2014 was World's Warmest Year on Record

[User Name]

Let's be honest here. We can go on and on about the causes on global warming. Let's assume for argument's sake the global warming is mostly man made. So what are we (humanity) supposed to do about it?

That's a great question and practical solutions are exactly what we need. One solution is to switch to LED light bulbs. LED bulbs use only a fraction of the electricity of incandescent and CFL bulbs, and they do not contain mercury. The best LED bulbs are made by companies such as Cree, TCP, and Philips.

I have just recently replaced all of the incandescent light bulbs in my house with LED bulbs. To give you an example, I replaced the vanity bulbs with LEDs made by TCP. These vanity bulbs produce the equivalent of over 40 watts of incandescent light but they burn only 4 watts of electricity. These bulbs will pay for themselves in less than 2 years with the energy savings, and since they are expected to last up to 20 years, the long-term savings will be very substantial, far surpassing the initial investment. Using substantially less electricity means that the electric company burns less fossil fuel--a very practical and mutually beneficial, if only partial, solution.

Another practical solution that is mutually beneficial to all is the incorporation of industrial hemp in building materials.

There are accusations on both sides of the argument that the other side is being paid off, or stands to financially benefit somehow, from their agenda. A practical solution would therefore be one in which everyone benefits. The incorporation of LED light bulbs and industrial hemp are two examples of just such a solution in which everyone benefits.

 

[Tinark]

Green taxes. Taxing people out of a paranoid theory.

As opposed to taxing labor and capital - the productive stuff in the economy?

How do I funnel the green taxes to myself?

By the way, your characterization of the theory is ignorant at best and delusional at worst.

 

[rexlunae]

But it is true. Why do you think scientists are more concerned with a meteor hitting Earth over the ice caps melting? That is, something statistically astronomical over something supposedly immanent?

I'm really not sure how you're purporting to measure the interest of scientists, but I can't think of any objective measure that supports you. We certainly spend plenty of money on climate research.

The scientists I work with seem a lot more interested in global warming. But that's definitely a biased sample.

One can throw all the 'science' they want at it, but the intent and action is so extraordinarily plain that unless you have more then what you got, you aren't going to make believers out of those on the Right. Global warming is sorely centered around dubious convenience and money; wasn't even brought up much until the political gain warranted it.

Scientists have been trying to raise the alarm for decades, and finding less than receptive politicians most of the time. The current President has done a lot on the subject relative to others, which is why there are a lot of political fights about it right now, but really the people who are politicizing the issue are those politicians in states addicted to dirty energy, like in Kentucky, both McConnell and Lundergan-Grimes pandered to an industry that needs to end.

 

[resodko]

Modern conveniences don't have to be powered by 19th century technology (fossil fuels).

19th century, eh? :think:

that sounds really really archaic!

Solar

as old as human civilization

wind

them dutch windmills were ancient well before the 19th century

nuclear

the nuclear aircraft carrier my son will be on, boils water to make steam to turn the blades of a turbine

19th century technology

hydropower

 

[Nathon Detroit]

:mock: Global Warming alarmists.

 

[rexlunae]

Let's be honest here.

That would be good.

We can go on and on about the causes on global warming. Let's assume for argument's sake the global warming is mostly man made.

Sounds reasonable.

So what are we (humanity) supposed to do about it? It's unlikely people will give up their cars and other modern conveniences created in pollution producing factories.

How about if we at least stop subsidizing coal and oil and gas extraction that we're pretty sure are The Problem? How about if we actually make the gas tax pay for the roads like it was supposed to instead of subsidizing automobile transportation from general funds? How about if we actually deploy workable rail transport like every other industrialized nation in the world?

The problem with this argument is that we aren't even doing the very simple, basic things that are nearly free. Maybe if we were, we could ask ourselves if it's really worth the cost.

Also, countries like India and China are modernizing rapidly and they will want more and more cars and other modern conveniences as well.

Well, India doesn't pollute on anything like the scale that China does. But at present, China is the world's leading investor in green energy. And they have all the economic incentive in the world to do it. We need to stop using them as an excuse for our own inaction.

