   |
Poker Forum |
Over 972,000 Posts! |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| wufwugy |
|
|||||
|
I guarantee that our only hope is geoengineering artificial trees and reforestation. Before biofuels and wind/solar/nuclear are up to economic par, we will have used ~80% of the planet's fossil fuels, and global temperatures will skyrocket. You heard it here first, and several decades from now, you'll think back and be like damn that crazy cunt wuf was right. We're currently at ~.8 degree C above pre-industrial global temperature, and we're stuck with ~1.5C already due to lag effects. Also, pollution byproduct of fuel burning is currently reducing global temperatures by ~1C (smog reflects sunlight). This means that we're actually stuck with ~2.5C. At some point over the next couple decades, people will wake up due to the arctics being entirely gone and sea level rising due to Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet melting, but corporate interests will spread misinformation with the same gusto seen in the current health care debate. By this time we will be stuck with ~4C due to atmospheric CO2 levels, and the dramatic increases in GHG output from feedback loops like reduced/eliminated oceanic absorption, reduction of heat reflection by polar ice, permafrost melting, and rain forest deforestation Scientists claim that 2C is disaster, 4C is omgwtf pandemic, and 6C is mass annihilation and a return atmospheric conditions in which mammals did poorly and reptiles thrived. Data has shown that the smart money is on the worst case scenarios modeled by well understood science being way too vastly conservative. In fact, a huge number of known factors pushing global warming have not currently been modeled by anybody because they do not understand them enough to be able to break them down statistically with a low margin of error, despite the fact that the science shows that they're major factors in global warming. There is a point of no return. We will not know when we've passed it until decades after passing it, but we have reason to believe that we may have ALREADY passed the point of no return i.e. the entire planet could go carbon neutral overnight, yet the planet would still continue warming due to triggered feedback loops. Our hope is in R&D of artificial trees being successful enough to be implemented on a large enough scale at some point well beyond crossing the point of no return. We do not yet know whether or not this is even possible. Another pseudo-hope is in biofuels. Enthusiastic scientists claim that we will be able to manufacture biofuels more cheaply than oil in five years time. I certainly hope so, but if this happens there will no doubt be many obstacles that keep it from becoming the majority source of energy for some time. Many of these factors are the unknown ones that come along with R&D, and other factors are the ones that come from special interests battling against change. I estimate that peak oil and perhaps peak coal will be well in decline in as little as two decades. What this means is that we will have used the vast majority of fossil fuels available, and what that means is that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will be significantly higher than today. Peak fossil fuels will come sooner than expected due to the exponential function and the fact that the global economy is ever increasing at a rapid pace. In fact, it is very likely that we are already in an artificial plateau of peak oil, and sometime in the next decade we will plummet. The shit is going to hit the fan in our lifetime, and I'm going to laugh my ass off at all the superstitious dumbfuck deniers who wouldn't know a fact if they were butt raped by an encyclopedia Here is a lecture that doomsayers may find interesting. It's less of a scientist lecturing, more of an activist, but the presented data does not disagree with the science except perhaps only slightly in certain areas. It's overall quite accurate http://fora.tv/2009/08/18/A_REALLY_I...uth_Dan_Miller |
|||||
|
||||||
| Numbr2intheWorld |
|
|||||
| Why do you say this is all scientific fact yet you cant show us an actual scientist talking about it? | |||||
|
Follow my blog at suited-aces.com
|
||||||
| wufwugy |
|
|||||
|
I've posted some stuff direct from scientists in the past, and didn't want to repeat it. I've wanted to make a global warming thread for some time instead of occasionally posting in the random thread, and I used this brand new video as the time to do so. Also, referencing journalism is not inherently inferior to referencing the raw science UNLESS the journalism is being challenged on accuracy based on science. Here's the most recent interview with Jim Hansen, one of the world's leading climatologists http://fora.tv/2009/05/26/Scientist_...Climate_Change Here's a recent article by the same guy http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-jam..._b_108766.html Here's a free online book by David MacKay, a scientist detailing what it would take to battle global warming http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/w...1/page_2.shtml Here's the synopsis of the book http://www.withouthotair.com/synopsis10.pdf Here's one of the more recent publications by scientists at MIT about 'up to date' models on global warming between now and 2100. These models have not factored in a TON of factors for the reasons I mentioned in the OP. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-0519.html Here's by far the best youtube channel I've found about climate change. The director of the channel is an artist, but as you watch the videos you'll see that he references scientific data and scientists like crazy to back up his assertions http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610 A lot of what I say about global warming is from memory due to not remembering the source, but I am diligent at making sure that my sources are backed up by real science. There are few things I loathe more than people making shit up or not using logic It's a good sign that you're questioning your source. That's representative of having a head on your shoulders Edit: some of the OP is me making predictions based on my understanding of the factors. I'm an analyst at heart |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| BankItDrew |
|
|||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
| spoonitnow |
|
|||||
| IT'S NOT REAL MAN. | |||||
 I've examined your account as a result of this Email (and this review wasn't the first such examination you've undergone), and find nothing of concern.
