97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3987
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby jonnygothispen » Mon May 20, 2013 3:30 pm

The temperature increased during the ice age? Interesting. I'm only posting here for the fame and money, BTW.

Although your theory may hold water right now since the Earth is warming during an orbit that typically causes a cooling cycle. Search: Milankovitch cycles.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3987
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby jonnygothispen » Mon May 20, 2013 5:08 pm

Sandi wrote:
Henry Vilas wrote:If it isn't the scientific method, then what process led the 97% to say that global warming is man-made? Scientists base their conclusions on the scientific method, don't they?


Yes sometimes, but they also base conclusions on...

Scientific method.

Get more grants.

Money.

Fame.

....
I'm curious as to what your opinion is of the radical 3% of actual climate scientists who didn't know or didn't support man made causes for accelerating warming?

PS It's interesting to note that the 3% had considerably less experience in climate studies than the 97% who believe global warming is significantly caused by man made contributions.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8698
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Huckleby » Mon May 20, 2013 5:38 pm

Denial
Anger
Bargaining
Depression
Acceptance

I think the AGW skeptics have entered the third stage of grief. There really isn't much traction left in denying the scientific consensus.

You see the next evolution of arguments in this thread. "It won't be so bad, there are benefits to GW too" or "OK, maybe GW is coming, but doing anything about it is too painful."

Eventually, a majority of the country will accept that we have to deal with the problem.

you must be joking
Forum Addict
Posts: 292
Joined: Sat Sep 25, 2010 8:05 am
Location: Madison
Contact:

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby you must be joking » Mon May 20, 2013 6:01 pm

Huckleby wrote:
you must be joking wrote: Many have come up with the "Problem" but what are the solutions? Or perhaps more correctly: By what methodology can we solve the "problem" and how much are you personally willing to sacrifice in order to solve the "problem"?

You ask a good question. But until you remove the quote marks around "problem", it really is not possible to make progress. We live in a democracy with checks and balances to protect minority opinion. Tackling large problems requires a bipartisan effort, otherwise the obstructing party can gain power by demagoguing painful proposals.

As long as Republicans are the party of cheap gas and don't worry about tomorrow, there is nothing I am willing to do. The AGW deniers have to be defeated, that is step one.

BTW, dealing with global warming is not all economic pain, it's not a zero sum game.


Huckleby,

The reason I'm asking the question about "what are you willing to sacrifice" is because all I see coming out of many who believe in global warming is to go negative and suggest cuts in lifestyle that could become draconian.

Finding a positive way out of a potentially bad situation making the world a better place for all in the process is in my mind a far better way of solving such vexing problems.

So what if there was a positive way? What if governing bodies all across the world held a contest that offered a huge amount, say in the Billions of dollars to the person or persons who come up with any or all of the following:
1. A way to store the heat from the summer and use it in the winter.
2. A way to store the cold from the winter and use it in the summer.
3. A way to produce electricity or some new source to power our houses, apartments, business at the closest point to the end user thus ending the reliance on the grid system.
4. A way to produce energy to power our auto, truck and perhaps train transportation.

With the grand prize going to the idea or ideas that produce energy that is safe, the most renewable, sustainable and least polluting.

That said; the contest will have the following caveats:
a. Any idea has to have a working model that can show the idea is doable.
b. Based on the working models and the research backing them up, the best and brightest engineers and scientists at Cal Tech, MIT and other like institutions from around the world will be the judge of what is the best idea.
c. There are no copy writes or patents on the ideas submitted.
d. Any and all ideas submitted will be posted on the World Wide Web for all to see and use.

This will do the following. It will put to use the creative genius of all of humanity to work on the problem. It will energize scientific research in how to solve the problem with new technology. Once the methods developed have been selected the economic boom to the whole world would be obvious. It would rival the onset of the personal computer and smart phone technology. It would liberate those dependent on energy from large corporations; producing energy closest to the end user. This would give everyone more control of their own energy needs.

And it may, just may stop the next war that trades blood for energy; something humans have been doing for a long, long time.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12946
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby snoqueen » Mon May 20, 2013 6:25 pm

1. A way to store the heat from the summer and use it in the winter.
2. A way to store the cold from the winter and use it in the summer.
3. A way to produce electricity or some new source to power our houses, apartments, business at the closest point to the end user thus ending the reliance on the grid system.
4. A way to produce energy to power our auto, truck and perhaps train transportation.


Excellent list.

1 and 2 are doable now with earth sheltered housing, with a bit of tweaking from the sun in most climates, if you're talking about housing.

3 is simply any non-carbon-based energy generation system. I fully agree we need to end the grid system, which is a business construct and not really one of necessity or greatest efficiency.

4 would be totally cool, but we aren't there yet.

However, I am not against conservation and cuts in consumption, especially when they're as simple as switching to LED lighting. I do not live a restricted lifestyle, but according to MG&E I am in the bottom 3% of their residential electricity users, and the bottom 30% of gas users. If I can do it, other people can do it. Every little bit helps, and because there's no magic bullet, conservation is a matter of increments while we wait for that miracle watershed technology to bail everyone out.

Still, I'm with you in seeking a positive solution as I believe that's the only thing that'll truly motivate people and be satisfactory enough to succeed. Globally, I believe emerging countries will soon be so far ahead of the established industrial powers (due in great part to our antiquated energy grids and generation facilities), we'll never catch up.

Between a global energy initiative and a naturally dropping birth rate, though, humans could still pull this off.

Mad Howler
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Mad Howler » Mon May 20, 2013 8:39 pm

you must be joking wrote:I''m asking the question about "what are you willing to sacrifice" is because all I see coming out of many who believe in global warming is to go negative and suggest cuts in lifestyle that could become draconian.

Finding a positive way out of a potentially bad situation making the world a better place for all in the process is in my mind a far better way of solving such vexing
...

That is a big question that "us adults/citizens" have not been allowed to seriously address in my mind. Oddly, it was addressed at the breakfast table yesterday between myself and a 10 and 12 yo. It was a pretty rousing discusion that ranged from economic impact to physical systems of the environment to where we get our energy from to what new technologies merit attention.
I am not bragging here, I am pointing out how easily such a discussion is dashed by the powers that be and how hollowed out our government (us; i.e. you and I) is to govern though this. Pretty scary shit in my mind.

fennel
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3501
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 4:24 pm
Location: Inside the Green Zone, Madison

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby fennel » Mon May 20, 2013 8:46 pm

Mad Howler wrote:Pretty scary shit in my mind.
Eeew, you could've at least brought a comma to the party.

Mad Howler
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Mad Howler » Mon May 20, 2013 8:59 pm

fennel wrote:
Mad Howler wrote:Pretty scary shit in my mind.
Eeew, you could've at least brought a comma to the party.


Thank you for pointing that out.
Although, it works for me as written.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8698
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Huckleby » Mon May 20, 2013 9:07 pm

snoqueen wrote: 3 is simply any non-carbon-based energy generation system. I fully agree we need to end the grid system, which is a business construct and not really one of necessity or greatest efficiency.
A grid is what makes alternative energy more viable. When the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining, you balance the load from some other source.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8698
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Huckleby » Mon May 20, 2013 9:16 pm

you must be joking wrote: The reason I'm asking the question about "what are you willing to sacrifice" is because all I see coming out of many who believe in global warming is to go negative and suggest cuts in lifestyle that could become draconian.

Finding a positive way out of a potentially bad situation making the world a better place for all in the process is in my mind a far better way of solving such vexing problems.


This slightly off topic, but I am not willing to defend my personal carbon footprint, nor will I analyze/criticize others behavior. I know this is inconsistent with my speechifying on global warming, but we all have our conflicting values.

I admire and support people who practice green behaviors. But I also value personal freedom, and not being too judgmental of others. I bristle at people deputizing themselves and acting as green police. I don't like the "gotcha" games, like hearing how Al Gore took a private jet somewhere.

You ask me what sacrifices I'm willing to make: I'd support higher taxes on carbon, which will hit me in the wallet, and encourage all to green-up a bit.

I had this conversation with a neighbor today, which actually turned into an argument. I'm not a believer in relying on individual virtuous behavior. We've been trying that for 40 years with mixed success, good, but it's not the solution. I believe in government policy that, in a modest way, promotes more ecological lifestyles, and gently tilts the market towards greener products.

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7868
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby rabble » Mon May 20, 2013 9:38 pm

Huckleby wrote:You ask me what sacrifices I'm willing to make: I'd support higher taxes on carbon, which will hit me in the wallet, and encourage all to green-up a bit.

If there's one thing humans have proven over the centuries, it's that they will not do anything as a collective until it directly affects their wallet. Until we find a way to make it more expensive to burn carbon than other sources, WAY more expensive, carbon will be what we choose. Everything else is what Sandi refers to as the feelgood stuff.

We absolutely must make the alternatives cheaper than the current sources. And we have to do it world wide.

Mad Howler
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1783
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2012 8:36 pm
Location: Wisconsin

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Mad Howler » Mon May 20, 2013 9:46 pm

Huckleby wrote:I had this conversation with a neighbor today, which actually turned into an argument. I'm not a believer in relying on individual virtuous behavior. We've been trying that for 40 years with mixed success, good, but it's not the solution. I believe in government policy that, in a modest way, promotes more ecological lifestyles, and gently tilts the market towards greener products.


Yep, I think that is how it works.
It frustrates me the we cannot sustain this arguement as a nation.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12946
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby snoqueen » Mon May 20, 2013 11:36 pm

Regarding the grid system:

If we ended centralized energy generation (or reduced it) and moved toward individual points on the grid either consuming or producing energy according to their situation at any given time, I think we'd be better off.

What I want to move away from is the centralized part where the individual points (homes, businesses) are always consumers and the central plant is always the producer. If nearly all houses, for instance, had a solar panel, during a sunny day when nobody was home they'd be putting power on the grid for workplaces and factories thus reducing reliance on the central generation plant. Same with farms or businesses that install other local generation systems.

Hope that makes sense. I could have worded it better the first time. The grid has its uses -- we're just taking not taking advantage of all of them, along with overbuilding the long-distance aspect when we should be developing the short-range, community aspect. The more energy-independent any region or locality can be, the better off they are.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8698
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Huckleby » Tue May 21, 2013 10:29 am

snoqueen wrote: If we ended centralized energy generation (or reduced it) and moved toward individual points on the grid either consuming or producing energy according to their situation at any given time, I think we'd be better off.

What I want to move away from is the centralized part where the individual points (homes, businesses) are always consumers and the central plant is always the producer.


I tried to educate myself about this topic, but it is way too complicated to quickly wrap my head around. One issue is that the existing grid is balkanized, the energy companies that dominate different states/regions are territorial. Energy storage is another aspect. A new, smarter energy grid seems to be a cornerstone of energy policy.

A couple sites for a quick eyeball scan:
http://cleanenergytransmission.org/
http://mitei.mit.edu/system/files/Elect ... stract.pdf

Bland
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1381
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 1:46 am

Re: 97% Scientist Consensus: global warming is man-made

Postby Bland » Tue May 21, 2013 3:00 pm



Oh ferfucksake.
Lamar Smith doesn't know jackshit about science or the climate.

I propose that anyone who wants to be on The House Science and Technology should have to pass a fucking high school level science test. That should weed out some of these ignorant fuckers.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests