[ScientificAmerican] Earth’s CO2 Passes the 400 PPM Threshold—Maybe Permanently - Page 12 - Overclock.net

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #111 of 189 Old 09-29-2016, 12:20 AM
 
Nickyvida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 1,420
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 30
Climate change isnt real
It is a hoax perpetuated by those in power to make money. I e taxes on things that have not been conclusively proved yet. Like car emissions.

Complete bs
Nickyvida is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #112 of 189 Old 09-29-2016, 12:47 AM
Overclocker
 
FIX_ToRNaDo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Bronx, NY
Posts: 1,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 108
The more I kept reading through the thread, the stronger the idea in my mind that many people are blinded by politics and other social constructs, and would not agree even on the simplest facts and in the face of hard data. Maybe they're afraid that a simple acknowledgement on their part would somehow intrinsically weaken their personal beliefs and give grounds to the counterpart's supposed set of beliefs. A most human quality and certainly one of the weakest. However, one would think that the magnitude of the phenomena and the stakes here should refrain us from such conduct, but that's just my wish.
SuperZan likes this.

1 Million+ Folding at Home points  Chimp Challenge Participant  Overclock.net 10 Year Member  BOINC Pentathlon Participant x2 

FIX_ToRNaDo is offline  
post #113 of 189 Old 09-29-2016, 01:24 AM
Too Mean To Mod
 
Mookster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Sexyland
Posts: 2,744
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 775
Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletBait View Post

I'm going to pick on this real quick, sorry.

Eh, unless you're really in tune with the tone of how they use certain language. When most people hear 'national security risk,' they think terrorists or Chinese hackers, if they hear WWIII, they think Putin's finally lost his mind and charged across the W. European plains while launching nukes at America.

They don't think about resource scarcity, in this case water, food, and shelter, (basic human needs) fueling unrest in the more basic resource poor countries. Causing rise in civil wars radicalism, terrorism, and other forms of civil unrest that will undermine the foundations of modern society that could lead to eventual collapse.

Unless it has rapture and four horseman (or asteroid and zombies) written on it, most can't decipher a real threat that is slow building. It has to go BOOM, or it isn't a real catastrophe.
That's kind of what I was getting at. World leaders shelter the voting body from the reality of it all, and even with the seriousness of "global warming" they still refuse to inform the voters about what a climate change plan really involves. Deniers, amusingly, frequently have a much more realistic view of that reality. Part of the reason for their mistrust is likely rooted in their knowing that the government holds them in such contempt as to hide to truth from them. That mistrust is only growing, and that's a likely cause for your need for the four horsemen to show up in order to convince them of a real crises.

It's hard to blame either side for harboring the views that they do, but it's downright shameful to see them focusing their outrage on one another. What needs to be happening is an honest conversation about global warming, and full disclosure about both the local and foreign repercussions of different climate change plans on the table moving forward.

Through this whole thing they've been selling sunshine and rainbows to one demographic and alienating the other while never getting to a realistic conversation about it all.

Mookster is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #114 of 189 Old 09-29-2016, 01:26 AM
Not just position, SUPERposition!
 
maarten12100's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Hillegom, Netherlands
Posts: 10,254
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 378
Quote:
Originally Posted by xioros View Post

There are 2 kinds of people that deny climate change:

Those that make a lot of money by what could be causing it.
Those that are afraid that it's true.
And then there are the kind (farmers) that make some extra money because more CO_2 in the air means higher plant growth.

We have a rising world population we need more food and fuel or a realist would say we need less people.
Of course if we really wanted to we could start putting back chunks of hydrocarbons back underground or put it in infrastructure. I'm talking of course about wood and wood products.
Not that it would really do much with how much we put out.

So a plan (in big lines) to counter this issue:
Reduce world population to 3 billion.
Provide superior education to all 3 billion. (people have to come up with further solutions of course when doing this you should pick the best people for the job)

For energy production the path would be: (Excluding all the forms of energy that have minor global shares solar, wind, thermal and water)
From coal To Natural gas
From Natural gas to hydrogen from coal.
From hydrogen from coal to nuclear waste reducing fission.
From waste reducing fission to fusion. (At this point there should be as much green energy as we need and we can actively start scrubbing the air after all we have plenty of green energy)

Time scale about 100 years I think. (except that population reduction that has to happen gradually: global heavy birth restrictions and penalties)
Cutting back on people from the west, Russia ,China, Korea, Japan and Taiwan would be a very bad idea as those are the people that have the highest potentials for coming up with solutions.
So reducing the population should be partially exclusive to poorly developed regions where potential is low: Parts of Africa, The middle east, Pakistan, India, Philippines along with some other countries in Asia.

Water and wind are of course very good sources but not as long as they need subsidies to be viable. Water in some locations is already viable wind not so much.
maarten12100 is offline  
post #115 of 189 Old 09-29-2016, 03:52 AM
PC Gamer
 
Sisaroth's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Belgium
Posts: 1,642
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nickyvida View Post

Climate change isnt real
It is a hoax perpetuated by those in power to make money. I e taxes on things that have not been conclusively proved yet. Like car emissions.

Complete bs

I just don't get this argument.

Industries that benefit from climate denial:
-oil/gas/coal industry
-traditional car manufactures
-meat industry

Industries that benefit from climate change:
-nuclear industry
-solar/wind industry
-electric/hybrid car manufacturers
-battery manufacturers

Which of the two is the richest and so has the most resources for lobbying(bribing?) government people?
I think the global economy % of the first list is easily more than 10 times larger than the second list. Possibly even 100x larger.
caenlen likes this.

Sisaroth is offline  
post #116 of 189 Old 09-29-2016, 06:39 AM
 
drazah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,568
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sisaroth View Post

I just don't get this argument.

Industries that benefit from climate denial:
-oil/gas/coal industry
-traditional car manufactures
-meat industry

Industries that benefit from climate change:
-nuclear industry
-solar/wind industry
-electric/hybrid car manufacturers
-battery manufacturers

Which of the two is the richest and so has the most resources for lobbying(bribing?) government people?
I think the global economy % of the first list is easily more than 10 times larger than the second list. Possibly even 100x larger.

Id honestly say its even more than 100x larger with fossil fuel corps alone. They control a plethora of patents on alternative options (such as battery patents and alternative power patents) for the specific reason that those technologies do not advance. Money is what runs this world unfortunately, and we should be looking past climate change in regards to proving it or not, it should not matter. We have the knowledge to live an infinitely more efficient life, but unfortunately, we are held down by huge corps who don't want to stop milking their cash cow.

drazah is offline  
post #117 of 189 Old 09-29-2016, 07:26 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Blameless's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 29,122
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 3130
Quote:
Originally Posted by lombardsoup View Post

Yeah, no. There is no consensus on climate change/global warming as of yet.

Yes, there is.
Quote:

Even the majority of scientists on that list aren't deniers. Questioning projections is not denial of anthropocentric climate change (I'm not convinced of the accuracy of the IPCC's projections). Questioning the significance of of human impact is closer, but still no cigar. Only those who insist the the cause for climate change is still unknown, despite the evidence available, or think that humans have trivial impact, are really denying the basic premise I've been arguing.

Many of the people listed aren't even in a relevant field, haven't been active in that field for decades, or have glaring conflicts of interest. It's like Ben Carson thinking the Egyptian Pyramids were granaries...just because he's got a degree doesn't mean he's got a clue.

This list was only able to be compiled because they are a tiny number of exceptions to an overwhelming trend. Certainly there are more deniers in relevant fields than listed, but you'd need hundreds or thousands of times as many to add up to anywhere near 3%.

The consensus is that climate change is real and that humanity has a non-trivial impact on it.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Quote:
Originally Posted by lombardsoup View Post

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier. The moment you mention the fact that not everyone is on board with climate change, the opposition goes ballistic.

Not everyone is on board with sexual intercourse being a cause of pregnancy (that's not a joke), the Earth being mostly spherical in shape, or the idea that steel girders can become weakened from high-temperatures long before they are at risk of melting.

That doesn't mean their arguments are credible, it means they are biased, ignorant, or insane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sisaroth View Post


Industries that benefit from climate denial:
-oil/gas/coal industry
-traditional car manufactures
-meat industry

You can add most military contractors, most of the chemical industry, the aerospace industry, space agencies to that list, and agriculture as a whole (except maybe those getting subsidies to grow biofuel), to that list.
Marios145 likes this.

...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. -- Thomas Jefferson
Blameless is online now  
post #118 of 189 Old 09-29-2016, 09:32 AM
Programmer
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 36
I'm in favor of CO2 and warming anyways, it will spur space travel development at the cost of only some more wars here and there. I am not kidding.
Nightbird is offline  
post #119 of 189 Old 09-29-2016, 10:00 AM
nVidia Enthusiast
 
jdstock76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 3,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by lombardsoup View Post

The alternative is a dead board with no discussions.
Attempting to condense that...'the little people don't know any better'? Is that what you're suggesting? That's one way to explain the lack of consensus around this issue.
Good point. Is highly entertaining reading the drama when in reality peeps are either arguing the same point or they don't understand both sides are correct. Hehe

OT: I find it hard to argue the science. That is pretty cut and dry. Unless something changes that evolves our understanding of the science.


GPU HistoryWarning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Gigabyte 980ti G1
EVGA GTX 980 ti
EVGA GTX 980 SC
Nvidia 780ti
EVGA GTX 780 SC
EVGA GTX 770 SC
EVGA GTX 660ti SC
Some random ATI card
Nvidia 6800
First card 4600 I think. LoL


"And you are a bit of a ....... i was trying to help you and inform and you return are calling it an attack
Well you can go go to hell then"
jdstock76 is offline  
post #120 of 189 Old 09-29-2016, 11:51 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,243
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by jdstock76 View Post

Good point. Is highly entertaining reading the drama when in reality peeps are either arguing the same point or they don't understand both sides are correct. Hehe

OT: I find it hard to argue the science. That is pretty cut and dry. Unless something changes that evolves our understanding of the science.

I may not be as articulate on the issue as others; but that is exactly how I feel about it and the only point I was really trying to make.
LancerVI is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off