This just in (well, three days ago): July 2015 the warmest month in history

[crashtech]

As usual, there is in general an utter failure to comprehend the magnitude of the changes required to achieve a carbon-neutral lifestyle that don't involve being thrown back several centuries. So such subjects aren't really worth discussing, other than to say that the more that clueless people control the political process, the worse it's going to get.

 

[pcgeek11]

Lots of things are being done.

Google "U.S. Navy, climate change", for starters, then go from there.

Started in 2010. How much of a difference have they made?

None.

 

[pcgeek11]

You are sick of it because you are a good person who wants the world to be a good place to live and you can't stand the thoughts that human stupidity may keep it from happening and are convinced that is exactly what is going to happen.

Everything is attitude. Others see exactly what you see but have hope. It's just a switch in the brain that is on or off. You have a choice between consciously suffering and shutting down. Go watch a lot of TED and maybe you can rekindle hope.

You missed the point that I Don't Give a Crap. Natural, Man Caused Disaster, Normal Weather Cycle. None are proven beyond a shadow of doubt.

 

[sandorski]

As usual, there is in general an utter failure to comprehend the magnitude of the changes required to achieve a carbon-neutral lifestyle that don't involve being thrown back several centuries. So such subjects aren't really worth discussing, other than to say that the more that clueless people control the political process, the worse it's going to get.

Utterly ridiculous.

 

[trenchfoot]

Well, I guess all it's going to take for the naysayers to change their minds is for FOX News to announce in their usual way that man-made pollution is having a direct and deleterious effect on the climate.

And since FOX News solely represents the interests of those big businesses that will, as they say without saying, suffer catastrophic losses to their profit margins to mitigate the effects of their *allegedly* polluting the environment, the naysayers will keep nay-saying until the damage those businesses cause to the environment actually starts to effect their profit margins. That's the only thing that will force them to make the necessary changes.

Profits are the only thing they care about, making corrective changes to save profits or recoup losses is practically the only way they'll show that they were wrong without admitting it.

In this way they won't have to pay for the damage they'd cause, they'd just let the gov't pay for it, like it always does.

 

[pcgeek11]

If you say so. Sure. As good a theory as all the rest.

 

[sandorski]

If you say so. Sure. As good a theory as all the rest.

Learn terminology before using it.

 

[PokerGuy]

Seems like it's getting hotter. Who should I write the check to in order to fix it? Government? Instead of writing a check, would it work better if we just cede more control to various government agencies with their own agendas? Or, better yet, should we do both?

 

[Moonbeam]

Seems like it's getting hotter. Who should I write the check to in order to fix it? Government? Instead of writing a check, would it work better if we just cede more control to various government agencies with their own agendas? Or, better yet, should we do both?

You have a brain defect which means that any solution you come up with to any problem you can't comprehend will be just as defective as your original defective assessment of it.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The big question is can we make changes quick enough to make a real difference or is this like the magic smoke in electrical/electronic components, once you let it out you can put it back in.

I'm sure the US can reduce it's CO2 output more however, unless China, India, and other third world countries get onboard it's not going to make much of a difference.

http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/u-s-carbon-dioxide-reductions-outpace-rest-world/

In his recent speech on climate change at the United Nations, President Obama stated: “Over the past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution by more than any other nation on Earth.”. He is correct that the United States has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions more than any other country in that 8 year period. According to the BP Statistical Review, between 2005 and 2013, the United States reduced its carbon dioxide emissions by 563 million metric tons, while the greatest reduction in Europe was made by Italy at 115 million metric tons, followed by Spain at 109 million metric tons. Offsetting the reductions is China with an increase of 3,950 million metric tons of carbon dioxide and India with an increase of 751 million metric tons. Worldwide emissions increased by 5,615 million metric tons over that 8 year period with China contributing 70 percent to the increase.

 

[K1052]

The big question is can we make changes quick enough to make a real difference or is this like the magic smoke in electrical/electronic components, once you let it out you can put it back in.

I'm sure the US can reduce it's CO2 output more however, unless China, India, and other third world countries get onboard it's not going to make much of a difference.

I'd probably take a different tack with the developing world. Pointing out that PM, ozone, acid gasses, etc are literally killing you and costing a non-trivial portion of your GDP in the process I think are more persuasive than arguing outright for carbon reduction. Not to mention the prestige liability of smog choked cities where you can't see across the street and large portions of your population scurries about wearing masks. China is incredibly sensitive to that latter point.


