Brink the game is real!

[Humate]

Awesome. Melbourne is fkn freezing! 6 degrees would be great

lol no its not

[Apples]

Yes 6% EXTRA to the atmosphere, the stuff we introduce to the atmosphere is carbon that has been underground for millions of years. That’s different from the natural carbon cycle which is only recycling the carbon currently present in the biosphere. We are adding while the rest of nature is only using what is already there. This means we’re now living with carbon levels that never have been this high since way before there were humans.

Thanks for that one, couldnt explain it better.

The problem is not the volumes, its the facts that we derail from the original carbon cycle, and again, when you look at CO2/Temperature charts the problem isnt the maximum point (we’ve been higher in some eras), but the slope and the velocity of the changes.

Peace

[tokamak]

The fact is that the scientific community may be fairly reliable when it comes to most areas of research, but climate change/the environment is NOT one of those areas. First we were all going to freeze in the 70’s from “global cooling”.

This has never been the scientific consensus and is was as much media hype as the entire quantum neurology new age stuff is today. Both are wildly popularised fringe science.

Then, in the 80’s we were certain that the sun would burn us all to ashes because of a depleted ozone layer.

That was an actual problem. It still is, people are still dying from skin cancer, vegetation and sea-life (from corals to whales) are being damaged as well. but we formed rigid treaties to ban CFK’s which has been incredibly effective so far. The ozone layer is often used as a success story on how the global community can make a fist in issues like this. That’s not to say we actually solved it but at least we got pretty far.

Now we have this. Sorry for being less than convinced by what science has to say about catastrophic environmental changes. What’s next? The moon’s gravitational pull is going to change “catastrophically” and crush our bones to dust? Or, I know. . . the earth’s magnetic field is going to go all out of whack and we’ll all die as a result. Okay Mr. Senator. . . I’ll take that grant money now so I can save the planet.

You argument is akin to ‘yo, what’s up with that? First them is all saying the earth is flat and now I’m suddenly supposed to believe the earth is round?’

It’s an understandable sentiment though and it plays a big role in the way a government should approach matters like these when it comes to informing the public.

However,the fact that science is actually capable of correcting itself rather than clinging on to disproven claims is one of it’s strengths and therefore you would err in judging it on it’s past mistakes. Let’s just put science aside for a moment, what else do we have to go by? We would just have to wait for unexpected catastrophes to happen which could easily be prevented, and believe me, environmental history is riddled with examples like that, entire civilizations have been toppled for not anticipating the destruction they caused to the environment.

[QUOTE=Vaporman;249232]You know who else has a lot to lose? The American taxpayer. If you think that the government is going to place burdensome penalties and fines on these companies and that new burden ISN’T going to be incorporated into the cost of the goods they supply, then you may be interested in a beautiful island paradise I have for sale. This is a scheme to generate more money for this bloated government to blow on enslaving entitlement programs at the expense of you and I.
Of course this all could have been a minor issue if our leaders would have grown a pair 2 decades ago and made plans and helped facilitate development of more refineries and more drilling for our own plentiful resources. But nah, we’re satisfied to pay 2 or 3 times what we should to any terrorist loving schmuck willing to sell it to us, and Canada.[/QUOTE]

Of course the tax burden will be presented in the costs of the goods they supply, companies would go bankrupt otherwise. However, this will also mean that the companies that manage to clean up their production lines will have less tax to pay over their pollution and thus have a substantial competitive advantage over their dirty competitors. Taxing pollution lets the free market take care of the innovation.

And it’s not like we’re choosing between the economy or the environment. They’re two sides of the same coin. Damaging the environment means damaging society. The public WILL bear the costs of pollution whether it is through experiencing the damage caused by climate change or through paying the cost put into preventing it. The difference here is that the cost of preventing it will be much lower than not mitigating the problem.

We can make some estimates in how much each extra degree will cost our global economy. That’s not scaremongering, that’s making a cost-benefit analysis. Emissions will never be a free product, whether you integrate the economic damage they cause or not. There’s lots of possibilities and lots of big industries are willing to change, the biggest blockade is the unfair competition this would cause should emissions not be taxed accordingly.
I’d even argue that including the external damage caused by these emissions is tantamount to a free market economy. Letting our societies share in the costs of the damage caused by others, that’s communism. As a CEO, cleaning up your production lines shouldn’t be a charity, it should be an investment.

[Vaporman]

This has never been the scientific consensus and is was as much media hype as the entire quantum neurology new age stuff is today. Both are wildly popularised fringe science.

Exactly my point. There rarely is scientific consensus on anything. Simply having a majority reach a conclusion on something does not make it truth. The peer review process and in some cases the scientific method itself is flawed and vulnerable to such things as “wild popularization”.

