Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

[gneebore]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

I don't have to believe, the proof is overwhelming. John Coleman sounds more like a snake oil salesman than a scientist. Renewable energy will overtake fossil fuels regardless of how much money the oil and coal industry throws at discrediting it because it is more efficient and cheaper. I predict that by the end of the century electricity will be almost free as renewables and fusion take over. These are the disruptive technologies that the miners are afraid of.

Maybe renewables if the two or three different environmental groups quit fighting over "not in my back yard put them somewhere else" nonsense. Right now there are plans being drawn up to develop offshore wind farms off the coast of South Carolina. Too bad an environmental group has threatened lawsuits to block them being built because there is no need. Then you mention fusion. Sorry given how nasty the waste from that is I prefer hydro carbon fossil fuels instead. Just to name two disaster involving nuclear there is Chernobyl and there is Three Mile Island. Chernobyl has made hundreds of square miles unlivable due to the radiation released. Then there is Three Mile Island. Happened in the seventies and wasn't as bad. But there was measurable radioactivity in the rains three hundred miles away in NJ. And that was a steam leak. Oh yes add the recent Fukishima reactor failure due to a tidal wave. News reports are mentioning toxic radioactive waters washing up onto the west coast of North America still. Several years after that episode since some of the retaining walls are weakening.

[jmaister]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

First one tiny bit of glaring error. Without mass production you would not have any of the common day to day necessities at a reasonable price, like for instance light bulbs. We would still be using candles and or oil lamps. But here is an explanation of cost being brought down by mass production.
How much did the first light bulb cost? | Reference.com


Then there is that horrid mass produced object so vilified as a pollution source no one should own one, the automobile. Back before autos were common we had horse drawn carriages to get around in. Going more than twenty miles to complete any sort of commercial or personal business was a day long outing. Then in the case of cities, like New York there was the need to clean up after the horses. Horse dung was a major source or debris in the streets of Manhatten in the late 1800's. Or to add to the discussion if mass production was not used then then there more than likely be no auto in any sort of price range that anyone other than the top one percent would be able to afford. Yes if Henry Ford had not introduced the assembly line to manufacture auto the average price of an auto was 3,000 dollars when the average wage earned was 500 dollars a year. But then that would suit the environmentalist leftist mantra that the evil rich are to blame for the lack of basic transportation for the working man.

but, has it gotten better? They were just horse dungs. Concentration of dungs isnt the problem, but why was there concentration of horses? Dungs were never the root problem. Like now, climate change is not the problem, its the symptom.

Pollution isnt the root problem, tho dire. Combustion powered machinery isnt the problem, as everyone need them. This fact is as plain as day light. I'm not discounting technologies thats beneficial(just my lack of ability to include many thoughts in few words), but even they cost something in the manufacturing process.

Same root problem, different symptom.

Humans are powerful beings, so powerful, we can choose to be the disease of the planet or its restorer. The latter is more difficult and less appealing it seems.

thx for being a good sport sir, nice chattin with ya.

[gneebore]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

but, has it gotten better? They were just horse dungs. Concentration of dungs isnt the problem, but why was there concentration of horses? Dungs were never the root problem. Like now, climate change is not the problem, its the symptom.

Pollution isnt the root problem, tho dire. Combustion powered machinery isnt the problem, as everyone need them. This fact is as plain as day light. I'm not discounting technologies thats beneficial(just my lack of ability to include many thoughts in few words), but even they cost something in the manufacturing process.

Same root problem, different symptom.

Humans are powerful beings, so powerful, we can choose to be the disease of the planet or its restorer. The latter is more difficult and less appealing it seems.

thx for being a good sport sir, nice chattin with ya.

Everything has a trade-off. Currently one of the environmental problems is the use of mercury in cfl light bulbs. The EPA actually has a rather long list of the recommended cleaning procedure to follow if you drop one in your house. Have a look it is about a page and a half on how to safely clean up a broken cfl bulb in your house.
Dangers of CFL Mercury Light Bulbs

As for the horse dung that was to illustrate a problem that may have actually been worse than the replacement of horses by automobiles. There were literally tons of horse manure dropped in the city streets of Manhatten alone each day. And yes back then there weren't easy ways to clean it up. Just a rather large number on men with push brooms and shovels. Oh and to add to the problem there were a whole bunch of rats running through the dung getting it on their feet and fur and then entering homes and oh no even food markets and kitchens, And of cpurse where you have manure you have flies landing and taking even minute particles of defecation with them wherever they flew next. Just imagine the numbers of horse drawn wagons that would be needed to replace the number of cars being driven into the city today and all the stables that would be needed to house them when not pulling a cart or wagon. Oh yes there is one other nasty thing about horses. They also urinate wherever they get the urge, Nice rivers of smelly horse urine running through the streets. I'll take the cars.

The only way we can actually go back to the agrarian style living is for one heck of a population reduction. Like the reported one child per family rule in China, Which really hasn't seemed to reduce the population there any over the last twenty years when i first heard about it.

