Is Global Warming a Hoax?

[Poopadoop]

So if we replace oil with, say, cold fusion, then either one of the following things can happen (but not both)...

- fuel becomes cheaper,
- global warming will cease.

They can't both happen, because if fuel is cheaper, people like me will have the heating on for longer during the cold winter days. I might even just leave it on all winter. I wonder what the effect of that will be multiplied by the population?

Practically zero is my guess. There's a lot of atmosphere, earth and water between the buildings people live in and the rest of the planet.

[OngBonga]

Practically zero is my guess. There's a lot of atmosphere, earth and water between the buildings people live in and the rest of the planet.

uum I don't think so. Practically zero multiplied by millions is a lot more than practially zero. Multiplied by billions and we're comfortably out of "negligible" territory. And, if you feel this way, that we as individuals cannot do any harm to the planet by warming our houses up, then I don't see how you can so easily subscribe to the idea that we're fucking things up by burning coal and oil. It's contradictory.

Industry doesn't make global warming worse because sky, lakes and fields. That's the same argument.

I thought the world was being run by commercial interests...why would they want to penalize themselves?

My best guess is that it's all about regulating the shit out of the competition. Big business can afford it. Small business can't. Thus, monopoly is easier to maintain.

[Poopadoop]

uum I don't think so. Practically zero multiplied by millions is a lot more than practially zero. Multiplied by billions and we're comfortably out of "negligible" territory. And, if you feel this way, that we as individuals cannot do any harm to the planet by warming our houses up, then I don't see how you can so easily subscribe to the idea that we're fucking things up by burning coal and oil. It's contradictory.

Industry doesn't make global warming worse because sky, lakes and fields. That's the same argument.

I think you misunderstand the hypothesized causes of man-made global warming. It's not from the heat caused by burning things. It's from the emissions from said combustion, like CO2, which lead to the trapping of solar radiation.

In winter, London is about 3 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside because of the heat generated in and by buildings. If this heat affected the whole planet then you would think it would affect the surrounding countryside as well. But it doesn't, the heat dissipates quickly in the atmosphere even from a place as big as London.

My best guess is that it's all about regulating the shit out of the competition. Big business can afford it. Small business can't. Thus, monopoly is easier to maintain.

The important question to me is whether or not we should continue to choose dirty, polluting energy over clean energy. I don't really care who makes money one way or another.