TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker or making a Paypal contribution here: paypal.me/SupportTMC

Global Warming: Fact or Mass Hysteria?

Discussion in 'Energy, Environment, and Policy' started by tonybelding, Feb 5, 2007.

  1. DDB

    DDB Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    590
    So even if you don't buy into global warming...then influence people to buy electric (or biofuels) because it's one step closer to ending our dependency on foreign oil. See, the green movement can benefit everyone, depending on the anlge you choose to sell your audience. While we waste time and money fighting about whether global warming exists...our troops are getting torn to pieces along with spending billions of U.S. dollars...so why wouldn't we want to quit using oil?
     
  2. vfx

    vfx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    14,792
    Location:
    CA CA
    Gas is expensive. Oil gets spilled. Cars make smog.
     
  3. tonybelding

    tonybelding Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,091
    Location:
    Hamilton, Texas
    Right. . .

    Global warming might happen in the next 50 or 100 years, or maybe never. Peak oil might be starting now, or it might be 20 years, but it's definitely going to happen sometime. US dependence on foreign oil -- and entanglement in the Middle East -- is here today, nobody can question that.

    So my view is, let's put more focus on the problem that's immediate, tangible and quantifiable.
     
  4. Tesla2Go

    Tesla2Go Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    92
    Oil is not just about the Middle East, look at Chechnya, Nigeria, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia.... Almost everywhere you find oil, there will be conflicts and people will suffer. China gives weapons to Nigeria in return for oil, Russia would never have been so rough on Chechnya if it wasn't for oil......Saudi Arabia considered to be the ally of the US, has one of the most stringent interpretations of Islam (wahhabism) as it's governing law. A few years ago, about 14 schoolgirls where burned to death in a school fire, because the "religious police" wouldn't let them out of the school, because in the panic the girls forgot to put on their veils.....

    These are the kinds of things we indirectly support because we have to use oil.

    From the canadafreepress site article:

    This is not only theory ::)

    [​IMG]

    You would have to be blind to not see a direct correlation between CO2 content and temperature.

    If CO2 levels today are not due to man, then why:

    And they are higher then they've been for thousands of years...


    http://thelazyenvironmentalist.blogspot.com/2006/11/few-quick-climate-change-facts.html
     
  5. DDB

    DDB Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    590
    I'm not saying one argument (global warming) is stronger then another argument (dependency on foreign fuels) in pushing for greener alternatives--although I believe the latter. My point is, we all want the same ends (EVs), although there seems to be a difference in the means to get us there.

    The treehuggers would be well-suited to say to the naysayers and capitalists, fine, you can say global warming doesn't exist, but you can't disagree that oil dependency is a dangerous thing to our national security. Then work towards the common goal of EVs. It's a win-win situation, that needs to be attacked on multiple fronts. The audience can be swayed, depending on what message is being communicated.
     
  6. Tesla2Go

    Tesla2Go Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    92
    I agree that this dual argument is effective, but we mustn't forget that switching to EVs is only part of it. Energy still needs to be produced to run those vehicles. So in the end the environmental concern needs to be considered the most. Otherwise you risk of burning more coal instead of oil, or building more nuclear reactors. It's a nightmare for energy companies that solar panels are starting to become mainstream, and every home can produce it's own energy. But fortunately, nobody has a monopoly on sunlight :)
     
  7. tonybelding

    tonybelding Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,091
    Location:
    Hamilton, Texas
    The risk of building more nuclear reactors doesn't sound like a bad thing to me, I'm all in favor of it.
     
  8. vfx

    vfx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    14,792
    Location:
    CA CA
  9. Michael

    Michael Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Messages:
    135
    And; speaking of trying to be more energy efficient in general, is anyone aware of any effort to require home builders to offer more energy efficient options?

    I live in the DC metro area and although I have found a few builders that offer what they call 'energy star' homes, none offer solar options or any other options that would give us any better efficiency than the minimum to quality as an 'energy star' home. I'm thinking it would be great if NanoSolar established partnerships with some major builders to offer homes that had signifantly reduced grid energy requirements.
     
  10. tin-chicken

    tin-chicken Guest


    Be careful. It is easy to get confused. By your theory, the number of pirates in the world has a direct impact on global warming ::)

    [​IMG]

    Details at http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

    Tin.
     
  11. tonybelding

    tonybelding Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,091
    Location:
    Hamilton, Texas
    More developments on this subject. . . .