[jimmcgee]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

Maybe renewables if the two or three different environmental groups quit fighting over "not in my back yard put them somewhere else" nonsense. Right now there are plans being drawn up to develop offshore wind farms off the coast of South Carolina. Too bad an environmental group has threatened lawsuits to block them being built because there is no need. Then you mention fusion. Sorry given how nasty the waste from that is I prefer hydro carbon fossil fuels instead. Just to name two disaster involving nuclear there is Chernobyl and there is Three Mile Island. Chernobyl has made hundreds of square miles unlivable due to the radiation released. Then there is Three Mile Island. Happened in the seventies and wasn't as bad. But there was measurable radioactivity in the rains three hundred miles away in NJ. And that was a steam leak. Oh yes add the recent Fukishima reactor failure due to a tidal wave. News reports are mentioning toxic radioactive waters washing up onto the west coast of North America still. Several years after that episode since some of the retaining walls are weakening.

All of these nuclear reactors are fission reactors which produce radioactive waste and sometimes meltdown. What I'm talking about is fusion reactors which use sea water for fuel and produce helium as a waste product. There is a project in Europe called Iter, which will be the largest fusion reactor ever built. We will have fusion generators by the end of this century. Take a look back to where we stood this time last century. We had only just learnt to fly. Now whole building fly across the world.

[gneebore]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

All of these nuclear reactors are fission reactors which produce radioactive waste and sometimes meltdown. What I'm talking about is fusion reactors which use sea water for fuel and produce helium as a waste product. There is a project in Europe called Iter, which will be the largest fusion reactor ever built. We will have fusion generators by the end of this century. Take a look back to where we stood this time last century. We had only just learnt to fly. Now whole building fly across the world.

There is still radioactive wastes. Granted a whole lot less but the entire plant(reactor vessel) once it reaches the end of it useful life becomes radioactive waste for a term estimated to be 50 to 100 years. Have not seen any sites that actually listed the project life cycle of the plant. But admittedly it wasn't part of what I searched for. Given the way environmental movements work I suspect that there will be a whole lot of roadblocks put up to delay or prevent the fusion plants from being built. More than likely the mindset of "the man lied before so who is to say he isn't lying now just to build a poison generator like the old nuclear power plants" Looks like a reasonable and possible future energy source like you said at the end of the century.

[theengel]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

As far as I know, they still haven't figured out a way to get more energy out of fusion than they put it.

[BLADE]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

so what are the world reserves of lithium and other such materials, when can we expect 'peak lithium' to occur?

[SalesServiceGuy]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

Up until Nov 7th there were only two countries in the world that had not agreed to sign the terms of the Paris Climate agreement. Syria and the USA. Today Syria announced it will join the agreement leaving the USA as the only country in the world not willing to participate.

President Trump announced in June that the US would withdraw from the climate accord, a process that will be complete in 2020.

"We are getting out", he said. "We will start to renegotiate and we will see if there is a better deal. If we can great. If we can't that fine".

I do not think the earth negotiates with anyone.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/syria-paris-climate-agreement/index.html

[gneebore]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

so what are the world reserves of lithium and other such materials, when can we expect 'peak lithium' to occur?

Here's the most recent I could find quickly from 2008.
Lithium Abundance - World Lithium Reserve

And here is an article from The Motley Fool website discussing some of the problems with a different type of pollution using lithium.
Tesla Motors' Dirty Little Secret Is a Major Problem -- The Motley Fool

Does seem to be a bit of a dilemma do we trade one form of pollution for another? Plus the increased need to add to the electrical grid to provide charging stations. I don't think the fusion reactors of the future will be effective. Have not found a reference to the reactor study in Europe. Lots of other articles but none that mentioned any experimental designs in the works yet.

In an earlier post there was mention of the ITER fusion project. I have found a web page that actually does discuss the possible power output and it does not look good for the project.

The ITER Power Amplification Myth | New Energy Times - LENR News and Scientific References

[SalesServiceGuy]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

With the recent exciting news about Tesla's introduction of a battery powered semi freight truck tractor with specs that have the trucking industry abuzz, I was wondering where does the raw material Lithium come from and how is it produced. Thanks for the article from the Motley Fool stating that the USA imports 95% plus of this raw material from South America and the harmful effects it has on the environment.

[Iowatech]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

Up until Nov 7th there were only two countries in the world that had not agreed to sign the terms of the Paris Climate agreement. Syria and the USA. Today Syria announced it will join the agreement leaving the USA as the only country in the world not willing to participate.

President Trump announced in June that the US would withdraw from the climate accord, a process that will be complete in 2020.

"We are getting out", he said. "We will start to renegotiate and we will see if there is a better deal. If we can great. If we can't that fine".

I do not think the earth negotiates with anyone.

http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/syria-paris-climate-agreement/index.html

As I can see the results of both a shallow tropical ocean and glaciers from ages past, I don't think the Earth takes anything humans do very seriously.
Something that bugs me about this whole human caused climate change thing is this: pretty much all the people claiming that don't actually live like they think its a problem. Kudos to you for discussing this on an online forum - the supposedly official sponsors of climate change all seem to fly around on pollution spewing jets to environment destroying resorts for their discussions of the issues. Sorry if you've heard this before, but I'm curious on your take on this.

