Take the $100,000 Global Warming Believer Challenge!

[TheDemonLord]

Climate change is actually an area where I sit more on the fence than most would expect.

Firstly - we should do something about our reliance on Fossil Fuels, with a view to lessen our impact on the environment - this is just good sense, regardless of Change or not. Likewise with all manner of industry - the less impact we have the better.

Where I have issue is that we quite simply do not understand how the Ice Age formed/thawed - Without an understanding of how this process works without manmade intervention, I do raise a skeptical eyebrow at the conclusion that any Weather changes could only be from the influence of Man.

Second issue is that both sides are guilty of funding 'science' in order to push an Agenda, both the Climate change deniers and the Greenies.

I personally prefer my science abscent of a political ideology.

[Berries]

That will come when we die.

No doubt while trying to keep up on a group ride.

[TheDemonLord]

You will be selling your motorbike and car if you have one and buying a push bike then? Yes we could close down all industry but the only problem is some of the money industry earns goes into taxes and without that you greenies will get no benefits. You greenies never think things through when you make claims about ways of stopping global warming.

Holy False Conclusions Batman!

This is the first time I have been called a Greenie

[awa355]

Well, the pro global warmer's will prove their case beyond doubt throughout the coming summer.

The 'No' global warmer's will prove their case throughout the following winter.

Somehow, I think this argument is going to be around for quite a while.

[mashman]

You greenies never think things through when you make claims about ways of stopping global warming.

Resource Based Economy can handle the kind of industrial turmoil you expect... the financial economy, no, not so much as you've highlighted.

[yokel]

I personally prefer my science abscent of a political ideology.

Thats why you can never trust a "government scientist" , which is a oxymoron.
or a corporate backed scientist for that matter.

Everyone one's worried about what's coming out the tail pipe on their car's, while the actual physical environment is being raped and pillaged.

[TheDemonLord]

Well you are a hypocrite then with your statement about wanting oil use and industry being cut back to stop global warming then? I remember talking to a greenie at a protest once and i said to him
the only problem with your solution to stop global warming is that you want all oil and coal to be left in the ground and he said "no we dont" and I asked him what do you want then and he could not think of
anything. You sound a bit like the greenie I spoke to dont you?

I sound like a Greenie? Only if you are a Retard and can't read.... Oh Wait....

Lets Recap in TheDemonLord's Reading Comprehension 101 Class!

Climate change is actually an area where I sit more on the fence than most would expect.

This should be the first very clear hint that I am not a Greenie - Do you know of any Greenies who do not accept Climate Change as Gospel truth? Did your friend at the Protest sit on the fence about Global Warming?

The next blatant hint is in this line and specifically the section in bold:

Firstly - we should do something about our reliance on Fossil Fuels, with a view to lessen our impact on the environment - this is just good sense, regardless of Change or not.

My views on this are predicated on the fact that our entire society has a single point of Failure - for Aircraft and Cars there is no viable alternatives for Fossil Fuels to power them (and by Viable I mean alternatives that give the same range, efficiency and refuel/recharge time) - Boats can be Nuclear Powered (although isn't that a scary thought having commercial tankers plodding along by Somalia with a Nuclear Generator on board...)

Should we lessen our impact on the environment - sure we should - but lessen is a vague word - it could be mean working with industry to make a change of 5% less emissions whilst maintaining the same level of output, it could also mean the extreme extrapolated standpoint that you accused me of - of not allowing anyone to exploit any natural resource. However rather than clarify what I meant, you cherry picked a single idea, ignored the other parts of what I said and immediately jumped to a conclusion and argued from there.

[TheDemonLord]

Thats why you can never trust a "government scientist" , which is a oxymoron.
or a corporate backed scientist for that matter.

Everyone one's worried about what's coming out the tail pipe on their car's, while the actual physical environment is being raped and pillaged.

There is a Nugget of truth in that, I will concede, however Science isn't predicated on trust, it is predicated on Evidence - and one should be able to pick an experiment done by either the Corporate Scientist or the Government scientist and repeat the tests to verify the conclusions.

Although it may take some time, the bogus studies are eventually found to be just that, whilst the legitimate ones stand up to the rigorous scrutiny of Peer Review.

[TheDemonLord]

I saw your comment about sitting on the fence but it is only now after I pointed out what would happen with oil left in the ground and industrial activity being scaled back you are beginning to see how silly the comment you made in the first post was. There is only 1 solution to lessen human impact on the environmet and that is to have world wide population control as it is population growth that is creating greater and greater demand for resources. Do not forget global warming and cooling happened long before humans were on the earth so for all you know it may be just a planetary cycle we are going through. The govt is going to spend big money buying carbon credits though which I am sure will give you piece of mind in the absence of oil imports not being halted. I guess you will not be complaining if prices start going up for everything to fund these credits.

My God.

The limits of your ability to not understand basic English knows no bounds.

You assumed you knew my position, despite being completely and utterly incorrect.

You then try and lecture me about Planetary cycles despite me saying in my opening post:

Where I have issue is that we quite simply do not understand how the Ice Age formed/thawed - Without an understanding of how this process works without manmade intervention, I do raise a skeptical eyebrow at the conclusion that any Weather changes could only be from the influence of Man.

As for your 'there is only 1 solution' - what am idiotic position - You haven't considered a range of possibilities including development of technologies that use renewable resources, or the possibility of exploiting resources from other sources (you know, the Moon, Mars etc.)

