The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Anthropogenic Global Warming Debate
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 05-26-2009, 06:02 PM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Unfortunately necessity is the mother of invention only when people see it, and those who sees it first and takes appropriate action comes out on top. Those that turn a blind eye and wait, tend to be at the mercy of the former. The genie is already out of the bottle so to speak. Whoever can come up with an economically viable alternative renewable fuel source first is likely to become extremely powerful in the world, economically and politically. The race has already begun, just as it did in WWII for the bomb and in the 60's for the moon.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard

Last edited by Akula2ssn : 05-26-2009 at 06:14 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-26-2009, 07:28 PM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default



Every 'fact' you read on the internet or hear on the radio isn't always true.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-26-2009, 07:45 PM
Akula2ssn's Avatar
Akula2ssn Akula2ssn is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,454
Default

Or in many cases not the whole truth.

I remember in one of my classes I took when I was back in college, the prof mentioned that Canada has quite a bit of oil up there. However, I think he said the problem they have is the sand content or something in the deposits is so high that it requires a great deal of extra refining. It wasn't until oil prices were sky high that drilling that oil was even economically viable. So it doesn't seem that simply having domestic deposits is enough to ensure lower prices. It was a course on climate change that I took for my oceanography degree. They also mentioned the whole thing about bio fuels and the problems with energy consumption when trying to mass produce it as well as mentioned work on developing much more energy efficient processes for production. I highly doubt the process a farmer can use to produce bio fuels to run his farming equipment is going to be energy efficient on a continuous industrial scale, but it probably works on a small batch by batch scale.
__________________

"Don't confuse facts with reality."
-Robert D. Ballard

Last edited by Akula2ssn : 05-26-2009 at 08:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-26-2009, 10:47 PM
MonsieurHood's Avatar
MonsieurHood MonsieurHood is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,352
Default

Personally I think the whole global warming thing has gotten totally out of control. Perhaps the industrial revolution did do some harm to the atmosphere, perhaps the testing of nuclear weapons after World War II did so as well, and perhaps natural factors like sunspots and glacial ice cycles have had some weird effects on the weather, but It's obviously not as bad as some doomsayers are trying to paint it and scaring the wits out of everyone, or as bad as some entrepeneurs are trying to paint it, in order to sell solar panels and windmills (Talk about raping the landscape! These monstrosities are beginning to blot the earth like the plague and combined with ubiquitous and equally ugly cell phone towers threaten to uglify every horizon with sky-high metal crap!). I also believe that some of the measures we've taken like reducing factory emissions and vehicle emissions and cleaning up polluted waterways are having a percievable effect and allowing the Earth to clear it's own air somewhat. The air just seems cleaner and easier to breathe than it did when I was a kid. Having lived quite a while, and breathed a lot of air, I've noticed an improvement over the past few years. I do not believe that carbon offsets make one damn bit of difference as you're only paying for the priviledge to pollute. A large percentage of the planet is carbon, all plant and animal life is based on carbon, we wear it as jewelry, write with pencils made from it, so I don't think cooking a steak on the outdoor grill with it is going to harm the atmosphere. The Earth has natural filters and natural defenses that defend it from too much gobbledegook in it's atmosphere. Plants produce oxygen, the ocean filters water that goes back into our atmosphere, and comes down on us as rain. Sure, we need to do better at producing less pollution, duh! We should recycle and not take the Earth for granted. But let's not go overboard going green like we went overboard stuffing coal and oil smoke into the atmosphere for most of the 19th and 20th centuries. Two wrongs don't make a right. I think fear, panic and greed are the real worst enemies humanity faces, not an extra carbon molecule or two in our atmosphere.
__________________
"One of the many, the proud, the friends of Zardoz".
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-27-2009, 12:44 AM
TheTrekkie's Avatar
TheTrekkie TheTrekkie is offline
Commander
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 1,030
Default

Probably it will come like the destruction of Romulus:

Some people warned - nobody listened

Now the people listen - but nobody acts

When they start acting - it's already too late and the point of no return was passed long ago.
__________________
And if tyrants take me, And throw me in prison, My thoughts will burst free, Like blossoms in season.
Foundations will crumble, The structure will tumble, And free men will cry:
Thoughts are free!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-27-2009, 03:34 AM
horatio's Avatar
horatio horatio is offline
Fleet Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 9,282
Default

For all you who believe that the Earth is flat, that we don't descend from apes, that George Soros caused the financial crisis or that there is no climate change.
Suppose you are right and the unlikely scenario that CO2 has no effect upon the climate is true. All the countermeasures like CO2-taxes or reforestation will have no bad effects:

CO2 taxes substitute conventional labour and capital income taxes, so switching taxes makes no extra bad effect upon business. Furthermore, it creates incentives to invest into new energy technologies, which is not good per se, as the old machines can no more be used anymore, yet in a recession like right now, any incentive to invest is welcome. Check, no bad effect.
What about forestation in a world where overpopulation and food scarcity are big problems? True, the land for trees could be used to plant food even in the other climate heating scenario. But coal and oil runs out in a few decades, so why not plant some trees as energy source? Check, no bad effect.

It's a situation with asymmetric risks: doing something against climate change is good (I think the good effects of "demand side" measures like CO2 taxes or cap-and-trade and "supply side" measures like building trees to convert CO2 into oxygen are obvious)) while doing nothing is bad. Doing something although climate change does not exist is neutral while doing nothing is neutral too. Good or neutral by activity, neutral or bad by passivity.
To use an analogy, if you see thick smoke coming from the neighbour house, do you take a stroll and take a good look until you see flames or do you call the fire station?

