car:

"The California Air Resources Board (CARB) passed the Zero-emissions vehicle (ZEV) mandate in 1990 which required the seven major automobile suppliers in the United States to offer electric vehicles in order to continue sales of their gasoline powered vehicles in California. Nearly 5000 electric cars were designed and manufactured by GM, Toyota, Honda, Ford, Nissan, and Chrysler; and then later destroyed or donated to museums and educational institutions.
At the time GM's EV1 came to market, it came with a lead acid battery with a range of 60 miles.The second generation EV1 (and those released by Honda, Toyota, and others) from 1998 to the end of the program, featured nickel-metal or even lithium (Nissan) batteries with a ranges of about 100 or more miles...With laptop computer lithium ion batteries, the EV1 could have been upgraded to a range of 300 miles per charge....The company which had supplied batteries for EV1, Ovonics, had been suppressed from announcing improved batteries, with double the range, lest CARB be influenced that batteries were improving. Later, General Motors sold the supplier's majority control share to Chevron/Cobasys....GM killed the EV1 to focus on more immediately profitable enterprises such as its Hummer and truck brands instead of preparing for future challenges. A portion of the film details GM's efforts to demonstrate to California that there was no consumer demand for their product, and then to take back every EV1 and destroy them.... A few were disabled and given to museums and universities, but almost all were found to have been crushed. GM never responded to the EV drivers' offer to pay the residual lease value ($1.9 million was offered for the remaining 78 cars in Burbank before they were crushed)..... In 2003, the CARB, headed by Democrat Alan Lloyd, finally caved to industry pressure and drastically scaled back the ZEV mandate after defending the regulation for more than 12 years."

Appalling and disturbing. There are solutions out there, only they are often withheld from the public by those in power with the aim selling more junk goods and maintaining profits. (ex: planned obsolescence). This is not a conspiracy theory, or a politically motivated and rhetoric filled attack on capitalism- it's just a small ugly snapshot of the current reality that we have created. GM was in a position to be a global leader in a very promising emerging industry, and threw it all away for greed. Less than 20 years later they filed chapter 11 and we are left breathing the smog and picking up the tab from the bailout.(GM received $49.5 billion)
But simply said "so what"!! Electric cars use just as much energy as conventional cars (the energy required is based on the vehicles shape, weight & the way it used - not on the energy source) & if that electrical energy comes from fossil fuel power stations then what is saved?

We also have the issue that in civilised Western countries the production of electrical energy is being reduced (as mentioned in earlier posts) so where will the huge amount of extra electrical energy required to power these electric cars come from?
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1295  
Old 03.04.2013, 00:40
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,680
Groaned at 141 Times in 97 Posts
Thanked 4,465 Times in 1,778 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
You're an idealist. I'm a realist compared to you. The shortcoming of your idealism is that it is virtually worthless in the practical world, and dreaming accomplishes very little in the world. You want to impose your ideals on everyone else, but the problem is many have opposite ideals from you. You will likely try to find other like minds who agree with you so that together, you can try to impose your idealism on everyone else. You are not advocating for reason. You have problems with those who don't share your idealism. You are advocating for brute force primitivism, maybe without realizing it. And no, you are not as evolved as you fantasize people would see your thinking as. It is relatively easy for intelligent minds to see through. Evidenced by some of your conversations on this thread.
Like others before you, you are taking the debate away from the topic and turning it into a personal attack as a defense mechanism for not being able to support your arguments about the issue, or in order to stroke your own ego. You attempt to label me and relegate the argument into a black or white/ us or them format because that is all you seem to understand. Typical...
I dont want to impose anything on anyone. What I don't want is people like you, who feel like they can do whatever they like in this world without any thought of the consequences, to impose those consequences on myself and others. I am advocating for nothing but reason.(Brute force primitivism? Another attempt to classify and label something which you cannot or dont want to understand) I have never claimed to be more evolved than anyone or anything else in this universe. Fantasizing about how other people see my thinking? Why, that's all in your clouded head.
Looking back at the thread, I am the only one who has made self-critical comments in any of their posts, yet you accuse me of not being self-critical. Ironic, isn't it?
Reply With Quote
This user groans at pilatus1 for this post:
  #1296  
Old 03.04.2013, 00:55
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,453
Groaned at 390 Times in 338 Posts
Thanked 16,593 Times in 8,990 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
You are cherry-picking data. Another standard denialist method.
Simply speaking; the theory of man made global warming is that global temperatures will rise in line with the increase of CO2 in the global atmosphere.
This theory worked well for the last half of the last century but for almost 2 decades now the CO2 level has increased at about the same rate as before but global temperatures have not risen.
So far there is no consensus about why there has been no temperature rise. The usual AGW statement is that this is a "temporary pause" & "soon" temperatures will rise again.
There is no consensus about why there is this temporary pause & also no agreement about what "soon" actually means.

At first they said the time period of the pause was not statistically significant but now this time period is longer so when will it become significant?

The loss of Artic ice is often quoted but over the same period Antartic ice has increased by around 2% per year; puzzling isn't it?
I do not define myself as a "denier"; I just look at the available facts & try to match them to the theory.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1297  
Old 03.04.2013, 01:07
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,680
Groaned at 141 Times in 97 Posts
Thanked 4,465 Times in 1,778 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Moving on again,
Quote:
View Post
But simply said "so what"!! Electric cars use just as much energy as conventional cars (the energy required is based on the vehicles shape, weight & the way it used - not on the energy source) & if that electrical energy comes from fossil fuel power stations then what is saved?
There is a lot to be saved, even if the electricity is generated by fossil fuels. In the current system, each automobile has it's own mini power plant, a very inefficient way of converting the fuel into usable energy. (thats over 750 million mini power plants in the world, expected to double in the next 30 years). Each one is nearly impossible to monitor in terms of efficiency and pollution. By creating the electricity in an centralized plant, fuel costs would drop and emissions drastically reduced using modern technologies that cannot be realistically used on each little car in the current system. Aside from this, what pollution that is produced could be generated outside of the heavily populated areas that are most congested with automobiles. (Think several big power plants on the outskirts of a city as opposed to millions of little ones inside of it.) We could largely eliminate smog in our urban areas while increasing fuel efficiency.
Also, the electric motor is relatively simple. It contains one moving part and needs little maintenance. No cooling system, no oil delivery system. Electric motors would last much longer with much less maintenance than their internal combustion counterparts.
Electric motors make very little noise. A big plus.
If you can plug the car in to charge at home, you never need to go to a gas station. Another savings in fuel and time efficiency. This would also cut out the middle men who sell gas, with increased monetary savings.
And the great thing is, the electric grids already exist to deliver the power to people's homes and subsequently to their cars. It all makes so much sense that it makes you wonder why we're not doing it already. Electric golf carts have been around for over 60 years - it is sad that with modern technology we are only just beginning to put electric cars on the road.

Last edited by pilatus1; 03.04.2013 at 01:19.
Reply With Quote
This user groans at pilatus1 for this post:
  #1298  
Old 03.04.2013, 01:18
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 9,453
Groaned at 390 Times in 338 Posts
Thanked 16,593 Times in 8,990 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Moving on again,


There is a lot to be saved, even if the electricity is generated by fossil fuels. In the current system, each automobile has it's own mini power plant, a very inefficient way of converting the fuel into usable energy. (thats over 750 million mini power plants in the world, expected to double in the next 30 years). Each one is nearly impossible to monitor in terms of efficiency and pollution. By creating the electricity in an centralized plant, fuel costs would drop and emissions drastically reduced using modern technologies that cannot be realistically used on each little car in the current system. Aside from this, what pollution that is produced could be generated outside of the heavily populated areas that are most congested with automobiles. (Think several big power plants on the outskirts of a city as opposed to millions of little ones inside of it.) We could largely eliminate smog in our urban areas while increasing fuel efficiency.
Also, the electric motor is relatively simple. It contains one moving part and needs little maintenance. No cooling system, no oil delivery system. Electric motors would last much longer with much less maintenance than their internal combustion counterparts.
Electric motors make very little noise. A big plus.
If you can plug the car in to charge at home, you never need to go to a gas station. Another savings in fuel and time efficiency. This would also cut out the middle men who sell gas, with increased monetary savings.
And the great thing is, the electric grids already exist to deliver the power to people's homes and subsequently to their cars. It all makes so much sense that it makes you wonder why were not doing it already. Electric golf carts have been around for 50 years - it is sad that with modern technology we are only just beginning to put electric cars on the road.
About "We could largely eliminate smog in our urban areas while increasing fuel efficiency" - if you go to a garage & look at an exhaust gas test being done on a modern vehicle you will see the device measures practically nothing. This smog statement is an old argument that does not stand up today.