Please, before you reply, read what I have written. Then Stop, then read it again and then make sure you actually understand what I have written, Then read it again to be sure - then when thinking about posting, double check what I have written, and finally when you are writing your response, reference what I have written to make sure you are actually responding to what I have written and not to the voices in your head, then finally just before you hit post, make sure that you aren't telling me things that I have already written in my post.

[yokel]

I saw your comment about sitting on the fence but it is only now after I pointed out what would happen with oil left in the ground and industrial activity being scaled back you are beginning to see how silly the comment you made in the first post was. There is only 1 solution to lessen human impact on the environmet and that is to have world wide population control as it is population growth that is creating greater and greater demand for resources. Do not forget global warming and cooling happened long before humans were on the earth so for all you know it may be just a planetary cycle we are going through. The govt is going to spend big money buying carbon credits though which I am sure will give you piece of mind in the absence of oil imports not being halted. I guess you will not be complaining if prices start going up for everything to fund these credits.

People are so full of fear that they think a slight change in the climate and we are all fucked,
When the economic collapse happens, They will tell us it will be because of climate change.

Say good by to cheap energy, say hello to clean (out your wallet with government subsidies/tax) energy.

[TheDemonLord]

So you could have said in your very first post that I sit on the fence over this but whatever happens technology will save us eh? Not even the govt sees technology as saving us otherwise they would not be buying up carbon credits to do NZs bit to cool the planet but putting all their money into technology. For your information technologies can not be developed overnight especially the sort of technologies you are thinking of. Mining Mars or the Moon could be 20 - 50 or 200 years away if at all. People like you need to consider how affordable any technological solution developed will be and if they are not affordable they will not happen.

Necessity is the Mother of invention.

Look at the cost of the first computers, look at the cost of a Computer now - That was in the space of less than 60 years. Look at Human Aviation - we went from a short flight of about 100 meters to dog fighting over the trenches in 11 years then to breaking the sound barrier 30 years later. also look at the cost of flying - no longer the domain of just the super rich.

Maybe it is YOU who need to consider the history of human technological advancement and the decrease in costs as new technology is refined.

[TheDemonLord]

But you want to cool down the planet which in comparison the inventions you state are are no more complex than building a house. Technology wise the best we could hope for is for dykes to built around low lying coast lines but even the cost of that has can be prohibative with the ChCh City Council saying no to the built of a estury floodwall. You could always move to a cooler climate or higher ground to buy you some time while you wait for these planet cooling inventions to materialise at a price that is affordable by you. Personally if its something i have no control over and I am not being affected I dont worry as life is not eternal. I hope you live to see the technology come in yourself considering your concern. You could always try and develop a planet cooling device yourself rather that wait for others or maybe you have already started?

Okay - remember when I told you to read what I wrote before Posting?

It's clear you didn't read that.

Can you cite where I mentioned that:

a: I wanted to cool the planet down
b: Such inventions have an approximate complexity to that of houses

The only claim I made is that necessity is the Mother of Invention and that with time and refinement the cost of most technology decreases.

[TheDemonLord]

a:Cooling down the Planet is a term to describe what those who want to stop Global Warming want to to.
b: A case of you not reading as I said Such inventions have a complexity to that of building houses IN COMPARISON to cooling the planet.

but it isn't a Term or theory I have used anywhere - again, you assume my position and ignore what I wrote. Cooling down the planet may be a solution, alternatively other options might be creating efficient ways to breakdown/absorb/reduce the amount of Greenhouse gas in the upper atmosphere, or by working with industry to reduce the output in the first place.

Your second statement still makes no sense - Houses aren't particularly complex - it seems like you are trying to make a point about it being prohibitively complex, by comparing it to something that is relatively simple.

[TheDemonLord]

If cooling the planet down or whatever name you want to give to stopping global warming is not prohibitivly complex lets hear your idea Einstein?

Possibly bacterial/plankton based (simple life forms to eat greenhouse gases), or some way of distributing fine particulates (in the upper atmosphere) that would catalyze greenhouse gases in the presence of sunlight or selectively breeding plant life to create a plant with extremely high surface area and very efficient at photosynthesis.

There's 3 ideas.

[SPman]

Where I have issue is that we quite simply do not understand how the Ice Age formed/thawed - Without an understanding of how this process works without manmade intervention, I do raise a skeptical eyebrow at the conclusion that any Weather changes could only be from the influence of Man.

Second issue is that both sides are guilty of funding 'science' in order to push an Agenda, both the Climate change deniers and the Greenies.

I personally prefer my science absent of a political ideology.

Well, actually, we do have a pretty good idea how Ice Ages start and stop. Look it up.
Yes, climate changes, no one disputes that, it's the SPEED of the change in the last 100 yrs - particularly the last 50 yrs, that is the indication it's man made. In a natural system, CO2 generally balances out - input/removal. What we are doing is inputting at a far higher rate than it can be naturally removed, as well as removing some of the sources of removal (forests, wetlands, etc)

Funding science to push an agenda....most Climate scientists I know of would love to have some more funding, and, like most other scientists, do NOT "modify" their research, or results.......

A scientific "cure" to cool the planet would be horrendously expensive compared to trying to slow it down or stop it in the first place.

I'd prefer politics to be free of political ideology as well, but, it's going to creep in regardless to a degree.