That was an actual problem.

Oh I don’t doubt that a bit. But it was subject to the same wild popularization as global cooling, and global warming.

However,the fact that science is actually capable of correcting itself rather than clinging on to disproven claims is one of it’s strengths and therefore you would err in judging it on it’s past mistakes.

I’m not judging it as completely useless in all matters pertaining to the envrionment. My point is that we need to approach these matters with a little more caution and a lot less of “The sky is falling” mentality. In a few years, we may find that the problem was far less severe than previously thought. So it makes sense to NOT jump ahead of ourselves and start passing poor legislation and digging ourselves even more of a giant hole from which to crawl out of.

And to stray off topic a bit from that: I’m sick and tired of being told that we as Americans must act to do something about these issues while the rest of the world goes about their business as usual while ignoring those same issues.

Of course the tax burden will be presented in the costs of the goods they supply, companies would go bankrupt otherwise. However, this will also mean that the companies that manage to clean up their production lines will have less tax to pay over their pollution and thus have a substantial competitive advantage over their dirty competitors. Taxing pollution lets the free market take care of the innovation.

This is why we have regulation. If it was such an important issue, carbon, then why not just place more restrictive regulations on the output of the energy producers. After all, this bloated government loves it some regulations! This is about MONEY. Gobs and gobs of money. It always has been and always will be. Our government sees dollar signs. And we will see our pockets dry up even faster than before.

As a CEO, cleaning up your production lines shouldn’t be a charity, it should be an investment.

Perhaps. But why bother at all if you’re not certain there is cause for alarm? As I said, many see man made global warming as whooey. Climategate anyone? It’s difficult to convince investors to invest in something that has so much doubt surrounding it. I don’t know if you noticed or not, but doubt and uncertainty doesn’t exactly float the boats of Wall Street goons.

[tokamak]

Exactly my point. There rarely is scientific consensus on anything. Simply having a majority reach a conclusion on something does not make it truth. The peer review process and in some cases the scientific method itself is flawed and vulnerable to such things as “wild popularization”.

I think you missed my last posts. Scientific consensus has nothing to do with a majority. There IS consensus on global warming, the projected ice-age was fringe science, big difference.

Oh I don’t doubt that a bit. But it was subject to the same wild popularization as global cooling, and global warming.

Again global cooling has never truly been taken seriously. Global warming and the ozone layer are real threats and deserve to have awareness raised appropriately.

I’m not judging it as completely useless in all matters pertaining to the envrionment.

Just the matters that might end up costing money? Sorry for being facetious here but I hear this a lot.

My point is that we need to approach these matters with a little more caution and a lot less of “The sky is falling” mentality. In a few years, we may find that the problem was far less severe than previously thought.

Which would be far less worse than finding out that the problem was actually far more severe than we previously thought. However this isn’t a matter of a coin toss, the scientific evidence we have for anthropogenic global warming and the disastrous (expensive) consequences should we chose not to do anything about it is overwhelming.

So it makes sense to NOT jump ahead of ourselves and start passing poor legislation and digging ourselves even more of a giant hole from which to crawl out of.

Inaction and remaining passive is a choice you can jump to just as much as being proactive in this issue. A really bad choice considering the lack of doubt that we’re facing a problem.

And to stray off topic a bit from that: I’m sick and tired of being told that we as Americans must act to do something about these issues while the rest of the world goes about their business as usual while ignoring those same issues.

That’s not off-topic, it’s a sentiment that you hear a lot of this. The reality is is that the US is the biggest polluter, the most obstructionist towards treaties and the slowest innovator we have. China has already starting cleaning up it’s industries even though it’s pollution per head is way lower than the US.

The Americans are being told to do something about this because they’re the ones lagging behind the rest of the world as well as slowing any progress down.

This is why we have regulation. If it was such an important issue, carbon, then why not just place more restrictive regulations on the output of the energy producers.

Carbon ceilings will hurt the economy way more than a carbon tax as there will be less scope for a producer to clean up his production lines to mitigate this. They won’t be able to make as money from innovating as they would with a carbon tax.

After all, this bloated government loves it some regulations! This is about MONEY. Gobs and gobs of money. It always has been and always will be. Our government sees dollar signs. And we will see our pockets dry up even faster than before.

This IS about money, definitely. The consequences of emitting carbon are NOT free, they will have to be paid, and if they’re going to be paid then the burden should lie with the polluter not the victims of the pollution. Again, making a society share the burden of the environmental damage, that’s communism.

Perhaps. But why bother at all if you’re not certain there is cause for alarm?

We are certain there’s cause for alarm. Besides, we wouldn’t even need to be this certain in order to take action. If the doctor told you have 50% chance of having a dangerous tumor, would you prefer not to jump the boat and opt out of treatment?

I can make this drier. If you have a 50% chance of losing a 100$ then spending up to 50$ to insure yourself against this would be a rational thing to do. Anything else would be gambling. We are certain that costs put into preventing global warming (as well as adapting to it) will be dwarfed by the costs of not doing anything at all and taking that extra 6 degrees up the chin.

As I said, many see man made global warming as whooey. Climategate anyone

Climategate was pure slander. Nothing extracted from those emails harmed the theory or it’s scientists one bit.

It’s difficult to convince investors to invest in something that has so much doubt surrounding it.

There’s no scientific doubt, only political doubt caused by the fossil fuel lobbies. This is the exact same scenario as with the tabacco companies. The science was there, the political will was not, resulting in millions dying from lung cancer. “Alarmist” scientists back then should be regarded as heroes who tragically failed to puncture the doubt-bubble created by the tobacco lobby. History shouldn’t repeat itself.

I don’t know if you noticed or not, but doubt and uncertainty doesn’t exactly float the boats of Wall Street goons.

That’s why promoting this artificial doubt in the face of the scientific certainty is a very malicious thing to do.

[Vaporman]

[QUOTE=tokamak;249314]
Climategate was pure slander. Nothing extracted from those emails harmed the theory or it’s scientists one bit.

There’s no scientific doubt, only political doubt caused by the fossil fuel lobbies. [/QUOTE]

I’ll leave this topic alone now. To deny the significance of Climategate and place the blame for doubt on fossil fuel lobbyists is reaching into the “Birther” and “Truther” playbook. Perhaps you feel the same about my own position. That’s fine. I’ll leave it at that.

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no...

[light_sh4v0r]

I don’t understand why people are always fighting over who’s fault this is. It’s a problem no matter who did this and we need a solution.

[DarkangelUK]

I agree to a point, but you still need to find the source of the problem before you can implement a solution.

[xTriXxy]

this will not change unless we will change our consument behavior. And this will not change either. We have to deal with that and accept life will be much more different in near future than we know it from present.

[H0RSE]

I agree to a point, but you still need to find the source of the problem before you can implement a solution.

My point was that there isn’t a problem - at least not one big enough to cause a concern. Certainly not the over hyped concern we have now.

What is happening with the climate has happened in the past and will happen in the future. Man’s contributions to the “problem” are dwarfed by nature itself. For man to think that it can drastically alter the climate/temperature of the planet, which has endured far worse than we dish out over millions of years, simply through our way of life, is laughable.

I think the planet is a bit more resilient than that.

[DarkangelUK]

Any change is good thing, regardless if there’s a problem or not. We’re woefully chewing through resources at an alarming rate, and our reliance on a limited resource needs to change either way, regardless if it’s causing a problem to the climate or not… the threat is only going to spurn more longer lasting solutions and this can only be a good thing.

[H0RSE]

Any change is good thing, regardless if there’s a problem or not. We’re woefully chewing through resources at an alarming rate, and our reliance on a limited resource needs to change either way, regardless if it’s causing a problem to the climate or not… the threat is only going to spurn more longer lasting solutions and this can only be a good thing.

I agree we need to change our wasteful ways and dependence on fossil fuels, but for far greater reasons than the overhyped global warming. Climate shouldn’t be the concern leading the way.

[DarkangelUK]

I’d say the prevention of the earths waters rising and wiping out a good chunk of the landmass is a pretty damned good reason… unless you can think of a better one!

[H0RSE]

I’d say the prevention of the earths waters rising and wiping out a good chunk of the landmass is a pretty damned good reason… unless you can think of a better one!
It would be, if it was real - since it is only fear-mongering and false alarms right now, there are plenty of better reasons.

The reason I was thinking of was an overall betterment of global society and mankind. “Betterment” as in a higher standard of living and evolved culture, that effects all aspects of our lives, not just the climate. We need to change simply because our way of life is outdated and needs to be rethought and redesigned.

[DarkangelUK]

You don’t know it’s false, no one knows it’s false, no one knows either way at all… else they’d stop trying to prove either way. To state it as a fact is blindly naive and ignorant and so stupid to ignore otherwise that I’m glad people destined to seek to the truth keep seeking the truth rather than just sitting back and being blind to the possibilities. All you’ve done is gather an opinion from reasoning you want to be true and settled way WAY too early into the evidence… which is why your opinion will never be treated with value.

[LyndonL]

And we are looking into ways to solve the problem. Have you not noticed the massive ramping up of alternative fuelled cars and power sources of late? Or the electricity producing devices?

I read Gizmag and at least 1 in 10 articles is about something or other either running on an alternative fuel, or an alternative fuel becoming more robust.

Sahara Solar Breeder Project

Hawaii’s Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion Plant

[Vaporman]

[QUOTE=LyndonL;249338]And we are looking into ways to solve the problem. Have you not noticed the massive ramping up of alternative fuelled cars and power sources of late? Or the electricity producing devices?

I read Gizmag and at least 1 in 10 articles is about something or other either running on an alternative fuel, or an alternative fuel becoming more robust.[/QUOTE]

I share H0RSE’s position with regard to this. I too think it is in our best interest as a society to seek cleaner, more abundant sources of energy. I am V.P. of an independent propane distributor. Propane could easily supplant gasoline as a motor fuel. It burns clean, it’s most generally cheaper. But there is no infrastructure for propane as a motor fuel, save for in the most crowded of cities. And there is no infrastructure because there is not enough being produced and stored to meet such a demand. WE decide what fuel source leads the way. If we all decided to switch to propane powered cars, do you think the fuel industry would push for, and car manufacturers would have any incentive to produce, gasoline powered ones?
Propane is a by-product of the oil refining process. Imagine if right this very moment we had double the refineries in this country. Double or triple the oil rigs as well. Gasoline, propane, natural gas would all be so plentiful that we could pick and choose what we liked. But since the environmental nutjobs think refineries are the devil and oil is liquid death we are instead left to rely on what little we can produce and just buy the rest off of foreign countries at ludicrous prices.

[LyndonL]

Ah “Vaporman” makes sense now.

[H0RSE]

which is why your opinion will never be treated with value.

saying my opinion will never be treated with value, is also an opinion.

share H0RSE’s position with regard to this. I too think it is in our best interest as a society to seek cleaner, more abundant sources of energy. I am V.P. of an independent propane distributor. Propane could easily supplant gasoline as a motor fuel. It burns clean, it’s most generally cheaper. But there is no infrastructure for propane as a motor fuel, save for in the most crowded of cities.

The first diesel engine was run on peanut oil - and it still does to this day. It was purposely designed this way so farmers could run their machinery using their own fuel (bio-diesel.) Any diesel engine is is equipped to run off bio-diesel fuel, without any modifications. A responsible society would embrace this and use it.

Sadly, we live in a monetary based society, where profit is everything. Henry Ford’s model T originally ran off of ethanol. This contributed to execution of prohibition in the states in the 1920’s - 30’s. Rockefeller was a leading power who pushed for the legislation, forcing Ford to use gasoline instead of alcohol.

Even back as far as the first automobile, Big Oil was corrupt. As long as we maintain the current social structure, nothing will change.

Propane is a by-product of the oil refining process. Imagine if right this very moment we had double the refineries in this country. Double or triple the oil rigs as well. Gasoline, propane, natural gas would all be so plentiful that we could pick and choose what we liked.

There is no money to be made when a commodity is in abundance. Scarcity breeds profit.

[tokamak]

[QUOTE=Vaporman;249317]I’ll leave this topic alone now. To deny the significance of Climategate and place the blame for doubt on fossil fuel lobbyists is reaching into the “Birther” and “Truther” playbook. Perhaps you feel the same about my own position. That’s fine. I’ll leave it at that.

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no...

I don’t feel the same about my position, I can really understand why people can think climategate is a big deal if the media is all you have to go by.

I mostly blame the scientists themselves who seem to have a hard time with making a complex issue like this understandable for the public who then in turn have to go to populist media for their source of information if they don’t want to spent way too much time and effort into doing their own fact-checking.

However, the reality is that it hasn’t punched a dent in the integrity of the science.

I don’t know about you but in my book the Daily Mail has a very bad record for producing objective news. In an interview with the BBC Phil Jones said: “there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity” so no U-turn whatsoever from that guy.

Try Nature, a very authorative source on science matters: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7273/full/462545a.html

Nothing in the emails undermined anything.

I don’t understand why people are always fighting over who’s fault this is. It’s a problem no matter who did this and we need a solution.

It’s called fairness. If something gets damaged, it’s the damager that needs to pay for it. If it was free to damage property then people would do it if it suited them, it would happen way more often than when they would be held responsible which would result in a higher financial burden shared by society. In game theory this is called tragedy of the commons.

Now extend that to a global scale where the global economy will be severely damaged and destabilised and you’ll see how important it is to hold the polluters responsible.

What the opponents of a proactive stance against global warming want is basically letting society share the burden caused by a few polluting industries. That goes straight against the principles of a free market economy.