Global Warming Opens Up Antarctic Waterways

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

So far....nope I don't see it.

None so blind ....

[Dogfish]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Whenever someone brings up population, it's usually in the context of "Population growth is unstoppable and will soon dwarf all other problems. So let's not do anything about anything, if we're not first sterilizing every third person".

Doesn't sound like something that's doable. I'm all for the complete equality and emancipation of women, which includes access to birth control, but some of our current trading partners still think women are chattel. Geez the US hasn't even come to terms with abortion.

Let's focus first on the efficiency side, to see how many people we can sustainably support. Then we'll sterilize'em.

Yes, let's see how many people we can sustainably support. Good thing we don't test bridges that way!

And you're doing that overreaction thing again with the sterilizing every third person.

My last post here (I mean it this time, truly).

If you would just read this aformentioned book:

Countdown: Our Last, Best Hope for a Future on Earth?

You would then say: "Ah, how completely wrong I was, in pretty much every respect, in my last post to Dogfish on that global warming thread."

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

White Guilt and personal digs may persuade you in a scientific argument...me...not so much....

The only person making scientific arguments here is jackdale, and you've been ignoring them or retreating to your pet MMGW conspiracy.

(Jackdale... respect! Unfortunately it's pearls before swine. Thanks anyway)

No fortresses have been breached, no minds changed, this is now just Bad Rhetoric 101, and in this I'm as guilty as anyone.

So..

But this time I mean it. If you still wanna pull my tail, PM me.

Cheers.

PS - I am no fan of my government's mad rush to exploit the tarsands. Our stupid government has gone all-in on resource extraction, and neglected other industries, and now that the bottom is out of the oil market, we're hurting bigtime. Same for US shale, right? Oil is like crack. We have to break this addiction, and maybe have some oil left in 300 years.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

Next up for discustion:
Why is Canada destroying the Environment by extracting the Tar Sands?

Greed pretty much.

Having said that, petroleum does have place as a feedstock for materials, lubricants, etc.. Burning it is just a bad idea when other energy sources can be made available.

[FlightPlan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The US spent a trillion in taxes and took 150,000 innocent lives to lose a bet in Iraq, so yeah I think AGW (theory or not) and other reasons provide sufficient justification for the INVESTMENT of a few 10s of billions of public money in conservation and energy alternatives. It's not just the right thing to do, it's developing the industries of the future. Or would you rather sit back and watch as China leapfrogs the US in advanced transportation, energy and other technologies? Their semiconductor capabilities already challenge those of the US and Europe.

You should prove that statement. 150,000 innocent lives? Really? What technology did China contribute that they didn't steal and manufacture with cheap labor.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by SV THIRD DAY

So far....nope I don't see it.

Maybe this will help improve your vision.

https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Roy...nce-causes.pdf

https://youtu.be/gIUN5ziSfNc

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

The US spent a trillion in taxes and took 150,000 innocent lives to lose a bet in Iraq, so yeah I think AGW (theory or not) and other reasons provide sufficient justification for the INVESTMENT of a few 10s of billions of public money in conservation and energy alternatives. It's not just the right thing to do, it's developing the industries of the future. Or would you rather sit back and watch as China leapfrogs the US in advanced transportation, energy and other technologies? Their semiconductor capabilities already challenge those of the US and Europe.

I thought I detected the signs earlier in the discussion, it's yet another case of Bush Derangement Syndrome and somehow that justifies basing public policy on an unproven theory?!

I'm not sure what "advanced transportation" you refer to, but I don't seem to have adequate testosterone to get real worked up if China passes us in this field. As far as Chinese energy superiority, which is it, are they cutting edge or are they just relying on building one dirty coal plant after the next? Usually folks like you harp on the latter option, but if they do manage to get ahead of us in energy research, I'm sure we're more than capable of stealing the technology from them and using it ourselves. I have to wonder about your nationalistic competitive outlook on these issues? In today's world, technology spreads like wildfire so I don't really see the big deal about who does it first as long as progress is made. So, worrying about China doesn't motivate me to want to take billions out of our economy for pie in the sky climate theory either.