Last edited by horatio : 05-27-2009 at 03:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-27-2009, 04:55 AM
tannerwaterbury's Avatar
tannerwaterbury tannerwaterbury is offline
Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by horatio View Post
For all you who believe that the Earth is flat, that we don't descend from apes, that George Soros caused the financial crisis or that there is no climate change.
Suppose you are right and the unlikely scenario that CO2 has no effect upon the climate is true. All the countermeasures like CO2-taxes or reforestation will have no bad effects:

CO2 taxes substitute conventional labour and capital income taxes, so switching taxes makes no extra bad effect upon business. Furthermore, it creates incentives to invest into new energy technologies, which is not good per se, as the old machines can no more be used anymore, yet in a recession like right now, any incentive to invest is welcome. Check, no bad effect.
What about forestation in a world where overpopulation and food scarcity are big problems? True, the land for trees could be used to plant food even in the other climate heating scenario. But coal and oil runs out in a few decades, so why not plant some trees as energy source? Check, no bad effect.

It's a situation with asymmetric risks: doing something against climate change is good (I think the good effects of "demand side" measures like CO2 taxes or cap-and-trade and "supply side" measures like building trees to convert CO2 into oxygen are obvious)) while doing nothing is bad. Doing something although climate change does not exist is neutral while doing nothing is neutral too. Good or neutral by activity, neutral or bad by passivity.
To use an analogy, if you see thick smoke coming from the neighbour house, do you take a stroll and take a good look until you see flames or do you call the fire station?
Well now i dont think people are saying that there is no climate change, I think what some people are trying to say is that they dont believe that man has the capabilities YET to change the climate. Also lets think about this, if we try and limit OUR CO2 output (which I find ridiculous in the utmost sense) we really wouldnt be affecting the rest of the output caused by nature. And another thing, everyone is saying that CO2 is bad for US, but have we all considered wether it might be good for other things, like PLANTLIFE?! There has been a study taken at a University (forgot which one, will get that as soon as I remember) in which 2 greenhouses are to be exposed to certain amounts of CO2, the one with the smaller amount of CO2 in the air showed below average growth while the other greenhouse with Above normal amounts showed ABUNDANT growth, and not to mention the fact that there appeared to be more Oxygen within that one greenhouse than within the other. This PROVES without a shadow of a doubt that CO2 is good for this Planet, and honestly, we cant do a damn thing to curve its output one bit. Nature OVERTAKES what man does. The number one outputter of CO2 is NOT man, but WATER. Man emits less than 2 PERCENT of the natural output of CO2. So i guess if you figured out by now, i am a CO2 supporter.

UPDATE: Found the link to that CO2 Greenhouse experiment.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releas...-hcb020609.php
__________________
ALL PRAISE TO ZARDOZ!

GREAT SCOTT!!! ANOTHER FRIEND OF ZARDOZ!


Last edited by tannerwaterbury : 05-27-2009 at 05:03 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-27-2009, 04:59 AM
Botany Bay's Avatar
Botany Bay Botany Bay is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Berlin
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury View Post
And another thing, everyone is saying that CO2 is bad for US, but have we all considered wether it might be good for other things, like PLANTLIFE?!
Yeah, what was plantlife without our CO2 for all those millions and millions of years?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-27-2009, 05:53 AM
FanWriter45's Avatar
FanWriter45 FanWriter45 is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Conway, Arkansas. It's a nice little town with three Universities in it, and surrounded by woods.
Posts: 3,051
Default

The facts of life, re: global climate change.

1) it exists.

2) it may or may not be the result of mankind pumping vast ammounts of CO2 into the atmosphere, 24/7/365. (All evidence points to this being true. differences in solar output, although measurable, are not significant.)

3) It's already too late to stop the worst effects. Even if we all stopped producing greenhouse gasses today, it will take over 100 years for the effects to dissipate.

4) Global Warming will cause extreme weather as more and more energy is pumped into the system, thanks to the trapped warmth. There will be droughts, famines and war because of this. Human fertility rates will plummet. (Add to this the coming shortage of fresh drinking water, and we'll truly have a catastrophe on our hands.)
__________________
Number Two: Conform, Number Six! Conform!

Number Six: I will not be stamped, filed, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! I am a person.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-27-2009, 06:11 AM
That Metal Beastie's Avatar
That Metal Beastie That Metal Beastie is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Overhere
Posts: 2,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tannerwaterbury View Post
Im starting this thread because I would like to know everyone's opinions on Anthropogenic (Manmade) Global Warming. Do you Believe that man is solely responsible for causing Global Warming? Also, instead of people just Arguing about it senselesly, lets make this a friendly debate. Both sides of this argument should state your point of view, then discuss WHY that POV is accurate. And GO!
There's perhaps a problem in the wording of your question, tanner- Is man solely responsible for global warming? The answer is- Most likely not. Are humans affecting the earth's climate? And if so to what degree(no pun intended)? Does man-affected global warming exist? If so, is that neccessarily negative thing? Is it permanent? Can it be reversed? These are some of the queries that need be (and have been) made to thoughtfully discuss this topic.

I think one would need to be wearing 'blinders' to believe humans do not affect the earth and its atmosphere. But there a great many other questions, some mentioned above, are posed.

Quality of life issues are most immediately important and we do know that industrial and auto emmissions can and do affect the quality of the air we breathe. And affect other things such as land and water.

Hmmm let's see, earth, air and waters, that's the land the skies and the seas. That just about covers everthi... No, there's space. Fortunately we're not trashing...ummm.....oh well

I've slipped into sarcasm.

The anthropogenesis of Global Warming is probably not a reality but still there's much more to consider regarding our stewardship of the planet.
__________________
'A screaming comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.'

Thomas Pynchon
'GRAVITY'S RAINBOW'
Reply With Quote
Reply


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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:06 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.