|
||||||
| HalvSame |
|
|||||
|
cost of doing nothing x probability that gw is real > cost of doing something x probability that it's fake edit: of course for any doomsday scenario that has a non-zero chance of occuring, the left side will be greater than the right side regardless. To invalidate my argument, just replace global warming with "hell" (maybe them jeebus nuts aren't so nutty after all!). (in other words, ignore this post.) |
|||||
|
snip snip
|
||||||
| WillburForce |
|
|||||
|
does anyone seriously believe that GW ain't real? Even the nutters in big companies making money from oil etc who claim it ain't true, know it is. They just don't give a fuck cause they're making so much money. just a question of how bad it gonna be. |
|||||
|
you want chilli sauce with that sir?
|
||||||
| Monty3038 |
|
|||||
|
I seriously doubt global warming at this point. That is in response to WillburForce's question. In all honesty, I haven't seen anything proven yet that can't be discounted in some way. Granted, it is a big risk, but in all reality, I'm worried about many other things. I do find it odd that so many scientists are supposedly on the global warming bus, yet so many are disputing it. If the issue is so obvious, why aren't more scientists on board? Why is there such a heated discussion? Plus, the negative PR that people receive because of GW is amazing. For GW to be taken seriously, you have got to get better spokespeople. Al Gore, Michael Moore, and others only bring disgrace to the cause. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| a500lbgorilla |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
I bet you could demonstrate the effectiveness of flooding the limit forum with advice like "fold/raise to 3-bets preflop." You get enough people trying to convince everyone that this advice is solid and it will eventually become solid in the eyes of people who don't know any better. I can't really understand why you think Al Gore brings disgrace when you know the only people disgracing him are his political enemies. I hate getting into politics these days because it's just seems like its a game of murky waters and the winners are the ones who pour the most ink (though im sure pouring the ink is a shit ton of fun). It's so much easier just to say "Fuck that, I'm only here for how ever many more years. I'm just gonna turn down the noise." |
|||||
 Yes, I brought a knife to this gunfight, just the other day I mugged a mountain. So bring that shit, I've had practice.
|
||||||
| CoccoBill |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement. A summary from the survey states that: "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scienti...climate_change |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| Bbickes |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
| mcatdog |
|
|||||
| I don't think many serious people deny that human-caused climate change exists (although the theory that a relatively small increase will bring about Armageddon due to feedback loops is far less of a scientific consensus). It's just a question of how much should be done about it, and whether the massive resources it would take to significantly reduce our carbon footprint, would be better spent feeding the world's 3 billion poorest people and improving economic conditions to help them escape from poverty. | |||||
|
|
||||||
| BennyLaRue |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Reducing our carbon footprint now also would require vast amounts of resources initially but it's an investment with hopefully a greater return in the short term than trying to vitalize some immmature economies. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| CoccoBill |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
| mcatdog |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
P.S. In some ways feeding the poor and reducing global warming are the 2 options on the table. For instance, the recent increase in world food prices has a lot to do with the increased use of biofuels. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| a500lbgorilla |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|||||
|
Yes, I brought a knife to this gunfight, just the other day I mugged a mountain. So bring that shit, I've had practice.
|
||||||
| Ltrain |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|||||
|
"Don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes. Then you are a mile away, and have his shoes." - Anon.
|
||||||
| BennyLaRue |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Not until aliens invade, anyway. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| HalvSame |
|
|||||
|
doesn't the well being of mankind depend alot on the well being of the planet? the world would probably be a better place if mankind wasn't in it. threehuggers itt, in before someone tells halv to be the first to gtfo, etc edit: also acknowledging good rillajoke |
|||||
|
snip snip
|
||||||
| spoonitnow |
|
|||||
|
People denied the idea of the number 0 for quite some time in some areas. Just a thought. |
|||||
|
I've examined your account as a result of this Email (and this review wasn't the first such examination you've undergone), and find nothing of concern.