You seem quite passionate about this carbon tax idea, and yet you still haven't spelled out how much you donated to support it last year and how you calculated what your fair share is. I'd really like to know so maybe I can get an idea on how much I might have to pay if it ever actually becomes law. So, as a passionate supporter of a carbon tax, how much was your fair share last year and how did you arrive at that amount? Since you think it's so critically important, did you donate a little extra to make up for laggards like myself who didn't donate anything at all to pay for whatever my carbon footprint might be?

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

[About Algore]
He's not a guy getting rich off of AGW fear-mongering, he's a rich guy spending some of time advocating for the planet. Apparently this makes him more loathsome than your garden-variety rich ex pol. Should he have gone into something more noble like war profiteering, Cheney-style?

I almost fell off my chair when I heard that . lolololololololololololololol

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Greed pretty much.

Having said that, petroleum does have place as a feedstock for materials, lubricants, etc.. Burning it is just a bad idea when other energy sources can be made available.

Nuclear energy is a proven safe, mature technology, and would be available to supply a large part of our energy needs, but the same folks who don't want us to burn fossil fuels have managed to make nuclear energy investment impractical in the US because of the drawn out time period and high cost of permitting a new plant. So we continue to depend on a technology first used by cavemen, and pretend that windmills or solar panels will someday take its place.

[Enrique100]

Well, I'm not sure what a lot of these abbreviations that get tossed around stand for. All I know is it's pretty clear from objective data collection that our atmosphere composition has changed considerably in our lifetimes (with carbon dioxide levels rising very rapidly, and no reason to believe they will not continue to do so).

Furthermore, I don't believe it's a stretch to argue that it's probably not a good thing to be altering the mix of gases that envelop our planet.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Nuclear energy is a proven safe, mature technology, and would be available to supply a large part of our energy needs, but the same folks who don't want us to burn fossil fuels have managed to make nuclear energy investment impractical in the US because of the drawn out time period and high cost of permitting a new plant. So we continue to depend on a technology first used by cavemen, and pretend that windmills or solar panels will someday take its place.

Like James Hansen, I support nuclear power as one of the sources in the energy mix.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailin...aftOpinion.pdf

[seandepagnier]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

... Unless you can tell me what is the OPTIMUM percentage of CO2 in our atmosphere, and back it up with proof, then how can you say that adding more CO2 is getting us closer to the optimum percentage or further from it? You can't.

Humans evolved over millions of years alongside plants and animals (food sources) in a world with much less CO2. This includes the climate. So I would say the optimum percentage is much lower, however given enough time, perhaps the optimum percentage can be much higher . Without enough time, species will simply go extinct, and it takes tens of millions of years to replace them.

We aren't giving anywhere near enough time, unless we slow the rate of consumption significantly, but any reduction has a positive effect.

[capngeo]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Hey, trying to make this global and not specifically blame the US... but have at it - how is taking responsibility for the future against the US constitution?

It was a reference to our King's circumventing Congress and the Constitution with "Executive Action" to achieve his socialist order.... nothing more.

As to responsibility>>>> I will NEVER apologize to anyone for being from the country that invented "Yankee Ingenuity"... Rockefeller (Standard Oil), Ford, Edison, Flagler, and the like got the ideas first... "to the victors go the spoils". I believe if you come up with an original idea, you SHOULD exploit it to the max before the competition has time to ramp up.. but then THAT is capitalism, which you disdain..... However, I digress>>>

The World has been cooling and warming for BILLIONS of years without mankind's help... what an arrogant thought that we have (or can) do anything to affect that!

[MBLittle]

Originally Posted by capngeo

It was a reference to our King's circumventing Congress and the Constitution with "Executive Action"

Holy cow. People actually regurgitate this crap?



Sent from my LG-E980 using Cruisers Sailing Forum mobile app

[sparau]

Scepticism is very good for scientific theory and even "laws" and there certainly is still quite a lot of unknown variables in climate science. Large and complex feed back loops and their interactions are a challenge even for modern data processing ability.

This is an interesting video, discussing how the pacific sequesters energy and what has happened in the last 10 years. If you notice there is only 1 guy (an aussie ) out of the interviewed scientists that states his theory as if fact.

It even has a couple of sailboats if you look closely

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2IlU3rBJ50

For a laugh, here is a clever video about flat earthers, he even manages to display using current knowledge that they are right (as long as you are able to become a particle travelling at near light speed...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNqNnUJVcVs