Climate Change is a fad.

Jun 2007
55,137
42,572
Ohio
Arguments made:
1 CO2 is a pollution
2 Ignoring CO2 means ignoring other pollution
3 renewable energy is cleaner
4 CFL and LED lights are not the same (agreed)
5 All environmental issues are interchangeable or connected
6 Pointing out the limits of technologies stifles progress
- and concluding with a personal attack

1 - No, it's a nutrient that's critical to the life cycle.
2 - It's not ignoring, it's about mitigating things while better options are figured out.
3 - No; it's a cost-benefit. The cleanest is nuclear power, but when it goes wrong it goes horribly wrong. Solar and wind are simply not viable for grid scale production (geographical exceptions exist)
1- I didn't call CO2 a pollutant, but too much of anything becomes one if you can't manage the excess. You need vitamins, but if you take too many of one kind, they can kill you. As development increases with population, the forests that turn it into oxygen are being depleted. The challenges of an ever more populated planet lean towards less oxygen and more CO2 in many ways so regardless of whether you think it's a problem now, it's bound to be in the future just because of more people.

2 - Rather than deal with the myriad of ways coal pollutes the environment, why not just continue to replace coal with other fuel sources?

3 - Renewable energy is renewable. Most of the time it's cleaner. Everything has a down side, and as you said we should aim to mitigate by slowly replacing that which causes more pollution with that which causes less. Energy efficiency can always be improved. Look at the changes in engineering to make cars more aerodynamic, we now have appliances that use much less electricity than in the past. That's a good thing.

4 - I can see why you saw that as conflating the two... the twisty bulbs do contain mercury, same as the office style tube lights. LED's do not.
I think phasing out incandescent lights sped up the development of LED technology by creating a need for it. And once people realized they only had to change a light bulb once every 5 or more years, they were fine with it. Now Trump is trying to bring back incandescent light bulbs, which no one is going to want because why would you want a light bulb that uses more electricity and has to be changed every couple of months?

5 - No; they are not. Even if we stick with just AGW. There's the questions of:
- is the earth warming
- are humans responsible
- is that good or bad
Those questions get tied in to
- pollution in general
- energy efficiency
- environmental toxicity
I believe the earth is warming, but my opinion doesn't really matter. Are humans responsible - case in point, again, the Dust Bowl - man causes all sorts of environmental problems, always has. Proof of that is if all of mankind dropped dead tomorrow, the entire earth would be cleaner due to our loss. Hell, the concept of cleanliness only exists because humans exist. We are literally the only creature on earth with the capacity to permanently destroy the environment.

I suppose there are benefits to more CO2 but not nearly enough to deliberately increase our output of it. A more appropriate question would be is our dependence on fossil fuels sustainable either way? All fossil fuels create other problems besides global climate change, so it doesn't matter what you believe about AGW, an ever larger human population is going to create an increasing demand on fossil fuels, multiplying ALL the problems it causes in "regular" pollution so we'll have to address that sooner or later anyway.

Ex: We can stop CO2 production with solar plants, but the cost of energy would increase so much that the poorest people would convert from subsistence levels to starvation levels (like with ethanol, the extra demand on food increased prices and the starvation deaths that year increased 800k over the year before, ending a downward trend in starvation deaths).
It isn't going to happen in one day, it's a transition. And lots of countries already don't have money to import fossil fuels or even worse there are plenty countries that have them and who's governments allow them to be exploited to the detriment of other things like farming & fishing. What good is it to have oil and coal in abundance if the trade off is your drinking water and there's no fish to eat? This is happening right now in Africa if you care to read about it. People in the oil producing countries there aren't benefiting whatsoever from having Exxon come in there and build wells and pipelines except in negative ways.

6 - Research and progress is important, but implementing technologies for tasks they are not designed to accomodate is going to create more problems then they solve. Look at the cautionary tale of German investment in solar.
Do you know when Amazon first started and it almost went bankrupt? Now look at it. There's no such thing as guaranteed success on the first try and the development and better use of new technology is an ongoing process. You keep acting like this all has to be draconian and absolute. I don't agree. We just can't quit trying. Which is what most of the right seems to want and I don't understand the can't do attitude at all. They believe in missile defense and going to Mars, but not phasing out fossil fuels. It's myopic and not the America I've been raised to believe in.
 