|
||||||
| wufwugy |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
And anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not something that can be denied. Not. One. Bit. At the very fundamental of AGW is pure and simple, established chemistry and physics. We know that humans are emitting masses of CO2, we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (GHG), we know that CO2 levels are well above pre-industrial levels, we know that CO2 level increases correlates with human emissions, we know that this all correlates with the documented warming, and we have exactly ZERO other explanations for something other than human emissions that could be causing this. AGW is 100% undeniable simply based on the chemistry, physics, and raw data. What you are referring to are people lying, the uneducated public bandwagoning along like normal, and in some ways a very tiny minority of unqualified scientists saying that 'the jury is still undecided'. An example of people lying is sun spots. All AGW deniers are gung ho about how 'omg agw culd be caused by solar activity omg'. Except that this has been studied, and the data shows that indeed sun spots are not responsible for the GW trend from pre-industry. But the liars don't care, they just keep at it. Exactly how creationists have been lying for decades about the same garbage over and over Then the uneducated public (the majority of public) clings to these lies because they don't like change and think they're perfect and want to feel all hunky dory before they die and go to heaven to be with their invisible sky daddy. And the super tiny minority of scientists who doubt AGW can be found in just about every field. They always exist, but their existence isn't without many significant factors that show them to be wrong. They're never actual scientists who are currently heavily active in the particular field, they often have conflicts of interest, and what they say disagrees with the vast majority of scientists. Now, let's say your kid is sick and you go to the doctor, and the doctor says he need antibiotics, but you're skeptical so you go to another doctor, same diagnosis, another doctor, same diagnosis, then you go to a witchdoctor and he says that your kid doesn't need antibiotics because he's not sick. In fact, your kid has an evil spirit inside him that can only be expunged via holy water. Who you gonna listen to, the medical profession with the science to back them up, or the quack fringe dumbfuck who seems like he's making shit up? Take evolution for example. Did you know that there exists a biologist who disagrees with evolution? This man's name is Michael Behe, and he's Intelligent Design's best man, when they need to present their best evidence for ID, they go to Behe. Now, did you know that evolution is 100% fact? Did you know that we actually understand more about evolution than we do gravity? Since this is true, then how can Behe be a biologist who disagrees with evolution? Well, here's how, 1) he hasn't published a scientific paper in a decade or so (this means he is not an active scientist working in the relevant field despite the fact that he got a biology degree at one point, and thus his opinion is completely moot), 2) his assertions about ID and evolution have been proven 100% false over and over and over by simply using data and even in a court room in Pennsylvania, and 3) even Behe himself admits that he agrees with common descent, yet he neglects to acknowledge that common descent IS evolution. He is simply espousing that oft used but little known logical fallacy called cognitive dissonance AGW is exactly like the 'evolution debate'. 100% AGW and evolution are true, but don't tell that to dumbfucks who try to skew it for whatever reason. Also, you say that a lot of scientists are disputing AGW. They're not. You've been lied to. When examining these lists of scientists that deniers tout, you'll actually see that the majority of these scientists have claimed to be misread and have asked to be taken off the list but haven't been taken off because liars lie, many of them are not actually climatologists, instead they're like economists or social scientists, and their opinion carries exactly zero relevance, some on the list have massive conflicts of interest i.e. they work for oil companies or something, and the rest of the super small minority have been ostracized due to bad science or something. You are being lied to. AGW is as much a fact as thermodynamics. Don't fall prey to misinformation just because it's easy |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| wufwugy |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