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

    http://www.lse.co.uk/ShowStory.asp?story=CZ434669U&news_headline=global_warming_is_lies_claims_documentary

    And finally. . . I was amused recently when Al Gore attacked the press for being "balanced" on the subject of global warming, instead of siding wholeheartedly with him as they should!

    http://www.dicksonherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070228/NEWS01/702280434/1297/MTCN02
     
  12. Tesla2Go

    Tesla2Go Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    92
  13. WarpedOne

    WarpedOne Supreme Premier

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,657
    Location:
    Slovenia, Europe
  14. Tesla2Go

    Tesla2Go Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    92
    Yes, see that documentary and then read this:
    http://inthegreen.typepad.com/blog/2007/03/deconstructing_.html

    It's interesting also that the director of the documentary, Martin Durkin in 1997 made another documentary called "Against Nature" comparing environmentalists with Nazis, conspiring against the poor nations of the world. The Independant Television Commission gave the verdict: the programme makers “distorted by selective editing” the views of the interviewees and “misled” them about the “content and purpose of the programmes when they agreed to take part.” And Channel 4 had to make a prime time public apology....

    I think somebody misunderstand a few basic arguments. Nobody is saying that global temperature hasn't fluctuated in the past, it's just that such big changes have never happened over such a short period of time. You don't have to be a scientist to find that at least "interesting" and cause for concern.
     
  15. WarpedOne

    WarpedOne Supreme Premier

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,657
    Location:
    Slovenia, Europe
    they fail to address the issue of "counterfeiting credentials". If someone disagrees with a conclusion, does not want to be credited as an author and IPCC still credits him, this speaks volumes about the political agenda.
     
  16. Tesla2Go

    Tesla2Go Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    92
    This "political agenda" argument seems a bit silly to me. The only ones who profit from making a political agenda in general are those already in power and getting very rich in keeping things as they are. Oil companies and car manufacturers would be the ones to accuse of having a politial agenda. What would the political agendas be of scientists from all over the world, simply so they recieve more funding? Is that the theory?

    The result of enforcing the view that human activity on this planet has no effect on it's climate and environment (CO2 is just one component but it gets way too much coverage, as if that's the only problem), is that companies who rely on existing technologies can continue to dominate.

    It is astounding to me that if it wasn't for the mess in the Middle East, Tesla Motors would be seen as a curiosity, even though they propose a technology which is much more efficient and clean. Plus it would give you the very real posibility of producing your own "fuel" and not having to go to a petrol station and pay. These great advantages would probably have been largely disregarded by people, if it weren't for Iraq....truly amazes me ::)

    If it's a "political agenda" to want to live more efficiently and try and have a small footprint on the environment in which we live, then I'm all for that political agenda....I would hardly call this a political issue though. Every day the world population increases by 200 000 individuals.....it's about resources and finding ways fast to best use those resources.

    Would it be in our best interest to see that China won't continue to build one coal plant every week? The main cause of death in China is already caused by pollution and by 2009 they will emit more CO2 than the US, a decade earlier than anticipated. So even if there won't be a national security problem with China like there is with the Middle East, wouldn't it still be in the interest of already developed nations to encourage and develop newer and cleaner techonologies, even if they are at first more expensive?

    You can call these concerns "hysteria", but if we don't start doing something about it NOW, it will be too late when we are 9 billion people....who will want computers, cars, mopeds, air conditioning, hot water......so yes, these are urgent issues.
     
  17. WarpedOne

    WarpedOne Supreme Premier

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2006
    Messages:
    2,657
    Location:
    Slovenia, Europe
    You mixed way to many different issues to addres them separately. With some I even agree.

    My biggest concern is that environmental issues are complex and this GW thing is way to simplified. At first they talk about greenhouse gasses and allmost in the same breath they start talking about CO2 as if it is the only one or the most dangerous one. It is neither.

    Then they talk about CO2 as sole result of human industrialization and NEED to stop developement to reduce our emmissions. The most silly thing are the predictions of what will happen if we don't reduce emmisions for said 30%. But they do not see and talk about what will hapen if we do. Ecofasizm at its worst.

    I am all for electric vehicles and for nuclear, solar and other renewable energy, but not because of environment per see. I am for it because it would enrich us, gave us more freedom and give us better lives.

    This developement won't come cheap and you cannot force progress, you can only allow for it. Forcing reductions in emissions will decrease cumulative available resources as it will put most of them into the wrong pockets and so it will even prevent progress.
     
  18. electrified

    electrified Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    13
    The graph showing temperature change and CO2 levels is kind of interesting. Normally, when one wants to show that 2 things are related, one puts 2 lines on top of each other, but these are kept separate. I have seen these 2 lines on top of each other, and it shows that temperature leads CO2. Kinda falsafies the notion that CO2 is causing climate change. BTW, the video "the great global warming swindle" is no longer on google or youtube, probably because of copyright restrictions.
     
  19. vfx

    vfx Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Messages:
    14,792
    Location:
    CA CA
    #20 vfx, Mar 11, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 13, 2016
    Sarcasm.

     

Share This Page