Lets live up to the agreement the President signed with China a couple of months ago.

 

[User Name]

The current President has done a lot on the subject relative to others, which is why there are a lot of political fights about it right now

To me it seems unfortunate that we should have to look to dubious politicians and government programs to do something about greenhouse gas. In my last post I proposed two practical solutions that we all can employ in order to reduce our "carbon footprint"--the use of LED light bulbs and industrial hemp. Can you think of any others?

 

[resodko]

:mock: Global Warming alarmists.

 

[Jose Fly]

How about if we at least stop subsidizing coal and oil and gas extraction that we're pretty sure are The Problem?

Exactly. We are definitely not paying the true cost of fossil fuels.

The problem with this argument is that we aren't even doing the very simple, basic things that are nearly free. Maybe if we were, we could ask ourselves if it's really worth the cost.

Can you imagine if we increased energy efficiency, developed alternative energies, and constructed a modern mass transit system.....and the whole global warming thing was a mistake or hoax?

What a waste of time!!

 

[The Berean]

Modern conveniences don't have to be powered by 19th century technology (fossil fuels).

Mankind will continue to use fossil fuels until there are no longer any fossil fuels on Earth. Or at least until it is no longer economically viable to do so.

Solar, wind, nuclear and hydropower are all non-carbon emitting. Put more money into technology for these industries (as well as efficiency) and emissions can be cut quite drastically without affecting quality of life. It takes government intervention though, which right wingers don't want to believe is necessary, hence the opposition.

Putting more money? Putting more money into a problem almost never solves the problem. Shoot, the Federal government loaned Solyndra over a half a billion dollars to develop solar technology and we the tax payers got NOTHING in return. Developing solar, wind, nuclear and hydropower has been very slow but it has nothing to do with the lack of money. The bottleneck had been scientific and engineering constraints. After decades of research and billions in investment we have yet to develop a viable nuclear fusion process that is also economically viable for example.

But there are market forces involved too, insurance companies are already raising rates because of the increase in weather related disasters caused by climate change. In the long run it's cheaper to cut emissions now. Unfortunately pure capitalism doesn't look at long term consequences well.

But how do we cut emissions? That is the question few really answer. Do we remove the majority of cars off the road? Do we limit the output of factories? What? :idunno:

 

[Alate_One]

Nick Neg repped me for spreading "misinformation" So both NASA and NOAA are all about misinformation. :rotfl:

That CO2 is a greenhouse gas has been known since the 1800s

That CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere has been known since the late 1950s, the keeling curve which went over 400 ppm for the first time this year.

What do you think happens when you put those two things together?

You can even do the experiment as the mythbusters did.

Mythbusters Test Global warming

But according to Nick, it's all misinformation. Reality is misinformation to him I guess.

 

[rexlunae]

To me it seems unfortunate that we should have to look to dubious politicians and government programs to do something about greenhouse gas.

We don't have to rely on them. But having them on board certainly helps, and it can make the difference between an approach being viable and not.

In my last post I proposed two practical solutions that we all can employ in order to reduce our "carbon footprint"--the use of LED light bulbs and industrial hemp. Can you think of any others?

Both are good. I recently had a solar panel array installed on my roof, and I drive an electric car most days. Those also help. It would also help if I had access to a train that ran frequently enough and to enough places fast enough to displace some of my automobile and air travel. And on all of those points, those that exist and those that don't, the government has a large hand in helping to make them available.

 

[The Berean]

How about if we at least stop subsidizing coal and oil and gas extraction that we're pretty sure are The Problem? How about if we actually make the gas tax pay for the roads like it was supposed to instead of subsidizing automobile transportation from general funds?

And all this will slow down or possibly reverse global warming and the rising ocean levels?

How about if we actually deploy workable rail transport like every other industrialized nation in the world?

We are here in California.

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/

The problem with this argument is that we aren't even doing the very simple, basic things that are nearly free. Maybe if we were, we could ask ourselves if it's really worth the cost.

what argument are you referring to?

Well, India doesn't pollute on anything like the scale that China does. But at present, China is the world's leading investor in green energy. And they have all the economic incentive in the world to do it. We need to stop using them as an excuse for our own inaction.

That is not my point at all. My point is that in the future China and India will have a demand for tens of millions more automobiles. Unless China/India plan to only use Tesla Motors cars then that will be a major hindrance in reducing man made pollution.

Lets live up to the agreement the President signed with China a couple of months ago.

Ok.

 

[The Berean]

That's a great question and practical solutions are exactly what we need. One solution is to switch to LED light bulbs. LED bulbs use only a fraction of the electricity of incandescent and CFL bulbs, and they do not contain mercury. The best LED bulbs are made by companies such as Cree, TCP, and Philips.

I have just recently replaced all of the incandescent light bulbs in my house with LED bulbs. To give you an example, I replaced the vanity bulbs with LEDs made by TCP. These vanity bulbs produce the equivalent of over 40 watts of incandescent light but they burn only 4 watts of electricity. These bulbs will pay for themselves in less than 2 years with the energy savings, and since they are expected to last up to 20 years, the long-term savings will be very substantial, far surpassing the initial investment. Using substantially less electricity means that the electric company burns less fossil fuel--a very practical and mutually beneficial, if only partial, solution.

Another practical solution that is mutually beneficial to all is the incorporation of industrial hemp in building materials.

There are accusations on both sides of the argument that the other side is being paid off, or stands to financially benefit somehow, from their agenda. A practical solution would therefore be one in which everyone benefits. The incorporation of LED light bulbs and industrial hemp are two examples of just such a solution in which everyone benefits.

Ok, this is what I am talking about some practical solutions. :up:

 

[Totton Linnet]

Wasn't last winter the coldest on record?

 

[Alate_One]

Mankind will continue to use fossil fuels until there are no longer any fossil fuels on Earth. Or at least until it is no longer economically viable to do so.

And that's the thing, change the economic viability and people will change. You might have said the same thing about companies dumping toxic waste into rivers causing them to light on fire. But that practice was largely stopped when companies were charged with the costs of cleanup and fined for violating laws.

If people really recognize and understand the big problems caused by increasing CO2 and we priced that into the fuels, it would make more economic sense to go to alternatives anyway.

Putting more money? Putting more money into a problem almost never solves the problem. Shoot, the Federal government loaned Solyndra over a half a billion dollars to develop solar technology and we the tax payers got NOTHING in return.

From that particular investment. All investments are a risk. But overall that program has done rather well.Better than a lof of venture capital investments in the same field

Developing solar, wind, nuclear and hydropower has been very slow but it has nothing to do with the lack of money.

Compared to the money in fossil fuels? I don't think so.

The bottleneck had been scientific and engineering constraints. After decades of research and billions in investment we have yet to develop a viable nuclear fusion process that is also economically viable.

Well, fusion does have limitations but there are better forms of fission that haven't been well developed - due to investment hurdles and opposition from left wing groups. Alas.

Solar has advanced considerably and wind is essentially competitive with fossil fuels. The biggest hurdle is the ability to STORE power.

But how do we cut emissions? That is the question few really answer. Do we remove the majority of cars off the road? Do we limit the output of factors? What? :idunno:

Fuel efficiency is a first step. Transportation of food is a big problem - using rail vs. trucks is superior and there are hybrid trucks coming online. LEDs and CFLs, public transportation.

I think technology can be the only solution to the problem.

 

[Alate_One]

:mock: Global Warming alarmists.

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Global warming has an extreme confirmation bias factor. They have a lot of financial motivation which perpetuates it, the UK alone just hit 43 billion in green taxes.

 

[Jose Fly]

Solar Is Adding Jobs 10 Times Faster Than the Overall Economy

 

[User Name]

Global warming has an extreme confirmation bias factor. It goes hand in hand with the Robin Hood, political profiting you see

Would you care to answer the questions I asked you in post #13 of this thread?