Jun 2013
18,335
16,111
Here
The scare tactic about climate started at least in the 70's and it's always 10-20 years out.



Pollution and AGW are separate topics.

Nobody is advocating for more pollution. Co2 is better defined as a nutrient, btw.



What part explained would suffice?

- that it's flat earth science
- that the models have been wrong an order of magnitude more than right
- that the small scale objectively observable data disproves the premise
- that the IPCC head has stated that it's notabout the environment, but redistribution of wealth

There are so many ways that the climate fraud can be demonstrated it's something if a joke at this point.



China is not so great at creating new inventions as they are at copying something that's been made already. Their strategic positioning can't be ignored though.

If these smart people went into a real science, then they would have to deal with replicateable results and scientific integrity and all that.



It's hilarious when people engage in flame bait while playing victim to it.

Anyway, renewable energy performances (with geographical exceptions) are simply not viable for grid scale production. We can get into the physics of why that is if you like.




Its counter productive because the climate cult is a losing argument. It needs to be false appeals like the myth of the 97% consensus, which, even if true is still meaningless.
Scare tactic?

Actually it was that more and more people woke up to the FACT that human beings can IN FACT, have a negative effect on both local and GLOBAL environments, in ADDITION to what occurs naturally.

Cuyahoga River Fire - Ohio History Central

Love Canal - Wikipedia

Smog - Wikipedia

"For more than forty-five years the Clean Air Act has cut pollution as the U.S. economy has grown."
Progress Cleaning the Air and Improving People's Health | US EPA


"Forty-five years ago, Lake Erie was so polluted that TIME Magazine stated it was, “in danger of dying by suffocation.”
Protecting Lake Erie and Reforming the Renewable Fuel Standard


PCB's
Success Stories from the PCB Cleanup and Disposal Program | US EPA

https://www.history.com/news/7-deadly-environmental-disasters

As more and more vegetation is removed and covered with pavement, concrete, rooftops and other materials - Does one need a PhD to feel how hot pavement gets?
Heat Island Impacts | US EPA


Photosynthesis, water and the production of oxygen - Remove vegetation and its interactions with H2O with a change to the health of the oceans by temperature changes??? What happens? Burn carbon storing materials, what happens
Chemistry for Biologists: Photosynthesis

Oxygen - Wikipedia

Source of Half Earth's Oxygen Gets Little Credit

plants store CO2 - Google Search

Too much water, can kill you.
"Drinking large quantities of water in a short period of time can throw off the body's balance of electrolytes, causing brain swelling and leading to seizures, coma, or even death. "
Georgia teen dies from drinking too much water, Gatorade

Water intoxication
Water intoxication - Wikipedia

"Desertification"
Desertification - Wikipedia

Its called "IMBALANCE".....and many things can be affected.....from pH levels to too many ignorant and partisan people making decisions about some things.

Imbalance can also apply to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, because of all the human activity that adds to what would occur were there no human beings (and all their activity) present, on the planet.



"The Origins of EPA"
The Origins of EPA | US EPA


"THE HISTORY OF EARTH DAY"
The History of Earth Day | Earth Day Network

"Where Did the Carter White House's Solar Panels Go?"
Where Did the Carter White House's Solar Panels Go?

ConservAmerica, under siege (as the planet is) by the notion that in order to "conform" to the current and neo conservative/republican POV. one has to deny (without any objective and real facts to refute it) climate change and use it as a political wedge, ignoring the reality that the negative effects are not going to discriminate as to anyone's political affiliation.

ConservAmerica
ConservAmerica - Wikipedia

There is NO Planet B!!

Intelligent people and future generations should NOT have to pay the price of some people's ignorance and/or greed.

Just think what a leader the U.S. could be by now, if it were not for greedy and profit driven special interests?


