GW and the FRIENDLY discussion of such

[Serpentine]

Wind is a good alternative, but there are only certain areas where you will get wind patterns that will be enough to warrant the investment. Not to mention there are advocacy groups that are worried about the migratory patterns of birds and the dangers wind generators pose to them. Eventually wind generators need to be replaced when worn out. Solar is another good one, but again you need large open areas that get lots of sun. The desert is good. Seattle, not so much. Also solar cells need to be replaced in time, and they contain chemicals that are harmful to the environment and need special disposal. Hydroelectric is still technically the cleanest and cheapest source of energy, but you have to worry about fish and there are only so many rivers you can dam up. Fission reactors do have the problem of waste disposal, though modern ones can spin down spent fuel rods in secondary reactors until they are really only dangerous if you are in the same room as them. You also need a body of water near the nuclear power plant, and fuel rods are not a renewable resource. In fact many believe we are past peak fissile production.

Alternative really means not coal or oil. And all have their merits and drawbacks, but none stand out as being so much better than another that we exclusively switch to that.

Overall response to this: Yeah, this just means that we need to look at a wide range of options, and consider applying all of them in the situations that maximise the merits and minimise the drawbacks. Now, more specific:

Wind is a good alternative, but there are only certain areas where you will get wind patterns that will be enough to warrant the investment. Not to mention there are advocacy groups that are worried about the migratory patterns of birds and the dangers wind generators pose to them.

I've heard they're messing with flocks of budgerigars in Australia. You'd think there'd surely be a way to fix this, at least a bit...

Eventually wind generators need to be replaced when worn out.

True, but then again, so does every single other man-made device. This problem's gonna apply to all options.

Solar is another good one, but again you need large open areas that get lots of sun. The desert is good.

Still trying to figure out why we don't have any solar farms in Australia... I like my mum's idea of having solar panels built in to roof tiles. I can't think that it should be too difficult, and it could make them cheaper, possibly easier to replace, nicer to look at and more of a long-term potential as new houses automatically have them built on. Anyway, Germany's doing pretty damn well with 'em.

Also solar cells need to be replaced in time, and they contain chemicals that are harmful to the environment and need special disposal.

Again, a problem with all these options, including fossil fuels and nuclear.

Hydroelectric is still technically the cleanest and cheapest source of energy, but you have to worry about fish and there are only so many rivers you can dam up.

Yeah, this is a very good but very problematic one. It's a big issue in Iceland at the moment, for one (I should read National Geographic more often...). I think further development on this would be useful.

Fission reactors do have the problem of waste disposal, though modern ones can spin down spent fuel rods in secondary reactors until they are really only dangerous if you are in the same room as them. You also need a body of water near the nuclear power plant, and fuel rods are not a renewable resource. In fact many believe we are past peak fissile production.

That's just cuz we Aussies are holding out on you I think nuclear power could be good as maybe a bridge between fossil and renewable fuels, but as you said, it's gonna run out eventually, and the problem of the waste is not one to be sneezed at.

Not disagreeing with you on anything, really, by the way. Just discussing.

[KnightDisciple]

On the solar roof tiles thing...
What about areas that get large weather variances? I live in the US Midwest, and I've seen from over 100F to below 0 F. Wind, rain, snow, hail, ice, lightning...Do we have solar cells that can operate under that kind of cyclical weather and still be worth anything? (Putting aside issues of them being buried in snow/ice and not getting and light anyways...)

Part of my frustration with this, and other topics, is that if I'm doubtful, I'm treated as wrong. I've yet to see any truly compelling evidence, but apparently I'm just a "skeptic who keeps the system of free thought going" or some such.
Mind you, I'm all for cutting out carbon emissions, pollution, etc. But that's because I dislike pollution, and have a sense of duty to preserve the planet, not because it'll melt the icecaps in 30 years.

[Simanos]

Chernobyl was a disaster waiting to happen. Seriously, people drag it out as an example of the danger of all fission power, but it's not. It's the danger of poorly managed fission power.
Three Mile Island was a properly engineered emergency containment. And we've gotten better at it since then.
I understand potential concerns about the waste, but we have to consider power generation efficiency.
For example. If we switched every car in America to wall-charged electric, we'd have to vastly increase power production. Current wind, solar, geothermal, and water power couldn't match. So we'd have to either a)build lots of coal, oil, and natural gas plants. All of which will likely have similar outputs, pollution-wise. Or we make nuclear fission plants, which put out, uh...steam. The wastes are stored in a couple locations. And I have to wonder how soon we can clean that stuff up easier...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_thermal_energy
http://www.manferrostaal.com/Fresnel...27e0c22.0.html
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/e...t-10-ausr.html
We can do it if we reallocate funds properly.
We shouldn't be wasting fission for conventional transportation (as opposed to space flight) and fusion is really close at last as a friend who works at JET has said to me.

On the solar roof tiles thing...
What about areas that get large weather variances? I live in the US Midwest, and I've seen from over 100F to below 0 F. Wind, rain, snow, hail, ice, lightning...Do we have solar cells that can operate under that kind of cyclical weather and still be worth anything? (Putting aside issues of them being buried in snow/ice and not getting and light anyways...)

Part of my frustration with this, and other topics, is that if I'm doubtful, I'm treated as wrong. I've yet to see any truly compelling evidence, but apparently I'm just a "skeptic who keeps the system of free thought going" or some such.
Mind you, I'm all for cutting out carbon emissions, pollution, etc. But that's because I dislike pollution, and have a sense of duty to preserve the planet, not because it'll melt the icecaps in 30 years.

What about areas that DO NOT get large weather variances and yet we haven't built solar power plant (or roof tiles)? Let's get those first and then we can consider what to do with the remaining areas. Besides, as I said (and for reasons you gave), I'm not much in favor of solar panels, I prefer Fresnel Reflectors and thermal.


PS: About climate change I don't really care much as I see the Earth is a rather stable system and we won't be turning into Venus for a few billion years more. Even if the ice melts and we lose a few coastal regions, so what? We will get a green Antarctica for free, almost
OK, joking aside I'm more worried about pollution (air, water, ground, food, etc) and Ozone layer crumbling than green-house gases.
Someone please post the pic of telepathic contact with the sun being eerie at best:
"Your puny Ozone cannot protect you forever, earthmeats!"

[Serpentine]

On the solar roof tiles thing...
What about areas that get large weather variances? I live in the US Midwest, and I've seen from over 100F to below 0 F. Wind, rain, snow, hail, ice, lightning...Do we have solar cells that can operate under that kind of cyclical weather and still be worth anything? (Putting aside issues of them being buried in snow/ice and not getting and light anyways...)

There are ways to store power from sunny days for dim days and nighttime. They're not particularly efficient yet, but they're working on it, and if noone invests anything into the technology it's just going to take longer. In any case, any reduction in fossil fuel use is good, even if it's not a complete changeover.

Part of my frustration with this, and other topics, is that if I'm doubtful, I'm treated as wrong. I've yet to see any truly compelling evidence, but apparently I'm just a "skeptic who keeps the system of free thought going" or some such.

Nothing wrong with skepticism, it's cynicism you've gotta watch out for.

[Tirian]

Wind is a good alternative, but there are only certain areas where you will get wind patterns that will be enough to warrant the investment. Not to mention there are advocacy groups that are worried about the migratory patterns of birds and the dangers wind generators pose to them.

Apparently, it's not as much of an issue as you might think. At sufficient altitudes, high and steady winds are nearly ubiquitous. It is science fiction to imagine a floating generator taking advantage of the steady 100-150 mph winds in the jet stream, but that isn't more than ten miles away from anyone on earth. But given any sufficiently plains-like farmland, you can build a tower and find steady wind at the top of it.

If my reading about the situation in the U.S. is correct, the problem isn't that wind power isn't effective at generating electricity. It is, and there are some non-silly people who seem to think that we could fill all of the dead space in Montana with windmills and generate enough power to feed the entire nation. There are two problems with this vision. The first is that there is no backbone for sending electricity from Montana to the rest of the nation, so we'd ultimately need an energy infrastructure project as significant as building the national highway system back in the 60's. The second challenge is that wind power is steady but consumer demand isn't. Cities use a lot of power during the day, not so much in the evening, and very little at night. You can't easily take the nighttime wind energy and put it in a bottle for the next morning, at least not as easily as a coal plant which burns more coal when the area needs more power. These aren't insurmountable problems, but they're still pretty tricky.