My analysis has so much to do with speculated future emissions. It is widely believed that there exists a point of no return, but where that is and exactly how far that goes, nobody knows. However, historical data gives us ample reason to believe that it could take us to a temperature where mammals did poorly, and where the planet is a dramatically different place. Will this kill the planet? No. Not even close. The planet aint gonna die until the sun engulfs it in 5 billion years or if it collides with another planet. Will all life die? No, lots of life will survive as lots of life has survived throughout many massive warming and cooling and extinction events throughout prehistory. But could we turn the earth into a place not suitable for humans? Yes. We actually do not know exactly how unsuitable though. But you already know all this I'm sure |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| wufwugy |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Also, I don't really understand the issue of arable land, but everywhere I look, climatologists are saying that AGW will cause drought and famine catastrophe, no matter how we cut it. One of the problems with the notion that arable land will just shift from one region to another is that the planet is not a series of isolated systems, but one gigantic network. What we will see from AGW is things like rivers drying up yet not being replaced elsewhere. This type of thing will kill arability. But even if it was just about shifting arable regions, that wouldn't happen overnight, humans will not be 100% on the ball, and billions will suffer because of it And I don't understand the distinction between focusing on modernization vs focus on AGW eradication, and the former being the humanitarian option. Modernization only makes AGW faster and ultimately more severe, and AGW is speculated to be responsible for the misery of billions in the future |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| wufwugy |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Actually, liberalism could win if a coalition of Congressional progressives forced Obama to disregard his paycheck from the insurance industry by making him know that any of his inadequate bills will be voted down and he will be primaried in 2012. I give this about a .5% chance of happening though. But I digress... |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| wufwugy |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
We seem to disregard the fact that hundreds of millions live in horrible misery, and they have children and grandchildren and so on, and most of the offspring also live in misery. Personally, I do not believe that the suffering of one person justifies the happiness of a billion people, so I have absolutely no philosophical qualms with homo sapiens going extinct. The bright side of AGW may just be that if it truly comes to mass destruction, at least there would no longer be innumerable amounts of suffering humans since, well, we'd all be dead and unable to feel and unable to bring more children into a world of tragedy. Not something I put into any practical means, but I'm not going to pretend like humans are a special and superior race that aren't parasitic and inhumane, and that perhaps there would be less collective suffering of life if we just weren't around |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| Monty3038 |
|
|||||
|
So, let me ask this. With the majority of commenters in here being convinced global warming exists... How much damage to the environment does your vehicle cause? How much damage to the environment does your online poker playing cause? How much damage to the environment does your responding to this message cause? |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| a500lbgorilla |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|||||
|
Yes, I brought a knife to this gunfight, just the other day I mugged a mountain. So bring that shit, I've had practice.
|
||||||
| WillburForce |
|
|||||
|
answer to Monty. thats why we need to find a decent, non-harming energy source. |
|||||
|
you want chilli sauce with that sir?
|
||||||
| Monty3038 |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
| Monty3038 |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Coal pollutes and is supposedly finite. Oil pollutes and is supposedly finite. Nuclear power pollutes and is supposedly nearly infinite. Solar power produces damage in the production of solar panels. Wind power is inefficient and works for crap, also produces damage in the production of devices to capture it. Wave power has not been effectively harnessed, but likely will damage the ecosystem of the ocean in some way. Natural gas is pretty clean, but damages the environment in collection. So what sources look promising at this point? |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| a500lbgorilla |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
If you and 19 others fail to stop some woman from being raped, it's not like ONLY you did nothing. With 19 other people, if no one did anything it's because no one could. So its no big deal. With 7 billion people, some fraction of those people being rich, smart, capable, equipped, whatever to do something, that's plenty of bread to spread my blame peanut butter all over! |
|||||
|
Yes, I brought a knife to this gunfight, just the other day I mugged a mountain. So bring that shit, I've had practice.
|
||||||
| a500lbgorilla |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Also, misinformation works. I don't know shit about any of this stuff. Probably on par with you*, but we'll still manage an almost meaningful conversation about it. One that could change the minds of some other uninformed. *not saying that to be insulting, just saying that I dont think many people spend enough time actually studying these things certainly not as many as you can find making expert opinions on it |
|||||
|
Yes, I brought a knife to this gunfight, just the other day I mugged a mountain. So bring that shit, I've had practice.