America and the globe need leaders that also love intelligent people, not just poorly educated and poorly informed people that prefer to vote on hearsay rather than the understanding of facts and reality.



Yes, facts and reality are scary to some people and that's why they go into states of denial, about them. It's NOT scary that people woke up to how human beings can affect the planet, what's scary are the people that do not seem to be either basically informed, are too ignorant or too lazy to inform themselves and/or people that refuse to acknowledge simple fact of reality. If they are fortunate enough to have a toilet in their bathroom they should also know flushing that toilet does not send the waste into some black hole, never to be seen again. But I did hear a story one time about how some kids, visiting a grocery store, wanted to see how they made milk in the back room.

Then there are things like this:
"A startling number of American adults think chocolate milk comes from brown cows"
A startling number of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows

Has the internet helped or hindered the average intelligence of Americans?

While it is a source of a lot of factual information. It is also a breeding ground and avenue for lots of misinformation and people like Russians using it to try to influence American elections or those of any other nation.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2014
33,166
6,066
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
1- I didn't call CO2 a pollutant, but too much of anything becomes one if you can't manage the excess. You need vitamins, but if you take too many of one kind, they can kill you. As development increases with population, the forests that turn it into oxygen are being depleted. The challenges of an ever more populated planet lean towards less oxygen and more CO2 in many ways so regardless of whether you think it's a problem now, it's bound to be in the future just because of more people.
To be clear; atmospheric co2 is just over 400PPM, when it was first measured was closer to 350 ppm. The LC50 (Lethal concentration for 50%) for co2 is around 20000 ppm. People who live on submarines for 6 months or more of the year are often living and breathing in 10000 ppm with no issues.

You mentioned the deforestation; you may not be aware, but all projections concerning deforestation assumed that the trees would not regrow without being planted. At one point the regrowth was so far beyond expectation that it was called "galloping forests".


2 - Rather than deal with the myriad of ways coal pollutes the environment, why not just continue to replace coal with other fuel sources?
Costs. When producing 100's of MWh per day, a 10c difference in fuel costs turns into folding money real quick.

The viable alternatives to coal are natural gas, hydro, or nuclear.
3 - Renewable energy is renewable. Most of the time it's cleaner. Everything has a down side, and as you said we should aim to mitigate by slowly replacing that which causes more pollution with that which causes less. Energy efficiency can always be improved. Look at the changes in engineering to make cars more aerodynamic, we now have appliances that use much less electricity than in the past. That's a good thing.
For solar to be viable at grid scale, the conversion efficiency needs to double for the same cost (geographical exceptions exist). If you are adding power to a village that never had it before, sure.

I agree that increasing efficiency is a good thing, and progress is being made consistently.

Interesting fact LEED (energy efficiency certification for new construction) certified buildings, because so many pieces of equipment are added for efficiency purposes, wind up using significantly more energy than the "wasteful" alternative.

I think phasing out incandescent lights sped up the development of LED technology by creating a need for it. And once people realized they only had to change a light bulb once every 5 or more years, they were fine with it. Now Trump is trying to bring back incandescent light bulbs, which no one is going to want because why would you want a light bulb that uses more electricity and has to be changed every couple of months?
That may be. I prefer incandescent light, it most closely approximates natural sunlight. What I dislike about the twisty bulbs is that flicker rate, you can't consciously see it, but the lights turn on and off at 60 Hz (50 in Europe), it really messes with some people.


I believe the earth is warming, but my opinion doesn't really matter. Are humans responsible - case in point, again, the Dust Bowl - man causes all sorts of environmental problems, always has. Proof of that is if all of mankind dropped dead tomorrow, the entire earth would be cleaner due to our loss. Hell, the concept of cleanliness only exists because humans exist. We are literally the only creature on earth with the capacity to permanently destroy the environment.

I suppose there are benefits to more CO2 but not nearly enough to deliberately increase our output of it. A more appropriate question would be is our dependence on fossil fuels sustainable either way? All fossil fuels create other problems besides global climate change, so it doesn't matter what you believe about AGW, an ever larger human population is going to create an increasing demand on fossil fuels, multiplying ALL the problems it causes in "regular" pollution so we'll have to address that sooner or later anyway.



It isn't going to happen in one day, it's a transition. And lots of countries already don't have money to import fossil fuels or even worse there are plenty countries that have them and who's governments allow them to be exploited to the detriment of other things like farming & fishing. What good is it to have oil and coal in abundance if the trade off is your drinking water and there's no fish to eat? This is happening right now in Africa if you care to read about it. People in the oil producing countries there aren't benefiting whatsoever from having Exxon come in there and build wells and pipelines except in negative ways.
Yes, there's a transition, but part of that is pushing technologies where they are not suited. Solar in Germany for example stands to lose on its investment by about 5 billion per year averaged out.


Do you know when Amazon first started and it almost went bankrupt? Now look at it. There's no such thing as guaranteed success on the first try and the development and better use of new technology is an ongoing process. You keep acting like this all has to be draconian and absolute. I don't agree. We just can't quit trying. Which is what most of the right seems to want and I don't understand the can't do attitude at all. They believe in missile defense and going to Mars, but not phasing out fossil fuels. It's myopic and not the America I've been raised to believe in.
its a bonus when you get government deals that determine who succeeds and who fails.

You may realize that those who are not concerned have little to no qualms about phasing out fossil fuels. There's no real point in using electric cars if they need to be charged by diesel generators.

Our society really is on the cusp of finding those solutions that will reduce oil to nothing more than a lubricant. Whether it be through developing Tesla type technologies (like the wireless power generator that was intended to use the natural flux of the earth to produce and distribute power) or by discovering the secret to room temperature superconductivity, these things are a matter of when and not if.
 
Oct 2014
33,166
6,066
C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
Scare tactic?

Actually it was that more and more people woke up to the FACT that human beings can IN FACT, have a negative effect on both local and GLOBAL environments, in ADDITION to what occurs naturally.

Cuyahoga River Fire - Ohio History Central

Love Canal - Wikipedia

Smog - Wikipedia

"For more than forty-five years the Clean Air Act has cut pollution as the U.S. economy has grown."
Progress Cleaning the Air and Improving People's Health | US EPA


"Forty-five years ago, Lake Erie was so polluted that TIME Magazine stated it was, “in danger of dying by suffocation.”
Protecting Lake Erie and Reforming the Renewable Fuel Standard


PCB's
Success Stories from the PCB Cleanup and Disposal Program | US EPA

https://www.history.com/news/7-deadly-environmental-disasters

As more and more vegetation is removed and covered with pavement, concrete, rooftops and other materials - Does one need a PhD to feel how hot pavement gets?
Heat Island Impacts | US EPA


Photosynthesis, water and the production of oxygen - Remove vegetation and its interactions with H2O with a change to the health of the oceans by temperature changes??? What happens? Burn carbon storing materials, what happens
Chemistry for Biologists: Photosynthesis

Oxygen - Wikipedia

Source of Half Earth's Oxygen Gets Little Credit

plants store CO2 - Google Search

Too much water, can kill you.
"Drinking large quantities of water in a short period of time can throw off the body's balance of electrolytes, causing brain swelling and leading to seizures, coma, or even death. "
Georgia teen dies from drinking too much water, Gatorade

Water intoxication
Water intoxication - Wikipedia

"Desertification"
Desertification - Wikipedia

Its called "IMBALANCE".....and many things can be affected.....from pH levels to too many ignorant and partisan people making decisions about some things.

Imbalance can also apply to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, because of all the human activity that adds to what would occur were there no human beings (and all their activity) present, on the planet.



"The Origins of EPA"
The Origins of EPA | US EPA


"THE HISTORY OF EARTH DAY"
The History of Earth Day | Earth Day Network

"Where Did the Carter White House's Solar Panels Go?"
Where Did the Carter White House's Solar Panels Go?

ConservAmerica, under siege (as the planet is) by the notion that in order to "conform" to the current and neo conservative/republican POV. one has to deny (without any objective and real facts to refute it) climate change and use it as a political wedge, ignoring the reality that the negative effects are not going to discriminate as to anyone's political affiliation.

ConservAmerica
ConservAmerica - Wikipedia

There is NO Planet B!!

Intelligent people and future generations should NOT have to pay the price of some people's ignorance and/or greed.

Just think what a leader the U.S. could be by now, if it were not for greedy and profit driven special interests?


America and the globe need leaders that also love intelligent people, not just poorly educated and poorly informed people that prefer to vote on hearsay rather than the understanding of facts and reality.



Yes, facts and reality are scary to some people and that's why they go into states of denial, about them. It's NOT scary that people woke up to how human beings can affect the planet, what's scary are the people that do not seem to be either basically informed, are too ignorant or too lazy to inform themselves and/or people that refuse to acknowledge simple fact of reality. If they are fortunate enough to have a toilet in their bathroom they should also know flushing that toilet does not send the waste into some black hole, never to be seen again. But I did hear a story one time about how some kids, visiting a grocery store, wanted to see how they made milk in the back room.

Then there are things like this:
"A startling number of American adults think chocolate milk comes from brown cows"
A startling number of Americans think chocolate milk comes from brown cows

Has the internet helped or hindered the average intelligence of Americans?

While it is a source of a lot of factual information. It is also a breeding ground and avenue for lots of misinformation and people like Russians using it to try to influence American elections or those of any other nation.
Sorry this is just too much to decompress.

Yes, it is a scare tactic, people were "woken up" through propaganda and yearly reminders of impending doom, most recently the 12 years to doom.

It's a major factor in the deceit.
- prophecy of doom
- far enough away that it will be forgotten, but close enough that "action is necessary" (10-20 years is a favorite)
- half way in create a new prophecy and start over, call it "refinement"

People are relatively easily fooled in that sense in that the education system has failed to the degree that "a startling number of American adults think chocolate milk comes from brown cows."
 
Mar 2015
29,652
15,212
Mad Prophet
To be clear; atmospheric co2 is just over 400PPM, when it was first measured was closer to 350 ppm. The LC50 (Lethal concentration for 50%) for co2 is around 20000 ppm. People who live on submarines for 6 months or more of the year are often living and breathing in 10000 ppm with no issues.

You mentioned the deforestation; you may not be aware, but all projections concerning deforestation assumed that the trees would not regrow without being planted. At one point the regrowth was so far beyond expectation that it was called "galloping forests".




Costs. When producing 100's of MWh per day, a 10c difference in fuel costs turns into folding money real quick.

The viable alternatives to coal are natural gas, hydro, or nuclear.


For solar to be viable at grid scale, the conversion efficiency needs to double for the same cost (geographical exceptions exist). If you are adding power to a village that never had it before, sure.

I agree that increasing efficiency is a good thing, and progress is being made consistently.

Interesting fact LEED (energy efficiency certification for new construction) certified buildings, because so many pieces of equipment are added for efficiency purposes, wind up using significantly more energy than the "wasteful" alternative.



That may be. I prefer incandescent light, it most closely approximates natural sunlight. What I dislike about the twisty bulbs is that flicker rate, you can't consciously see it, but the lights turn on and off at 60 Hz (50 in Europe), it really messes with some people.




Yes, there's a transition, but part of that is pushing technologies where they are not suited. Solar in Germany for example stands to lose on its investment by about 5 billion per year averaged out.




its a bonus when you get government deals that determine who succeeds and who fails.

You may realize that those who are not concerned have little to no qualms about phasing out fossil fuels. There's no real point in using electric cars if they need to be charged by diesel generators.

Our society really is on the cusp of finding those solutions that will reduce oil to nothing more than a lubricant. Whether it be through developing Tesla type technologies (like the wireless power generator that was intended to use the natural flux of the earth to produce and distribute power) or by discovering the secret to room temperature superconductivity, these things are a matter of when and not if.
Shilling for the fossil fuel industry....