Edit: Also forgot to point out that the Institute for Energy Research is a nearly naked front for fossil fuel industry interests, thus I'd be skeptical of their analysis.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Edit: Also forgot to point out that the Institute for Energy Research is a nearly naked front for fossil fuel industry interests, thus I'd be skeptical of their analysis.

That was an excerpt from Obama's speech to the UN.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That was an excerpt from Obama's speech to the UN.

Ouch! I think that left a mark!

 

[fskimospy]

Ouch! I think that left a mark!

The only part that was an excerpt from his speech was the quote:

“Over the past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution by more than any other nation on Earth.”

Literally everything else was IER. His point stands.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Literally everything else was IER. His point stands.

The study quoted was not done by IER.

 

[fskimospy]

The study quoted was not done by IER.

Yeah, it was done by the oil industry, haha.

 

[shira]

Gradually, the argument of the climate-change deniers is shifting to "It's too expensive to do anything about it." For them it's about all or nothing. We'll have to drag them - kicking and screaming - into the brave, new world of evaluating, and then implementing, mitigation strategies on the basis of whether the marginal benefits are significantly greater than the marginal costs.

 

[K1052]

That was an excerpt from Obama's speech to the UN.

I was more pointing to their questionable conclusions that happen to coincide with the interests of the people funding it.

Conclusion

President Obama wants the United States to model its energy policies based on European policies. But, those policies have not worked. Rather, the United States has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by more than any other country in the world over the last 8 years, without the escalating energy costs and unemployment rates that have racked Europe. But, President Obama is not sufficiently satisfied with that milestone and is imposing further regulations on energy companies that will do little to offset the greenhouse gas emission increases of the developing world, particularly China and India. With gasoline prices over $3.00 a gallon and electricity prices to households on the increase this year[xvi], President Obama would do well to retire his Administration’s proposed environmental regulations before the United States ends up like Europe – with dwindling support for a unified country.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yeah, it was done by the oil industry, haha.

Okay, where's your data that disproves what was reported?

 

[OverVolt]

The excuses for inaction are becoming more ridiculous as time passes.

1) "It's not happening" still gets thrown around from time to time. Despite the constant new evidence to the contrary.

2) "It's just Natural Change" still gets tossed around as if Climatologists are unaware of Natural changes in Climate. Doesn't seem to matter how much contrarian evidence to this argument exists.

3) "It must be done This/My way!" is getting tired and warn out. The way mentioned may or may not be good, but it may or may not be the solution either way. This argument always comes off as picking a solution that few others will support, especially political opponents, so they can feign action on the issue yet criticize their political opponents trying to address the issue. Just an attempt to play politics with the issue and appearing to appeal to both sides of the issue at the same time.

4) "I am not convinced!" at some point one has to realize that being "convinced" might be up to themselves and not others. Especially when the knowledgeable on an issue continue to move forward to the point that your doubts no longer even are addressed anymore.

5) "Your solutions violate my vague Political/Philosophical principles!!!" oops, sorry about that, but some of us really want to address this issue.

Almost everything you buy is transported by truck. Wrap your little mind around that.

"I'm driving my electric car to the store to save the planet"

Yeah good luck with that. Everything in the store was transported by a 8-15 liter 6-12 cylinder direct injection supercharged diesel.

 

[K1052]

Ouch! I think that left a mark!

I'm able to read where quotation marks are. How about you?

 

[OverVolt]

Are you talking about America? I lived in both South Korea and Thailand and the quality of life I enjoyed in both countries was pretty good. Maybe not on par with America. but it was close.

Also, it depends on where you are living in America. Living in Mississippi is going to be a much different experience than living in New Jersey.

I actually thought both were terrible lmao.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I was more pointing to their questionable conclusions that happen to coincide with the interests of the people funding it.

Actually the oil companies stand to make far more from natural gas sales once major coal fired plants are forced offline. Once natural gas demand is increased so will the prices.

 

[fskimospy]

Okay, where's your data that disproves what was reported?

I don't really feel the need to refute a study on carbon emissions done by the oil industry which serves as the source of an 'article' by a anti renewable energy lobbying front.

Neither are credible sources.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I doubt anyone that posts in here will ever see renewable energy supply more than 15% of the total demand of the US. Currently it's less than 5%.