If you just replace the middle man selling gas with a middle man selling electricity then where is the big benefit?

About "If you can plug the car in to charge at home". Many people do not have anywhere to park their car at home.

About "each automobile has it's own mini power plant, a very inefficient way of converting the fuel into usable energy." Electric motors used in electric vehicles are not efficient at all speeds, but instead are only efficient at a narrow range of speeds
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1299  
Old 03.04.2013, 01:42
pilatus1's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Milky Way
Posts: 1,680
Groaned at 141 Times in 97 Posts
Thanked 4,465 Times in 1,778 Posts
pilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond reputepilatus1 has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
About "We could largely eliminate smog in our urban areas while increasing fuel efficiency" - if you go to a garage & look at an exhaust gas test being done on a modern vehicle you will see the device measures practically nothing. This smog statement is an old argument that does not stand up today.
But for how long do these modern vehicles maintain that level of efficiency and low emissions? There is a reason why old cars are generally not seen on the road anymore - because they are inefficient gas guzzlers that create pollution. If you feel the smog statement does not stand up in modern times, I challenge you to go into your garage, shut the door, start your engine, and take a long nap inside...
Quote:
View Post
If you just replace the middle man selling gas with a middle man selling electricity then where is the big benefit?
For one, never having to physically go out of your way to deal with the middle man. Aside from this, the electricity 'middle man' could be a publicly or collectively owned utility company
Quote:
View Post

About "If you can plug the car in to charge at home". Many people do not have anywhere to park their car at home.
Ok, then, plug it in at work. Or in a parking garage. Or at a street side terminal much like a parking meter. I remember seeing in some parts of Alaska and Canada that nearly every parking space has an electric connection for plugging in engine block heaters in the wintertime. Its not hard to imagine.
Quote:
View Post

About "each automobile has it's own mini power plant, a very inefficient way of converting the fuel into usable energy." Electric motors used in electric vehicles are not efficient at all speeds, but instead are only efficient at a narrow range of speeds
Modern electronics, especially with more consumer-driven demand, could easily make electric cars efficient at all speeds(or already have). The new Tesla Model S motor has outperformed the BMW M5 in a drag race(from a dead stop and going through the full range of speeds...)
Reply With Quote
This user groans at pilatus1 for this post:
  #1300  
Old 03.04.2013, 01:44
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 10,792
Groaned at 229 Times in 193 Posts
Thanked 22,463 Times in 9,540 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
About "each automobile has it's own mini power plant, a very inefficient way of converting the fuel into usable energy." Electric motors used in electric vehicles are not efficient at all speeds, but instead are only efficient at a narrow range of speeds
I rather think that's a problem of the combustion motor. Of course every type of motor will be more efficient at some speeds than at others, but if you're driving short distances at slow speeds in urbanized areas you're often not getting anywhere near to optimal rpm, or operating temperature for that matter.

Then you've got to factor in that if you build an electric motor with continuously variable excitation (which is not being done by any present manufacturer as far as I know, as at present electric cars are very much conventional cars with electric motors fitted, but the next generation will be different) you can do away with the gearbox and also the clutch because you can output virtually any torque at any speed and at an acceptable efficiency, and can replace many functions presently performed by moving parts by solid-state circuitry which can do far longer stretches between requiring service and at a higher power density and without requiring oil. Consider moving on to hub motors and you can distribute the circuitry and switchgear over different locations rather than having everything under the hood and the possibilities for rethinking vehicle design from scratch are obvious.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank amogles for this useful post:
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 11:58.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0