If it's happening and we're a factor, then not changing our behavior is guaranteed to make it worse. So the question isn't just "Is it a problem" but "When will it be a problem" and "When will we have to change our behavior to avoid multiplying our own suffering from the problem?"
Therein lies the call to action.
What we've got is analogous to dumping toxic waste onto the tundra and calling it 'not a problem' just because not many people would be directly and adversely affected. But if we just kept dumping waste there, it certainly would grow into a problem so large in scope that it is unavoidable, undeniable and untenable.
So do you wait until half the tundra is glowing, the melt water is irradiated and then start cleaning things up at massive expense? Or do you recognize the inevitability of the situation and choose an ounce of prevention over a pound of cure?
I don't think you can honestly argue that it's happening, we're causing/contributing/exacerbating things and we shouldn't do anything.
Well, considering that Chu is a nut job, (Seriously, have you heard/read some of the wacky left-field things he has said while being Energy Secretary? He's an enviro-nazi and a global warming kool-aid drinker.), and Greenpeace is a bunch of tree hugging liberals, I don't think their praise for Apple should be painted in a good light.
EDIT:
Haha, I must have missed this one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Hmm... I don't know if I'd be too happy if a government bureaucrat and a bunch of hippies were praising me
Humans are a cause. (i.e. it's partly anthropogenic) And that, too, is pretty well agreed upon.
Pretty well agreed upon by who? Yes climate change is occurring, but most rational scientist who are not on a Govt pay packet agree that an odourless, Colourless gas (IE CO2) cannot act as a greenhouse gas. In fact plants need it to survive.
True we have to limit and reduce the amount of other pollutants, but to say the sky is falling then say the solution is to tax the crap out of society. Is only rational if you stand to benefit from the billions of tax dollars that will be raised from taxation of carbon and carbon trading.
The Earth has been heating up an cooling down long before man got here. How else did massive ice ages disappear before the dawn on the industrial revolution. It's called cycles friends and the earth has gone through them for millennia.
As for the chamber of commerce arguing against the Govt stance on global warming. They're probably not doing it for the same reasons I've stated, and only have their own members vested interests at hand. That said, it's still childish for companies like Apple to run off like little childrens just because they don't agree with the a stance and are blinded by the Govt's rhetoric.
Wow, a Nobel laureate in Physics, a professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a "nut job"?
I wonder where that would put you. (No, don't answer that).
I'm with you, Trajectory! Send those jobs around the world to China, India, Malasia, Mexico, et al. That is, any other growing economy that will NOT, I repeat N-O-T, endorse this sky is falling mantra of global warming.
Cripple the US! Down with the old regime! Long live 20+% unemployment! Hail the workers' paradise that is the US . . . and ignore all those impenetrable brown clouds that are wafting from the east.
Down with the old guard, and damn the US CEO's to hell!
P.S. What should we do with all those US Senators (95-0) that refused to ratify Kyoto back in the 90's? Sick Eric Holder on 'em? Sounds like a good idea to me. Meanwhile, I'm going to sit back, relax, and (to quote the Dear Leader), wait for my electricity bill to "skyrocket"! Bang! Zoom! It's off to the moon, Alice!
Yea!!! We have a winner for the Ayn Rand Memorial OverHype the Issues Award!!
I know, VinitaBoy, that we should not do anything unless China does it too - BTW, why is a communist country out-competing the world's largest capitalist economy ... hmmm? - but sometime being a responsible, independent and ethical society means doing things that are not always popular or puts money in your pocket. My question for you is this: are you a true objectivist who believes everything should be done with self-interest in mind and that money is the only truly value-neutral measure of success and "good" or are you merely a conservative who just is blindly pro-business and anti-government in the intellectually shallow sense.
Moral authority is just as important as moral hazard and I, as a responsible capitalist, know that you can not expect individual freedoms unless you take on individual responsibilities. And I know that as important as CEO's are to our economic capital, they are not the ones who should be sole arbiters of our ecological capital. No one is damning CEO's to hell, just holding them responsible in ways that they can not or do not hold themselves responsible. That is the point.
You may feel no moral responsibility, but most Americans do and that puts you in a small, angry, self-righteous minority.
Pretty well agreed upon by who? Yes climate change is occurring, but most rational scientist who are not on a Govt pay packet agree that an odourless, Colourless gas (IE CO2) cannot act as a greenhouse gas. In fact plants need it to survive.
Reading your comments on science is like listening to Steve Ballmer discuss the market success of Vista.
CO2 DOES act as a greenhouse gas, that is the most unambiguous part of the whole discussion. The uncertainty comes from how much we can actually and responsibly reduce and how much of an economic shock we can take. That is really the only debate left and because the ecological shock is global, the economic shock should be spread globally.
Pretty well agreed upon by who? Yes climate change is occurring, but most rational scientist who are not on a Govt pay packet agree that an odourless, Colourless gas (IE CO2) cannot act as a greenhouse gas. In fact plants need it to survive.
The Earth has been heating up an cooling down long before man got here. How else did massive ice ages disappear before the dawn on the industrial revolution. It's called cycles friends and the earth has gone through them for millennia.
Careful there, my friend, you're stepping on something rotten. If you really want to patronise other people, get your facts straight will ya? Carbon dioxide is and always will be a GHG. Google scholar for proof, I'll link you one that is free. Pretending otherwise makes you sound like a fool.
It is perhaps not the most efficient and effective GHG (methane and NOx are for example more efficient at it), if that's what you meant, but CO2 is definitely the most emitted GHG, by volume.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frugality
The climate is changing. That's probably pretty well agreed upon.
Humans are a cause. (i.e. it's partly anthropogenic) And that, too, is pretty well agreed upon.
However, it's not a problem.
I tend to agree, if you look at the carbon cycle of the last couple centuries, one can suggest that the present climate change event started before the industrial revolution. The human influence has probably amplified it by a lot, but it was already occuring. But that's just my opinion, take it with a grain of salt.
Why do they manufacture most of their products in China?
Seems like the perfect opportunity to get China to move on their own greenhouse gas emissions, doesn't it! We opened up to China to get them to liberalize their economic and political systems, they will need to be engaged in environmental responsibilities as well.
It is going to take time, one outsourcing corporation at a time.
Do you think that the Chinese leadership will be willing to mothball the hundreds of coal fired electrical generating plants built in the last decade so that Western consumers can feel good about the products they buy?
Wow, a Nobel laureate in Physics, a professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a "nut job"?
I wonder where that would put you. (No, don't answer that).
I will answer that, thank you. Please do not insult me and denigrate me, it just makes you look like a smug asshole. Considering Obama just received the Nobel Peace Prize for having done practically nothing in regards to world peace, being a Nobel laureate means absolutely nothing now. Are you trying to impress me with Chu's titles? I judge people like Chu by what they say publicly, and frankly some of his opinions on remedies for reducing environmental pollution are wacky.
Do you think that the Chinese leadership will be willing to mothball the hundreds of coal fired electrical generating plants built in the last decade so that Western consumers can feel good about the products they buy?
I don't, but the US went from agrarian to industrial to post-industrial faster than Europe did, and I expect China will go through that evolution even faster.
They are dependent upon coal plants b/c they have little oil and natural gas, but they also are ahead of us in fuel efficient cars and green village/city designs. China will be creating from scratch cities that are far more sustainable than anything that exists today and in the end those will do more to limit global effects on all of us than almost anything any other country on Earth.
Unfortunately they need to go through a decade or two of coal plants, inefficient steel production and the Three Gorges Dam issues before they find a balance.
The fact remains, do we use China as a justification for not doing things ourselves or do we lead?
Why do they manufacture most of their products in China?
Because that will put all the CO2 that is produced to make aluminium on the bill of chinese companys and Apple keeps its green vest.
That's what the car manufacturers do. They put alumninium parts in their cars, that are produced in Asia or South America.
Then they calculate the energy savings for the recycled parts that come effective in 30 years into this years balance. --> Voila ... green car manufacturer
I will answer that, thank you. Please do not insult me and denigrate me, it just makes you look like a smug asshole. Considering Obama just received the Nobel Peace Prize for having done practically nothing in regards to world peace, being a Nobel laureate means absolutely nothing now. Are you trying to impress me with Chu's titles? I judge people like Chu by what they say publicly, and frankly some of his opinions on remedies for reducing environmental pollution are wacky.
Insult and denigrate you? There is no need for it.
(Do you also hear voices coming from your molars?)
...Considering Obama just received the Nobel Peace Prize for having done practically nothing in regards to world peace, being a Nobel laureate means absolutely nothing now. ...
At a minimum, your statement sounds remiss of the knowledge of multiple categories of Nobel prizes. Obama's the Peace prize for, "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples, ... vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons ... hope for a better future ... diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population"; Chu's the Physics prize for cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light.
The emphasis on hope was mine, but I'd suspect it to be key to the Committee's judgement versus actual accomplishments of the efforts which will be judged in time.
As Lech Walesa, the 1983 Peace prize winner and Poland’s president from 1990 to 1995, “... sometimes the Nobel Committee awards the prize to encourage responsible action."
EDIT: I later read the Nobel Committe statement. The last paragraph reads, "For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”"
Well, considering that Chu is a nut job, (Seriously, have you heard/read some of the wacky left-field things he has said while being Energy Secretary? He's an enviro-nazi and a global warming kool-aid drinker.), and Greenpeace is a bunch of tree hugging liberals, I don't think their praise for Apple should be painted in a good light.
What about all of us conservative tree huggers? I'm in favor of market-based solutions, and I'm in favor of any company that leaves things in better shape than the time before they arrived on the scene. I'm not really in favor of top-down government solutions.
What about all of us conservative tree huggers? I'm in favor of market-based solutions, and I'm in favor of any company that leaves things in better shape than the time before they arrived on the scene. I'm not really in favor of top-down government solutions.
If the market had decided we now would not have cars with seat belts as standard, we would not have emission regulations, we would not have the fantastic roads we drive on every day, and so on and so forth. The current economic recession is caused by an almost unregulated market. Top-down government solutions are absolutely necessary to keep the world habitable and safe.
Top-down government solutions are absolutely necessary to keep the world habitable and safe.
Our government can keep this world habitable?
Therein lies the largest fallacy of the environmental movement.
Our scientists are smart people, and our government officials often do have good intentions. However, we have way too much faith in humanity if we think we can actually control this planet's environment. We know much less than we claim to. The earth is much more complex than what we think we can sum up in theories and computer models.
Even Stephen Hawking doesn't think we'll be able to sustain the planet, and urges us to start looking at colonizing other planets. (which is funny, because if we can't take care of this one....)
Therein lies the largest fallacy of the environmental movement.
Our scientists are smart people, and our government officials often do have good intentions. However, we have way too much faith in humanity if we think we can actually control this planet's environment. We know much less than we claim to. The earth is much more complex than what we think we can sum up in theories and computer models.
Even Stephen Hawking doesn't think we'll be able to sustain the planet, and urges us to start looking at colonizing other planets. (which is funny, because if we can't take care of this one....)
Hawking's statements and lectures about the sustainance of life on Earth and the need to colonize elsewhere (i.e., Mars) doesn't have to do with the complexities of earth's environment, but rather the arrogance, indolence, and ignorance of modern man that has led to it's deteriorating condition. He has lost faith in the human species' sense of urgency and understanding of balance between technology, it's application, and the fragility in order to sustain life.
Most recently, Hawking said he hoped his recent NASA flight would provide a boost for commercial spaceflight, in line with his oft-expressed belief that humanity's future depended on moving beyond Earth. He said he believed "life on earth is at an ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other danger. As long as humanity is confined to one planet, the existence of our species will be in question."