[hamishspence]

main problem is habitat devastation. the Coral reefs are just one casualty (warming water) And they have lasted a long time- probably through the Medieval Warm period.

Look at all the places that are likely to be damaged from rising seas, desertification, etc, and- net result, world is getting big problems from global warming that won't be outweighed by slight crop increases in a few places.

[Serpentine]

main problem is habitat devastation. the Coral reefs are just one casualty (warming water) And they have lasted a long time- probably through the Medieval Warm period.

Actually, calcifying corals have dropped out of the fossil record a number of times. It could just be that they moved and we haven't found them, but yeah... Also, as I said, warm water isn't the only, or even the major, concern with coral.
You're right, though.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Seeing as it's appropriate to the topic, I've got a book to recommend for y'all. It's Cool It by Bjorn Lomborg. His main point is that global warming does indeed exist, but it's nowhere near the catastrophic event over the next 100 year some have made it out to be. He also points out, through lots of cost analysis, how ineffective the current plans (mainly Kyoto) are. He then goes on to say how instead of dumping trillions of dollars into something that has so little effect, let's look at the real issues in the world and by taking care of malaria, AIDS/HIV, poverty, and other major worldwide concerns, we will spend billions less, and have far more impact on the world. It's a pretty good book, and not very long either.

[Serpentine]

Funny, most of the stuff I've heard has said that it's happening faster than anticipated, just maybe in different ways...

[hamishspence]

How much of a problem is the extra CO2 in the ocean?

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

@ hamishspence

From what I've read in the aforementioned Lomborg book, focusing on CO2 is not the way to go. He says for every dollar that is spent on trying to reduce the impact of CO2, it only does about 32 cents worth of good. Trying to reduce CO2, even if the plans in place work 100%, the impact on CO2 is a fraction of a percent reduction over the next century. That being said, warming of the atmosphere naturally causes water to expand, but the current figure is that the oceans will rise about 1 foot by 2100. Most of which I don't believe is due to CO2, so to answer your question. Not too much.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm so disappointed, I thought this was going to be a heated debate over how SPEES MEHREENS are OP in their latest codex and if the prices going up for the umptibillionth time are price gouging or economic reponse.

[Innis Cabal]

No, I think he was implying that the belief that anthropogenic global warming is a real phenomenon is a religious belief. Which is fairly insulting and pointless.

I meant it as such. Just didn't want to come out and tell him he was wrong. That rarely gets anything done.

We're between ice ages as it is, the world has had global heating and cooling trends. Are we helping it? No, but we don't produce even half of what a volcano eruption does. Not that some of its not fearmongering,and we should go to other fuel sources for varied reasons. But there are clearly people out there in the know that disagree with the findings. And sadly they've been laughed out of their respective fields for not agreeing with the popular thought process. And thats a shame.

For all we know what we're doing is even worse of the ecosystem of our world. Is it likely? Maybe, we won't know.

[hamishspence]

we don't put out much in the short term, but over a long period of time, it is much more than any normal eruption. Eruptions- short pulse (and they provide a lot of water vapour, sulphur dioxide, etc as well). 2 centuries-odd of steady pumping of carbon from coal? Thats a lot.

Throw in the fact that the oceans have been soaking it up, and they are running out of ability to do so, and it explains why the concern- the danger of a "tipping point"

EDIT: Or rather- warming will reduce ability of ocean to act as a sink.

[bosssmiley]

I like their sculpt quality (particularly the LOTR models), their artwork, and the thought that goes into their fluff-writing, but I'm not so keen on their marketing strategies (as commented upon in other threads), their over-zealous IP protection, or their 'successful, but not successful enough' attitude to Black Library (WFRP and their excellent fluffbooks).

Oh wait. You want to talk about some other GW on a gaming webcomic forum?

Everything in its' place, and the place for arguing about the pros and cons of climate change, energy efficiency, alternative power generation technologies and the like (with all the quasi-political flamewar potential that appends therewith) is really not here.

[hamishspence]

well, there are other Science threads on this area of the forum. Still, it's tricky, but so far its not gone too badly.

[The Neoclassic]

I like their sculpt quality (particularly the LOTR models), their artwork, and the thought that goes into their fluff-writing, but I'm not so keen on their marketing strategies (as commented upon in other threads), their over-zealous IP protection, or their 'successful, but not successful enough' attitude to Black Library (WFRP and their excellent fluffbooks).

Oh wait. You want to talk about some other GW on a gaming webcomic forum?

This is the thread you are looking for!

[Mx.Silver]

I meant it as such. Just didn't want to come out and tell him he was wrong. That rarely gets anything done.

We're between ice ages as it is, the world has had global heating and cooling trends.

True, however ice ages do not spontaneuosly begin and end, there needs to be a trigger that affects the temperature first. Solar activity (which is and always has been the biggest influence on global temperature) has not increased in a way that would be consistent with it causing the current climate change. Neither has there been any significant change in volcanic activity, which is normally another prominent cause of climate change. While there has been increased cloud cover (which is mostly as a result of air pollution), that can have rather mixed effects on climate and we no evidence to suggest that it could account for what we're seeing now.

The only other warming mechanism is the greenhouse effect which, given the undeniable increase in the amount of Carbon-Dioxide and Methane in the atmosphere (not to mention in a very strong correllation with rising temperatures) is the only viable culprit. Similarly there is only one real phenomena that can account for this increase in greenhouse gasses: us.

To sum up: temperatures are rising, by far the largest amount of evidence suggests that this is a result of the increase in greenhouse gasses. The only thing we know of that could be creating this increase is human society and industry.
Therefore, unless you happen to have some solid alternate explanations or new data to hand, the logical conclusion is that we are probably causing this global climate change.

Are we helping it? No, but we don't produce even half of what a volcano eruption does.

This is a soundbite and not a very useful one. How big an erruption? What timescales are being taken into account here? Do we produce less than half what a typical volcanic erruption does in the length of time such an erruption takes? Do we produce less than half a year? Decade? Century? Millenia? Where are the figures for this?

Furthermore, even if that is the case the fact is that there hasn't been a significant change in volcanic activity that could account for the increased levels of greenhouse gasses. Therefore it doesn't really matter how human industry compares to volcanic erruptions as a pollutant. What matters is whether it produces any more than you'd expect to see in an environment where there isn't any source of human-made pollution and whether there are any other factors that could feasibly account for the increased amounts of grennhouse gasses.

Not that some of its not fearmongering,and we should go to other fuel sources for varied reasons. But there are clearly people out there in the know that disagree with the findings. And sadly they've been laughed out of their respective fields for not agreeing with the popular thought process. And thats a shame.

No, they've been sidelined because their data is questionable, their are flaws in their experiments or their results aren't supported by further investigation.

Or, in some cases, that they have do no scientific research nor have an understanding of the physics involved. Please do not pull the 'persecution' card here. It makes no sense when used in the context of the academic world in this manner.

For all we know what we're doing is even worse of the ecosystem of our world. Is it likely? Maybe, we won't know.

This is a rather flimsy assertion. Given that
1: we know pollution has negative effects on the ecosystem (even if you aren't counting global climate) and that
2: alternate methods produce significantly less of it and fewer waste products as well
It is quite simply illogical to assume we're doing more long-term damage with these methods. In a similar manner as it is illogical to assume rock music should be band in case it attracts hostile alien battlefleets.

[The Neoclassic]

In a similar manner as it is illogical to assume rock music should be band in case it attracts hostile alien battlefleets.

I'd just leave this out, as it is not a strong analogy and only going to lead to grief. For the record, I agree with your other points entirely; I just hate to see good arguments including little snippy statements which can be easily attacked (allowing people to ignore the real point).

[Moff Chumley]

Notice how the OP hasn't responded...

Trolling?

[Serpentine]

How much of a problem is the extra CO2 in the ocean?

@ hamishspence

From what I've read in the aforementioned Lomborg book, focusing on CO2 is not the way to go. He says for every dollar that is spent on trying to reduce the impact of CO2, it only does about 32 cents worth of good. Trying to reduce CO2, even if the plans in place work 100%, the impact on CO2 is a fraction of a percent reduction over the next century. That being said, warming of the atmosphere naturally causes water to expand, but the current figure is that the oceans will rise about 1 foot by 2100. Most of which I don't believe is due to CO2, so to answer your question. Not too much.

I was talking about, and he was asking about, the ocean, not the atmosphere. As I said on the previous page:

I've just now mentioned elsewhere the effect of CO² emissions on the oceans. It's called "ocean acidification", but my lecturer went into great detail on why that term's innaccurate. Anyway, basically, the calcification of coral reefs relies on a delicately balanced chemical equation. Calcifying corals are able to calcify more into their skeletons during the day than is dissolved at night (if you really want me to I can find the equations, but really, do you need it?). Increased CO² in the atmosphere (which is pretty much undeniable as a human-caused phenomenon) means more CO² dissolved in the ocean. This unbalances the oceanic chemistry, causing it to require more energy for the coral to calcify and resulting in a net loss of coral skeleton structure. This has already begun, with the paltry amount of action already taken it's practically inevitable and possibly irreversible, and unlike global warming (from which coral may be able to survive by moving further from the equator to cooler climes) it is ocean-wide and inescapable.
As my lecturer told me, get out and enjoy coral reefs while you can. There's a good chance they're on their way out. Regardless of whether global climate change "exists", it's the same human activities that's causing this well-documented phenomenon.

Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its impact on calcifying organisms
Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification
Ocean acidification: the other CO2 problem
From my study guide:

In addition to coral bleaching impacts, another important aspect of global climate change that is only recently receiving attention, is the problem of altered calcification saturation states resulting from increased CO₂ being absorbed by seawater. This is sometimes referred to as 'ocean acidification' (a technically incorrect term). Increased CO₂ absorption in seawater lowers the calcium carbonate saturation state, which reduces calcification by hermatypic corals and algae etc., which in turn leads to reduce skeletal growth and strength, and a reduced rate of reef growth. This is further compounded by the altered seawater chemistry saturation state increasing the rate of dissolution of coral skeletons and reefs, especially at night.

Coral dies, reefs collapse, ecosystems disappear. Fish stocks plummet, millions of people lose their food source and livelihood, communities starve. The intangible value of biodiversity aside, what's the dollar value of that imminent catastrophy?

Furthermore, there are several models for climate change, not just one. Just because one turns out to be incorrect, doesn't mean they all are, and even if we don't have the right model it doesn't mean it's not happening at all. In any case, global climate change is a scientific fact, at least as much so as evolution. There is more reliable evidence that it is anthropogenic, or at least exaccerbated by human impacts, than that it is not. Regardless of whether human activities are causing global climate change, we know that the same activities suspected of doing so are also responsible for all sorts of other, possibly less global, environmental impacts - pollution, the aforementioned ocean acidification, habitat destruction, global dimming, etc. Thus, "humans probably aren't causing climate change" is absolutely no reason to not change our ways. Anyway, the consequences of ignoring the warnings if they're true are far more dire than the consequences of preparing for them if they're false.

[KnightDisciple]

I think Serpentine hits the nail on the head. Let's stop pollution because it's freaking pollution, not for some argued over, politicized, debated, unsure theory about melting icecaps or whatnot.
For example, let's try to help make available the world over methods of logging that discourage clear cutting. Variable retention and so forth. I'd eat the increased cost of wood products if it were for something like that. Alternatively, encourage purpose-grown tree groves; maybe set up a half a dozen spaces, with each harvested in turn, allowin the others to grow and recover.
Cut down on smoke emissions. Increase efficiency. I'm a "hardcore capitalist", and I support this stuff. It's logical Poison is bad, less poison or no poison is good.
Let's take that angle, rather than preaching ice cap melting doom. I'd wager you'd get less negative reaction.

[Serpentine]

Funny, I think we're kinda coming at this at opposite angles... Your last line, I would've put more as "Let's take that angle, rather than attacking legitimate yet fallible, and really kinda irrelevant, science". I think there's no point, and in fact a great deal of harm, in arguing that we shouldn't do anything because the evidence for global climate change is less than complete. And if there is even a chance that climate change science is correct, or even half right, we need to get started right now.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Cut down on smoke emissions. Increase efficiency. I'm a "hardcore capitalist", and I support this stuff. It's logical Poison is bad, less poison or no poison is good.

See, you just hit the nail on the head. Capitalism and wealth will go a long ways to curing what Serpentine mentioned. If the world concentrated on things like eradicating Malaria, and getting developing and third world nations' infrastructure up to the rest of the world it will help leaps and bounds. When you actually keep people from dying from communicable diseases that a definitely preventable, you obviously have more healthy people. Why more people living, the wealth of a nation should naturally increase once the money is spent to update the infrastructure. Once you have good infrastructure, you no longer have the need of as many factories, and the like, which in turn decreases pollution a whole heck of a lot.

@ serpentine, I see that now, but I read it as what impact does/will CO2 have on oceans.

Oh, a little off tangent from the last point. I'd like to point out that more people(and animals) actually die from cold related deaths than they do heat related deaths by a factor of 5. (I think, I'll check that and change it if it's wrong.)

[Serpentine]

See, you just hit the nail on the head. Capitalism and wealth will go a long ways to curing what Serpentine mentioned. If the world concentrated on things like eradicating Malaria, and getting developing and third world nations' infrastructure up to the rest of the world it will help leaps and bounds. When you actually keep people from dying from communicable diseases that a definitely preventable, you obviously have more healthy people. Why more people living, the wealth of a nation should naturally increase once the money is spent to update the infrastructure. Once you have good infrastructure, you no longer have the need of as many factories, and the like, which in turn decreases pollution a whole heck of a lot.

This isn't an either/or situation. Noone's saying "we can either spend all this money on helping cure diseases, or we can work on making our use of the planet more sustainable. You can't have it both ways, people!". Anyway, there's a pretty severe lack of money being spent on either. Furthermore, the planet can't wait for human life to reach perfection. The building of the infrastructure needs to start now.

@ serpentine, I see that now, but I read it as what impact does/will CO2 have on oceans.

It is. And the answer is, "a lot".

Oh, a little off tangent from the last point. I'd like to point out that more people(and animals) actually die from cold related deaths than they do heat related deaths by a factor of 5. (I think, I'll check that and change it if it's wrong.)

It's not just about direct, individual deaths. It's also about entire ecosystems. I know I'm focussing on this, but take corals: They can only survive and successfully reproduce within a relatively narrow thermal range. This range is already beginning to be breached - the damage is already obvious with increased frequency of bleaching episodes. This isn't just about one colony, or one species, or even one group of species: Hard corals form the foundation of coral reefs. Reefs are comparable in biodiversity to the richest of rainforests, especially when contrasting them with the desert that is the rest of the ocean. They are also the "nursery" of many other species of fish and the like, many of which humans use. If this one group of animals die, the ecosystem will completely collapse, which, aside from that being a disaster in itself, will have drastic flow-on repercussions for the humans that exploit marine resources. The death of a few individuals, and their relative thermal causes, is moot.

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Furthermore, the planet can't wait for human life to reach perfection. The building of the infrastructure needs to start now.

But there's one MAJOR issue with that thought. When the powers at be, due to the apocalyptic messages a select few send out of the of the worst case scenarios are taken as fact by many, priorities get skewed. When people are hell bent on following Kyoto through even though it will cost trillions and trillions of dollars for basically no effect at all, especially when the biggest culprits are allowed to do what they want, the building of anything constructive can't happen. people are too wrapped up that reducing CO2 is the answer when it is actually the least constructive measure we can take. it all boils down to using a lot less money where it will have the most impact, but most can't see that because the media I'm looking at you Discovery Channel), or such things like using blatantly wrong fact in An Inconvenient Truth) are ramming the end of the world in 50 years down are throats every day.

[The Neoclassic]

But there's one MAJOR issue with that thought. When the powers at be, due to the apocalyptic messages a select few send out of the of the worst case scenarios are taken as fact by many, priorities get skewed. When people are hell bent on following Kyoto through even though it will cost trillions and trillions of dollars for basically no effect at all, especially when the biggest culprits are allowed to do what they want, the building of anything constructive can't happen. people are too wrapped up that reducing CO2 is the answer when it is actually the least constructive measure we can take. it all boils down to using a lot less money where it will have the most impact, but most can't see that because the media I'm looking at you Discovery Channel), and the likes of Al Gore (I'm not trying to make this political, but he used a lot of data that was just plain wrong in An Inconvenient Truth) are ramming the end of the world in 50 years down are throats every day.

Just one thing: If we're all so brainwashed and indoctrinated, why are so many people arguing that global warming is nonsense or a conspiracy?

[purple gelatinous cube o' Doom]

Just one thing: If we're all so brainwashed and indoctrinated, why are so many people arguing that global warming is nonsense or a conspiracy?

Because there will always be nutjobs out there on both sides of the equation. Just 30 years ago people were freaking out saying that the next ice age was upon us. These very same people are currently the ones with the doomsday predictions of global warming. Now, with more people on the planet, the temperature will naturally increase, as it does with the case of more urban areas. My view on the subject is as follows. Can we say that global warming exists? The answer to that is no. Can we say that global cooling exists? The answer to that is also no. The thing many people seem to fail to realize is that the temperature of the earth is cyclical. But, while the global cooling experts see the evidence and say that it's only anecdotal, many global warming theorists take it as fact. Now why is this? I believe is because many of the global warming people likely have agendas they want to push, while the people on the flip side of the coin seemingly do not. Now, with the aforementioned book I'm reading (Cool It), the author states that global warming is indeed happening. For the purpose of reading the book, I am looking at things from that perspective while I read it. Why am I doing this? Because it makes all the suggestions and data in the book work. It also goes to prove that if this guy can amass this information, and see things for what they really are, and what we should be spending billions less on, to do more good, why can't the leaders of the world realize these things too.

[Pyrian]

I believe is because many of the global warming people likely have agendas they want to push, while the people on the flip side of the coin seemingly do not.

Dude, the people spending billions and billions of dollars on the flip side are oil companies.

I must confess, I'm now quite curious, though: why is this thread even allowed to exist, here? Has moderation stopped altogether?

[Serpentine]

^ I don't see where we've crossed the line so far. Maybe mention of the Kyoto Protocol is a bit political, and there's been passing reference perhaps to "government action", but that's about it. The rules forbid political and religious topics, and various antisocial behaviours, not controvercial (sp?) topics in general. I won't be surprised if this is soon locked, but it isn't foregone conclusion or natural assumption.

Now, with more people on the planet, the temperature will naturally increase, as it does with the case of more urban areas.

This is an odd thing to say. Can you give me any data that says that this is so, and can account for all the weird climate stuff going on? Furthermore, you state this so dismissively, as though it's just a minor thing if humans are significantly effecting global temperatures through our mere presence, not a big deal and not something we have to worry about or deal with.

My view on the subject is as follows. Can we say that global warming exists? The answer to that is no. Can we say that global cooling exists? The answer to that is also no. The thing many people seem to fail to realize is that the temperature of the earth is cyclical.

I think you'll find that climatologists are well aware of the history of the world's climate, and its cycles. I also think you'll find that almost no experts are surprised by events apparently contradictory to the term "global warming" - a term that, I think, is largely defunct nowadays. Earth is getting warmer over all. It is actually perfectly within the models of rapid climate change for some places to cool, rather than heat - something to do with changes in ocean currents, which were predicted and we are already seeing.

But, while the global cooling experts see the evidence and say that it's only anecdotal, many global warming theorists take it as fact.

What, I wonder, is your definition of a "global cooling expert" as opposed to a "global warming theorist"? There's some seriously loaded language right there. I'd like to see you give me examples of some "experts" that are more reliable than the "theorists" due solely to the quality of their science and data collection and analysis, rather than the fact that they are attacking a "popular" scientific theory.

Now why is this? I believe is because many of the global warming people likely have agendas they want to push, while the people on the flip side of the coin seemingly do not.

This is just absurd. What Pyrian said, and furthermore there are innumerable scientists, specifically in climatology and also in others such as marine biology, who are not only using global climate change as a basic fact but who are also gathering ample evidence to support it. Almost all the government reactions have, at least initially, been negative, especially among the oil-reliant nations. Science has had to push to get even as much action as there has been. Exactly what benefit are rapid climate change experts going to get from this?! Another grant for a few more years?
Tell me, just what are the qualifications and the background of this marvelous author?
On a previous post:

people are too wrapped up that reducing CO2 is the answer when it is actually the least constructive measure we can take.

The only - only - way to save the coral reefs of the world is to reduce CO₂, and I have absolutely no doubt that there are numerous other benefits to doing this, quite apart from the (extremely well-documented) global climate change. Never mind, though, it's all just a big conspiracy, pickin' on the poor li'l oil companies, and far too much effort