|
||||||
| wufwugy |
|
|||||
|
Monty, The carbon footprint of somebody who simply lives in modern society is extremely high. The mere act of using USD currency and being protected by military makes our footprint much higher than people in Somalia 'living' off $1 a day. Carbon neutrality is possible. Read the synopsis in MacKay's book that I linked. We've had the technology to not pollute the atmosphere yet live a modernized life for some time now. A mistake many people make is looking at action to change results in a linear fashion. Case in point: The carbon footprint of a gas guzzling, business as usual, Fox news watching meat eater is immensely lower than the carbon footprint of somebody like Al Gore*, but people like Al Gore are the ones who are actually doing what it would take to keep AGW from getting out of control. This is not something in anyway that can be approached on the individual level. The only thing that will ever have an effect on AGW is mass public opinion and governmental policy. This is exactly like elections and voting. How I vote has zero effect on the outcome of the election because I live in a very blue district and I would vote blue. Now, if I truly wanted to make a difference in the political arena I would have to at the very least move to a swing district or become an activist that would garner a bunch of shift in voting outcomes. As it is now, even though my vote is technically one vote, it is also practically worthless due to these other factors based in the reality that we're not dealing with a black and white, linear system. But that doesn't keep me from understanding the system, and doing what I can to make changes *Al Gore's carbon footprint is insanely high because his actions generate tremendous economic activity which is energized by fossil fuels, and very high GHG activities as well (like air travel. FYI, one round trip flight around the US generates more carbon footprint than a person produces in an entire year of automobile driving) |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| wufwugy |
|
|||||
|
Another note on clean, renewable energy: like I said, we have the tech already, but we also have super advanced theory which we have yet to fully understand and engineer due to lack of funds. If the US govt put 100 billion $$$/month into researching this theory and developing current tech, we would be carbon neutral in just a decade or so, and would be pretty close to or already implementing nuclear fusion (holy grail of energy) At current trends, governments will not put cash anywhere close to what we need for at least several decades, and nuclear fusion will also not be solved for a long ass time. Money talks, we're lucky that we actually have the tech that we have given how little money gets put into it. We can thank the entirety of modernization on the top 1% of intellectuals of whom the vast majority went/go through life broke, but didn't care because they were driven by the love of the discovery If the entirety of the human race of the last couple centuries were as ingenuous as these top 1% of intellectuals (read: people like Galileo, Jonas Salk, Ed Witten being the norm) then we would likely be currently living in a technological world like what 2200 is going to be or something crazy. It's not because of common folk or powerful folk that we've gotten anywhere scientifically (and philosophically), but because of the intelligent few, most of whom have been/are in a constant fight against the uneducated and powerful |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| HalvSame |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
snip snip
|
||||||
| Monty3038 |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
| Monty3038 |
|
|||||
|
Well, I'm no expert and don't claim to be. I'm living my life the best I know how and to be honest, I really don't give a lot of thought to most of this debate. The main reason is I would be more likely to listen to someone like Ed Begley Jr. who walks the talk, rather than Al Gore, who while generating a lot of economic momentum does so in a destructive and in my opinion, poor way. Yes, humans in America do more damage than those in Somalia, so we are to be punished for our success? Of course we are, by instead of encouraging us to live responsibly (in the environmentalist opinion) we will be punished by taxing our 'carbon footprint' which I still think is BS, but I'm forming that opinion without full information. At some point you have to let the experts debate it out, so I'm dropping out of this convo... I don't have time to study up on it and give you the higher intellectual debate you want to achieve... but my thoughts focus on what I've been taught by a geologist I used to have as an instructor as well as my current level of understanding of the earth being a closed ecosystem, there isn't anything built or destroyed, just changed... I hear data being thrown around both ways, some say we are cooling, some say we are warming, there are facts both ways... So who is right? Who knows, maybe my kid will. I for one don't think the facts add up, but again, I'm no pro at this stuff and don't have the time to become one... some smart scientists will eventually be able to prove something definate one way or another, probably after we all have cancer or something... I'm out, I shouldn't have even started as I don't have the time to follow up on it all. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| mcatdog |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
| a500lbgorilla |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
Yes, I brought a knife to this gunfight, just the other day I mugged a mountain. So bring that shit, I've had practice.
|
||||||
| a500lbgorilla |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|||||
|
Yes, I brought a knife to this gunfight, just the other day I mugged a mountain. So bring that shit, I've had practice.
|
||||||
| BennyLaRue |
|
|||||
| I was cold this summer. | |||||
|
|
||||||
| Ltrain |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
|
|||||
|
"Don't judge a man until you have walked a mile in his shoes. Then you are a mile away, and have his shoes." - Anon.
|
||||||
| mcatdog |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Our quality of life depends on a lot of factors and the environment is just one of them. Others include the supply of food and clean water, good government / less corruption and conflict, prevention and cure of communicable disease, a quality education system, etc. I don't agree with prioritizing the environment over all these factors, especially not by passing the Kyoto Protocol or a cap-and-trade bill that would definitely take resources away from other uses that we depend on. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| BennyLaRue |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
This summer just sucked, is all. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| mcatdog |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
http://www.energytribune.com/articles.cfm?aid=2194 Also when you mention people like Galileo or Jonas Salk who made miraculous discoveries essentially on their own, doesn't that contradict the idea that scientific genius can be dictated from above by spending hundreds of billions of dollars? Science progresses in ways no one can predict. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| CoccoBill |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||
|
|
||||||
| wufwugy |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Understanding AGW is kind of new, and is advancing rather quickly. An important thing to note, however, is that the trends of new discovery have all been pointing in the same direction. But the 'newness' of AGW is a big reason why several intelligent people, like your geologist instructor, (note that geology != climatology though, important distinction). This newness has made it much easier to not be up to date on research and the public controversy (not scientific controversy) has made it easier to feel skeptical The earth is not a closed system. We're in constant interaction with particles from outer space (read: sun, but much more as well). The conservation of energy you mentioned isn't really relevant to AGW. It's about the fundamentals of matter, but it has no bearing on how much things can change. The vast majority of Earth's history has been rather inhospitable to mammals, all based on periods of climate change. But I'll go into that more in a different post, I think. You mentioned that data is thrown around, some say we're cooling, some say we're warming, etc. Well, that's simply not true, but that is what the vast majority of the public thinks. When you look at the actual history and data, you see that scientists said one thing, while the media said another. Here's a 9 minute video that looks at the data on this 'global cooling' issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg Actually, if you put any time into researching this, just watch greenman's other videos. They're entertaining, and addresses the actual data. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| wufwugy |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
It would require a lot of genetic manipulation and experimentation, and we could find ourselves in wunderwaffe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wunderwaffe It is a legitimate idea, but it is also another one of those can't wait till it's too late to try to figure it out things |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| poker_pup |
|
|||||
|
Is anybody here old enough to remember the 1970's? The theory in the 70's was that CO2 was going to bring about the next ice age. I was only twelve, but I remember reading about it in Time or Newsweek magazine. It scared the crap out of me. It didn't happen then and I have no reason to believe the "experts" now. |
|||||
|
|
||||||
| wufwugy |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
What I was getting at wasn't just putting money into one thing. No serious scientist/engineer who understands this stuff even suggests that. Read the synopsis in MacKay's book. He details how UK can go completely clean and renewable with simply current technology (and does this by using a whole plethora of different methods). My comments about nuclear fusion were sort of a side point. While it is indeed the holy grail of energy, we don't know yet if we could ever engineer it up to par. However, we think that that is very likely, but we simply don't know exactly. But yeah, nuclear fusion is way too advanced and far off to deal with AGW. One thing, though, is that algae biofuels are looking really good. Like ethanol, but actually cost effective and doesn't destroy land. It's one thing to throw money at something, and an entirely different thing to intelligently invest money And about people like Salk and Galileo, it's not a contradiction to suggest that finances affect science. Salk is an example of something that got done because everybody was scared shitless of polio, and there was a bit of monetary backing. In just a couple years of backing Salk's approach, we went from no vaccine to yes vaccine Anyways, if you talk to scientists and engineers, they'll tell you that money talks, just like with all other professions. We went to the moon because of pumping money into it, we haven't gone to the Mars yet (or are not much closer) due to lack of funds. Also, increasing finances and popularity increases the talent pool. IMO, we have more 'geniuses' today than ever before because the pool from which these people are selected are much larger than back when Copernicus was around. |
|||||
|
|
 |
| Latest Poker News | |
| lolzzz_321 |
03-19-2010, 02:43 PM Innovation, Sponsorship, and Festivities at Ladbrokes
|
| This is an exciting time at Ladbrokes! First, the prolific Microgaming room, has introduced Ladbrokes Instant Poker. Players no longer have to download software to get in the game! Prospective Ladb ... | |
«
Previous Thread
|
Next Thread
»
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:29 PM.
|
All content © FlopTurnRiver.com |
Advertising |
Partners |
Testimonials |
T&C |
Contact Us |
FTR News & Press |
Site Map |
Search FTR
Full Tilt | Titan Poker | UltimateBet | Poker Stars | Ladbrokes Bonus | Sportsbook | Cake Poker Play Texas Holdem Online, Online Texas Holdem Strategy, & Poker Forum |
 |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
| This is not a gambling website. |