Comments
However, it's not a problem.
If it's happening and we're a factor, then not changing our behavior is guaranteed to make it worse. So the question isn't just "Is it a problem" but "When will it be a problem" and "When will we have to change our behavior to avoid multiplying our own suffering from the problem?"
Therein lies the call to action.
What we've got is analogous to dumping toxic waste onto the tundra and calling it 'not a problem' just because not many people would be directly and adversely affected. But if we just kept dumping waste there, it certainly would grow into a problem so large in scope that it is unavoidable, undeniable and untenable.
So do you wait until half the tundra is glowing, the melt water is irradiated and then start cleaning things up at massive expense? Or do you recognize the inevitability of the situation and choose an ounce of prevention over a pound of cure?
I don't think you can honestly argue that it's happening, we're causing/contributing/exacerbating things and we shouldn't do anything.
EDIT:
Haha, I must have missed this one:
Hmm... I don't know if I'd be too happy if a government bureaucrat and a bunch of hippies were praising me
So true!
Humans are a cause. (i.e. it's partly anthropogenic) And that, too, is pretty well agreed upon.
Pretty well agreed upon by who? Yes climate change is occurring, but most rational scientist who are not on a Govt pay packet agree that an odourless, Colourless gas (IE CO2) cannot act as a greenhouse gas. In fact plants need it to survive.
True we have to limit and reduce the amount of other pollutants, but to say the sky is falling then say the solution is to tax the crap out of society. Is only rational if you stand to benefit from the billions of tax dollars that will be raised from taxation of carbon and carbon trading.
The Earth has been heating up an cooling down long before man got here. How else did massive ice ages disappear before the dawn on the industrial revolution. It's called cycles friends and the earth has gone through them for millennia.
As for the chamber of commerce arguing against the Govt stance on global warming. They're probably not doing it for the same reasons I've stated, and only have their own members vested interests at hand. That said, it's still childish for companies like Apple to run off like little childrens just because they don't agree with the a stance and are blinded by the Govt's rhetoric.
Well, considering that Chu is a nut job.....
Wow, a Nobel laureate in Physics, a professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a "nut job"?
I wonder where that would put you. (No, don't answer that).
I'm with you, Trajectory! Send those jobs around the world to China, India, Malasia, Mexico, et al. That is, any other growing economy that will NOT, I repeat N-O-T, endorse this sky is falling mantra of global warming.
Cripple the US! Down with the old regime! Long live 20+% unemployment! Hail the workers' paradise that is the US . . . and ignore all those impenetrable brown clouds that are wafting from the east.
Down with the old guard, and damn the US CEO's to hell!
P.S. What should we do with all those US Senators (95-0) that refused to ratify Kyoto back in the 90's? Sick Eric Holder on 'em? Sounds like a good idea to me. Meanwhile, I'm going to sit back, relax, and (to quote the Dear Leader), wait for my electricity bill to "skyrocket"! Bang! Zoom! It's off to the moon, Alice!
Yea!!! We have a winner for the Ayn Rand Memorial OverHype the Issues Award!!
I know, VinitaBoy, that we should not do anything unless China does it too - BTW, why is a communist country out-competing the world's largest capitalist economy ... hmmm? - but sometime being a responsible, independent and ethical society means doing things that are not always popular or puts money in your pocket. My question for you is this: are you a true objectivist who believes everything should be done with self-interest in mind and that money is the only truly value-neutral measure of success and "good" or are you merely a conservative who just is blindly pro-business and anti-government in the intellectually shallow sense.
Moral authority is just as important as moral hazard and I, as a responsible capitalist, know that you can not expect individual freedoms unless you take on individual responsibilities. And I know that as important as CEO's are to our economic capital, they are not the ones who should be sole arbiters of our ecological capital. No one is damning CEO's to hell, just holding them responsible in ways that they can not or do not hold themselves responsible. That is the point.
You may feel no moral responsibility, but most Americans do and that puts you in a small, angry, self-righteous minority.
Irrational fear is never a good motivator for the formation of policy.
So why was your first post so full of "irrational fear" and hyperbole, then?
Pretty well agreed upon by who? Yes climate change is occurring, but most rational scientist who are not on a Govt pay packet agree that an odourless, Colourless gas (IE CO2) cannot act as a greenhouse gas. In fact plants need it to survive.
Reading your comments on science is like listening to Steve Ballmer discuss the market success of Vista.
CO2 DOES act as a greenhouse gas, that is the most unambiguous part of the whole discussion. The uncertainty comes from how much we can actually and responsibly reduce and how much of an economic shock we can take. That is really the only debate left and because the ecological shock is global, the economic shock should be spread globally.
Pretty well agreed upon by who? Yes climate change is occurring, but most rational scientist who are not on a Govt pay packet agree that an odourless, Colourless gas (IE CO2) cannot act as a greenhouse gas. In fact plants need it to survive.
The Earth has been heating up an cooling down long before man got here. How else did massive ice ages disappear before the dawn on the industrial revolution. It's called cycles friends and the earth has gone through them for millennia.
Careful there, my friend, you're stepping on something rotten. If you really want to patronise other people, get your facts straight will ya? Carbon dioxide is and always will be a GHG. Google scholar for proof, I'll link you one that is free. Pretending otherwise makes you sound like a fool.
It is perhaps not the most efficient and effective GHG (methane and NOx are for example more efficient at it), if that's what you meant, but CO2 is definitely the most emitted GHG, by volume.
The climate is changing. That's probably pretty well agreed upon.
Humans are a cause. (i.e. it's partly anthropogenic) And that, too, is pretty well agreed upon.
However, it's not a problem.
I tend to agree, if you look at the carbon cycle of the last couple centuries, one can suggest that the present climate change event started before the industrial revolution. The human influence has probably amplified it by a lot, but it was already occuring. But that's just my opinion, take it with a grain of salt.
Why do they manufacture most of their products in China?
Seems like the perfect opportunity to get China to move on their own greenhouse gas emissions, doesn't it! We opened up to China to get them to liberalize their economic and political systems, they will need to be engaged in environmental responsibilities as well.
It is going to take time, one outsourcing corporation at a time.
Wow, a Nobel laureate in Physics, a professor of physics and molecular and cellular biology at the University of California, Berkeley, and the Director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a "nut job"?
I wonder where that would put you. (No, don't answer that).
I will answer that, thank you. Please do not insult me and denigrate me, it just makes you look like a smug asshole. Considering Obama just received the Nobel Peace Prize for having done practically nothing in regards to world peace, being a Nobel laureate means absolutely nothing now. Are you trying to impress me with Chu's titles? I judge people like Chu by what they say publicly, and frankly some of his opinions on remedies for reducing environmental pollution are wacky.
Do you think that the Chinese leadership will be willing to mothball the hundreds of coal fired electrical generating plants built in the last decade so that Western consumers can feel good about the products they buy?
I don't, but the US went from agrarian to industrial to post-industrial faster than Europe did, and I expect China will go through that evolution even faster.
They are dependent upon coal plants b/c they have little oil and natural gas, but they also are ahead of us in fuel efficient cars and green village/city designs. China will be creating from scratch cities that are far more sustainable than anything that exists today and in the end those will do more to limit global effects on all of us than almost anything any other country on Earth.
Unfortunately they need to go through a decade or two of coal plants, inefficient steel production and the Three Gorges Dam issues before they find a balance.
The fact remains, do we use China as a justification for not doing things ourselves or do we lead?
Why do they manufacture most of their products in China?
Because that will put all the CO2 that is produced to make aluminium on the bill of chinese companys and Apple keeps its green vest.
That's what the car manufacturers do. They put alumninium parts in their cars, that are produced in Asia or South America.
Then they calculate the energy savings for the recycled parts that come effective in 30 years into this years balance. --> Voila ... green car manufacturer
I will answer that, thank you. Please do not insult me and denigrate me, it just makes you look like a smug asshole. Considering Obama just received the Nobel Peace Prize for having done practically nothing in regards to world peace, being a Nobel laureate means absolutely nothing now. Are you trying to impress me with Chu's titles? I judge people like Chu by what they say publicly, and frankly some of his opinions on remedies for reducing environmental pollution are wacky.
Insult and denigrate you? There is no need for it.
(Do you also hear voices coming from your molars?)
...Considering Obama just received the Nobel Peace Prize for having done practically nothing in regards to world peace, being a Nobel laureate means absolutely nothing now. ...
At a minimum, your statement sounds remiss of the knowledge of multiple categories of Nobel prizes. Obama's the Peace prize for, "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples, ... vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons ... hope for a better future ... diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population"; Chu's the Physics prize for cooling and trapping of atoms with laser light.
The emphasis on hope was mine, but I'd suspect it to be key to the Committee's judgement versus actual accomplishments of the efforts which will be judged in time.
As Lech Walesa, the 1983 Peace prize winner and Poland’s president from 1990 to 1995, “... sometimes the Nobel Committee awards the prize to encourage responsible action."
EDIT: I later read the Nobel Committe statement. The last paragraph reads, "For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”"
Well, considering that Chu is a nut job, (Seriously, have you heard/read some of the wacky left-field things he has said while being Energy Secretary? He's an enviro-nazi and a global warming kool-aid drinker.), and Greenpeace is a bunch of tree hugging liberals, I don't think their praise for Apple should be painted in a good light.
What about all of us conservative tree huggers? I'm in favor of market-based solutions, and I'm in favor of any company that leaves things in better shape than the time before they arrived on the scene. I'm not really in favor of top-down government solutions.
What about all of us conservative tree huggers? I'm in favor of market-based solutions, and I'm in favor of any company that leaves things in better shape than the time before they arrived on the scene. I'm not really in favor of top-down government solutions.
If the market had decided we now would not have cars with seat belts as standard, we would not have emission regulations, we would not have the fantastic roads we drive on every day, and so on and so forth. The current economic recession is caused by an almost unregulated market. Top-down government solutions are absolutely necessary to keep the world habitable and safe.
Top-down government solutions are absolutely necessary to keep the world habitable and safe.
Our government can keep this world habitable?
Therein lies the largest fallacy of the environmental movement.
Our scientists are smart people, and our government officials often do have good intentions. However, we have way too much faith in humanity if we think we can actually control this planet's environment. We know much less than we claim to. The earth is much more complex than what we think we can sum up in theories and computer models.
Even Stephen Hawking doesn't think we'll be able to sustain the planet, and urges us to start looking at colonizing other planets. (which is funny, because if we can't take care of this one....)
Our government can keep this world habitable?
Therein lies the largest fallacy of the environmental movement.
Our scientists are smart people, and our government officials often do have good intentions. However, we have way too much faith in humanity if we think we can actually control this planet's environment. We know much less than we claim to. The earth is much more complex than what we think we can sum up in theories and computer models.
Even Stephen Hawking doesn't think we'll be able to sustain the planet, and urges us to start looking at colonizing other planets. (which is funny, because if we can't take care of this one....)
Hawking's statements and lectures about the sustainance of life on Earth and the need to colonize elsewhere (i.e., Mars) doesn't have to do with the complexities of earth's environment, but rather the arrogance, indolence, and ignorance of modern man that has led to it's deteriorating condition. He has lost faith in the human species' sense of urgency and understanding of balance between technology, it's application, and the fragility in order to sustain life.
Most recently, Hawking said he hoped his recent NASA flight would provide a boost for commercial spaceflight, in line with his oft-expressed belief that humanity's future depended on moving beyond Earth. He said he believed "life on earth is at an ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other danger. As long as humanity is confined to one planet, the existence of our species will be in question."