[theengel]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

SalesServiceGuy flies carelessly on fuel burning machines where he can take advantage of impoverished nations and bless them with his presence.

[SalesServiceGuy]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

As I can see the results of both a shallow tropical ocean and glaciers from ages past, I don't think the Earth takes anything humans do very seriously.
Something that bugs me about this whole human caused climate change thing is this: pretty much all the people claiming that don't actually live like they think its a problem. Kudos to you for discussing this on an online forum - the supposedly official sponsors of climate change all seem to fly around on pollution spewing jets to environment destroying resorts for their discussions of the issues. Sorry if you've heard this before, but I'm curious on your take on this.

Your question could be worded a bit better but I think you are trying to make a link between the perceived over size eco impact of a few global climate leaders.

If so, the most visible Global Climate change leader is the former VP of the USA, Al Gore. I would respond that Al Gore's carbon footprint does not matter. Yes he flies around in private jets and lives in a big house while suggesting to citizens various ways to reduce their use of electricity and fossil fuels.

Climate change deniers lead personal attacks on Al Gore as a way of trying to cast doubt on established climate science and distract attention from the most serious global threat that humans around the world face.

The claim that Gore and his ilk are hypocrites is a classic conservative attack strategy of redirection (because it ignores the core issues of climate change) and poisoning the well (because it attempts to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger). This is much easier and perhaps more rhetorically effective than debunking climate science itself.

Climate change advocates who don't live a carbon neutral lifestyle are not hypocrites because for the most part they are not asking you to live a carbon neutral lifestyle. They are asking governments, utilities, energy companies and large corporations to increase their use of renewable energy so that you can continue to live your life as you please without contributing to global warming.

The reason climate advocates don not intensely advocate for personal behavioral changes is that they are insignificant to the big picture on climate. They do suggest that you elect politicians who are climate friendly.

This is not to say that celebrities and wealthy people should be given carte blanche to consume as much dirty energy as they want. If we are to take this hypocrisy argument seriously, then every rich person who wants to advocate for climate action must live in the smallest home possible, bicycle to work and not fly anywhere plus give all of their speeches via Skype.

People like Al Gore are using their wealth for good. Al Gore has devoted his life to making sure we act in time to avert a global climate crisis. The lowering of carbon emissions resulting from his efforts dwarfs whatever his own personal carbon footprint might be.

The most unfortunate aspect of this argument is how it misleads vulnerable populations. Rich people will not be effected by climate change. If rising sea levels threaten their vacation properties, they can just move. They will always be able to afford air conditioning no matter how high electricity rates climb. The irony is that the vulnerable working class and poor people are likely to be hit the hardest by climate change.

[SalesServiceGuy]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

SalesServiceGuy flies carelessly on fuel burning machines where he can take advantage of impoverished nations and bless them with his presence.

...

[theengel]

Re: Do you believe that Climate Change is real and caused by mankind?

Your question could be worded a bit better but I think you are trying to make a link between the perceived over size eco impact of a few global climate leaders.

If so, the most visible Global Climate change leader is the former VP of the USA, Al Gore. I would respond that Al Gore's carbon footprint does not matter. Yes he flies around in private jets and lives in a big house while suggesting to citizens various ways to reduce their use of electricity and fossil fuels.

Climate change deniers lead personal attacks on Al Gore as a way of trying to cast doubt on established climate science and distract attention from the most serious global threat that humans around the world face.

The claim that Gore and his ilk are hypocrites is a classic conservative attack strategy of redirection (because it ignores the core issues of climate change) and poisoning the well (because it attempts to discredit the message by discrediting the messenger). This is much easier and perhaps more rhetorically effective than debunking climate science itself.

Climate change advocates who don't live a carbon neutral lifestyle are not hypocrites because for the most part they are not asking you to live a carbon neutral lifestyle. They are asking governments, utilities, energy companies and large corporations to increase their use of renewable energy so that you can continue to live your life as you please without contributing to global warming.

The reason climate advocates don not intensely advocate for personal behavioral changes is that they are insignificant to the big picture on climate. They do suggest that you elect politicians who are climate friendly.

This is not to say that celebrities and wealthy people should be given carte blanche to consume as much dirty energy as they want. If we are to take this hypocrisy argument seriously, then every rich person who wants to advocate for climate action must live in the smallest home possible, bicycle to work and not fly anywhere plus give all of their speeches via Skype.

People like Al Gore are using their wealth for good. Al Gore has devoted his life to making sure we act in time to avert a global climate crisis. The lowering of carbon emissions resulting from his efforts dwarfs whatever his own personal carbon footprint might be.

The most unfortunate aspect of this argument is how it misleads vulnerable populations. Rich people will not be effected by climate change. If rising sea levels threaten their vacation properties, they can just move. They will always be able to afford air conditioning no matter how high electricity rates climb. The irony is that the vulnerable working class and poor people are likely to be hit the hardest by climate change.

Classic man, just classic.