General / Off-Topic Is man made climate change real or not? Prove your belief here.

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

Frank

Frank
Six6VI said:
The most efficient way to guarantee you win in competitive sports, is to own both teams. Perceiving bias in any in-formation source you disagree with should hint at a similar polarity existing where you concur, if only due to the basic survival needs of parties with a financial incentive to keep quiet or find a new job.

Big Oil may be funding denial to maintain turnover and creating artificial scarcity to justify higher price.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming a Freudian slip here and you intended to say they were funding climate change. But the thing is they already have a much better hoax which drives up prices. They've fiddled with the figures to show that the oil was running out. This was a much easier hoax to perpetrate. It brought them tax relief, and it didn't have any of those difficult to set up "hottest year since records began" and "strongest storm ever" events to have to arrange. In fact I'd think all those electric heaters and fans to arrange those phoney disasters would cost more than the money they'd make from the climate change hoax itself.

You didn't answer my question about where you initially heard about climate change denial, and what convinced you that it was the truth, but that's okay. Given that Freudian slip I don't think you are an actual climate change denier. You just enjoy putting forward alternative views on forums. After all, you enjoy playing a computer game which runs a simulation of the galaxy. You know the power of computer simulation, and the information it can give us.

In case you're wondering, I initially heard about the Greenhouse Effect when I was young watching a show about the planets in the Solar System. Astronomers were interested in why Venus was much hotter than they though it would be. Carl Sagan suggested that this effect might be happening on the Earth as well, and warned of the dangers of a runaway greenhouse effect when the extra heat makes the natural producers of greenhouse gasses take over from the man-made ones and then were are [expletive was deleted]
 

Zak Gordon

Zak Gordon
Frillop Freyraum said:
Surprisingly, since I always thought I'd have a hard time with videos in English but not so much with written words, this turns out to be the opposite case here: It's the second one that gives me a big headache. This wiki about Paul Feyerabend.........snip........I start to understand where the current anti-science movements might pull their drive and justifications from.
Click to expand...

It is no surprise to you to find we are much further to the right in our political choices than we have been since the 1940's? In that context i think it perfectly clear where the majority of anti-science belief is coming from. To shape an extreme right (fascist?) 'acceptable' society you have to destroy reason and logic first. When reason and logic have been destroyed you can then move on to the real nasty stuff with much less resistance.

I don't know Paul Feyerabend, but from the bits you have mentioned in your post, i have a strong feeling i don't want to!

---------------

'The world’s CO2 emissions are set to continue rising for decades unless there is greater ambition on climate change - IEA':

www.carbonbrief.org

‘Profound shifts’ underway in energy system, says IEA World Energy Outlook - Carbon Brief

The world’s CO2 emissions are set to continue rising for decades unless there is greater...
www.carbonbrief.org www.carbonbrief.org

The world’s CO2 emissions are set to continue rising for decades unless there is greater ambition on climate change, despite the “profound shifts” already underway in the global energy system.

That is one of the key messages from the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2019, published today. This year’s 810-page edition is notable for its renamed central “Stated Policies Scenario” (STEPS), formerly known as the “New Policies Scenario”.

In this scenario, which aims to mirror the outcome of policies already set out by governments, a surge in wind and solar power would see renewable sources of energy meeting the majority of increases in global energy demand. But a plateau for coal, along with rising demand for oil and gas, would mean global emissions continue to rise throughout the outlook period to 2040.

In contrast, the report’s “Sustainable Development Scenario” (SDS) sets out what would be required to give a 50% chance of limiting warming to 1.65C, which the IEA describes as “fully in line with the Paris Agreement”.

It says the SDS would require a “significant reallocation” of investment away from fossil fuels towards efficiency and renewables, as well as the retirement of around half the world’s fleet of coal-fired power stations and other changes across the global economy.
Click to expand...

The Divestment (from fossil fuel) movement is gathering pace (the biggest sovereign wealth fund divested itself just recently, more will follow) and our energy systems are slowly adapting to life without fossil fuels. We could be doing it all much more cheaply and faster, but the 'reach' of the fossil fuel industry is powerful and very effective at slowing the transition down, sadly for all of us (as we are finding out).
 

Patrick_68000

Patrick_68000
Zak Gordon said:
We could be doing it all much more cheaply and faster, but the 'reach' of the fossil fuel industry is powerful and very effective at slowing the transition down, sadly for all of us (as we are finding out).
Click to expand...
With this kind of behavior, there are criminals who have no place in freedom.

They should rot in jail for the rest of their lives.
 

Voracity_T

Voracity_T
This is about as simple as it gets.
Climate.png
 

lysan

lysan
Voracity_T said:
Wait what?

You realise nuclear is dirty as right? Totally doesnt involve polluting large areas of landscape to dig up and refine uranium. Totally not one of the most polutant heavy parts of the process. Not at all.

Take your smarm elsewhere seeing as you clearly can't apply it properly.
Click to expand...

If you can't reply without personal attacks, we done here, got no time for rude people.
 

Morbad

Morbad
Voracity_T said:
You realise nuclear is dirty as right? Totally doesnt involve polluting large areas of landscape to dig up and refine uranium. Totally not one of the most polutant heavy parts of the process. Not at all.
Click to expand...

Nuclear is dirty, as are mines.

However, nuclear is less dirty than coal or oil, and we don't really need any more uranium mines because 75 years of nuclear weapons programs have left us with a huge amount of highly refined fissile material.
 

Voracity_T

Voracity_T
Morbad said:
Nuclear is dirty, as are mines.

However, nuclear is less dirty than coal or oil, and we don't really need any more uranium mines because 75 years of nuclear weapons programs have left us with a huge amount of highly refined fissile material.
Click to expand...

Weapons grade is very different to powerplant grade man, well, few atoms, but it is a substantial difference.
 

Morbad

Morbad
Voracity_T said:
Weapons grade is very different to powerplant grade man, well, few atoms, but it is a substantial difference.
Click to expand...

It needs to be cut down, but it's way easier to turn a bomb with several kg of uranium or plutonium in it into nuclear fuel than it is to dig up new uranium.

Indeed, we already meet 15-20% of uranium fuel demand from recycling weapon stockpiles, but we could meet a much larger portion of that demand, possibly all of it. There are still nearly 15000 nukes out there, which is total overkill, especially considering what we now know about the likely outcome of even a limited nuclear exchange. Everyone could still have a convincing deterrent even if the number of weapons were reduced by 90%.
 

Voracity_T

Voracity_T
Morbad said:
It needs to be cut down, but it's way easier to turn a bomb with several kg of uranium or plutonium in it into nuclear fuel than it is to dig up new uranium.

Indeed, we already meet 15-20% of uranium fuel demand from recycling weapon stockpiles, but we could meet a much larger portion of that demand, possibly all of it. There are still nearly 15000 nukes out there, which is total overkill, especially considering what we now know about the likely outcome of even a limited nuclear exchange. Everyone could still have a convincing deterrent even if the number of weapons were reduced by 90%.
Click to expand...

Very true though there are still a fair few active mines to my knowledge. That being said it might be a little out of date by this point.

Huh now thats interesting. Quite an eye opener to read actually, not something I'd really put much thought too. Thats a little bit scary aha.

One is deterrant enough, christ only knows why we need a detterant in the first place. Thats some messed up ish.
 

Stigbob

Stigbob
Morbad said:
It needs to be cut down, but it's way easier to turn a bomb with several kg of uranium or plutonium in it into nuclear fuel than it is to dig up new uranium.

Indeed, we already meet 15-20% of uranium fuel demand from recycling weapon stockpiles, but we could meet a much larger portion of that demand, possibly all of it. There are still nearly 15000 nukes out there, which is total overkill, especially considering what we now know about the likely outcome of even a limited nuclear exchange. Everyone could still have a convincing deterrent even if the number of weapons were reduced by 90%.
Click to expand...

Yes, but when it comes to an international nuclear peeing contest its all about exceeding the other guys stockpile and production.

Its MAD in more than principle.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom