Poll: Has Science Been Beneficial or Detrimental to Humanity?

[BritManToo]

8 minutes ago, connda said:

And Mutually Assured Destruction of the entire planet with enough nuclear weapons to destroy the planet 100 times over.  Now, there's another simply grand scientific advancement.  And when your nuclear reactors get wiped out by a tidal-wave, well just pump the nuclear waste in the ocean.  It will dilute, so says 'science.'  <laughs> 

Personally I'm fully a proponent of fusion energy.  The Chinese will get there first and they and the fusion energy science will be demonized as soon as the Chinese reactors come online.
Back to science as politic I'm afraid. 

I'm always amazed that the climate alarmists, whom you would think would be the greatest proponents of nuclear energy, are also it's greatest opponents. You'd think they would embrace the technology that totally reduced carbon emissions of energy production to ZERO. And when we're back to living in our mud huts with no electricity, do they really think we won't be reduced to burning wood to keep us warm?

Edited December 30, 2021 by BritManToo

[robblok]

1 minute ago, BritManToo said:

I'm always amazed that the climate alarmists who you would thing would be the greatest proponents of nuclear energy, are also it's greatest opponents. You'd think they would embrace the technology that totally reduced carbon emissions of energy production. And when we're back to living in our mud huts with no electricity, do they really think we won't be reduced to burning wood to keep us warm?

I dont often agree with britmantoo, but i agree about nuclear. I like the clean energies but they are not sufficient. We should go nuclear more and invest more into research after nuclear fission. Nuclear has become safer and better. Sure you should not build in countries with low safety standards or near vault lines or tusnami risk places (Japan). 

 

But nuclear can augment the clean energies, you can't have it all sometimes you have to select things that are not perfect but help more then what we have now. In the Netherlands we are going to build 2 more (small) nuclear plants. 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:

I'll admit not knowing that much about the technical aspects of climate change so I steer away from technical debates. I have seen trends where people say 1 There is no data showing climate change 2 There is but its natural 3 There is but its not the majority of scientists who think it's man made 4 The majority say they think it's man made but they are corrupted by money and other things. 

 

If I need something fixed at home that I don't understand I might research it a little bit so I don't get ripped off but I'll let the expert do the job. Same with climate change. I haven't got the time or inclination to delve into the realm of possibilities. It's my experience that individual  scientists can be flawed and even corrupted but that other scientists pick them up on it. In this area I'll take the view of the vast majority. This is not a reply to you as such but just to show how others aren't sheep for accepting the huge majority of opinions of the educated and able scientists who have done the hard work that I cannot. 

I understand that a lot of folks don't always have the time or interest or expertise to look under the hood of an issue and weigh in.  Although I would argue that when an issue is of great importance due to potential dire negative consequences to one's life then it's time to take some interest, set aside some precious time, and roll up one's sleeves and self-educate as best one can.  For one, it's not as difficult as you might think.  For another the cost of doing so may well be a great deal less than the cost of doing nothing.  What's the old saying generally attributed to Edmund Burke?  “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”

 

Whether you aware of it or not you more or less defined sheeple which in part includes "accepting the huge majority of opinions of the educated and able scientists who have done the hard work that I cannot."  There's a lot that can be said about this but in essence it's awarding one's blind trust to any entity one deems trustworthy.

 

The problem with this approach is when those "trusted" entities are not at all trustworthy.  Once trustworthy does not mean always trustworthy.

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, seedy said:

This is what informed and rational people do ...

Learn about the subject at hand, do some research, read opposing views, make up their minds.

Or admit they do not know and wait for more data to tip the balance.

 

I'd add, too, applying some common sense.  A dab will work wonders.

[Hummin]

51 minutes ago, robblok said:

I dont often agree with britmantoo, but i agree about nuclear. I like the clean energies but they are not sufficient. We should go nuclear more and invest more into research after nuclear fission. Nuclear has become safer and better. Sure you should not build in countries with low safety standards or near vault lines or tusnami risk places (Japan). 

 

But nuclear can augment the clean energies, you can't have it all sometimes you have to select things that are not perfect but help more then what we have now. In the Netherlands we are going to build 2 more (small) nuclear plants. 

Nuclear Fusion  can be the future. 

 

"

It sounds like the stuff of dreams: a virtually limitless source of energy that doesn’t produce greenhouse gases or radioactive waste. That’s the promise of nuclear fusion, which for decades has been nothing more than a fantasy due to insurmountable technical challenges. But things are heating up in what has turned into a race to create what amounts to an artificial sun here on Earth, one that can provide power for our kettles, cars and light bulbs.

 

Today’s nuclear power plants create electricity through nuclear fission, in which atoms are split. Nuclear fusion however, involves combining atomic nuclei to release energy. It’s the same reaction that’s taking place at the Sun’s core. But overcoming the natural repulsion between atomic nuclei and maintaining the right conditions for fusion to occur isn’t straightforward. And doing so in a way that produces more energy than the reaction consumes has been beyond the grasp of the finest minds in physics for decades.

 

But perhaps not for much longer. Some major technical challenges have been overcome in the past few years and governments around the world have been pouring money into fusion power research. There are also over 20 private ventures in the UK, US, Europe, China and Australia vying to be the first to make fusion energy production a reality."

 

https://www.iter.org

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, connda said:

The nature of human inquiry which leads to advancements which work for the betterment of the human condition are good; The nature of human inquiry which leads to advancements which work for the detriments of the human condition are not good.

When science can not be separated from religious fervor and supports a pseudo-advancement which is propagandized as a 'betterment' but is little more than a conduit for greed and predatory exploitation?  That's bad too.  Science as politic is equally as bad.  Science which entertains only one 'accepted' narrative which can not be challenged in scientific debate is no longer science - it's religion.
 

Well said.  If you will allow, one slight edit:  ". . . - it's religion and an organised scam."

[Lacessit]

16 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

No, I didn't have to look it up.  This isn't my first go around debating with climate alarmists, LOL.  Here and elsewhere.  It was a line I used to serve a dual purpose.  Firstly as a lead in to go along with the satirical video and an excuse to introduce it.  And also to see if anyone is astute enough to catch on to the play acting.  I like to get an indication of how clever an opponent is.  It ain't scientific by any means but sometimes it yields accurate results.

 

You thought it believable so that tells me something about how gullible you may be.  I'm not concluding that you are but it appears, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you keep yourself knowledgeable about the "science" of "climate change" while dismissing other aspects perhaps out of hand.  If you are blowing off the financial aspects of "climate change" to conspiracy theory without doing any investigative work yourself then I'd say you are indeed gullible.  Gullible in the sense that you may be and probably are uncritically accepting the opinions of others who say, "Nothing to see here."  Ideally you should be critical of every aspect of a subject and not be dismissive of those aspects which don't necessarily appeal to your senses.

 

I've heard all of the arguments from the climate doomsayers many times over.  Yet when it comes to producing actual short term, or even mid-term predications it's always a fail.  As I mentioned, with our present day scientific knowledge we are incapable of predicting the weather consistently even a week in advance.  Why?  Too many variables, including the interrelationships.

So while you mention two more variables we're up to four (wow!) if added to the 1st and 2nd law of thermodynamics.  Can you produce a comprehensive list?  Don't worry, it's a rhetorical question because even if you attempted it you can't account for the unknown.

So even if you were to create a comprehensive list of every possible influential variable you'd then have to add chaos theory to the mix.  To make it easy I'll copy and paste the relevant parts from Wiki (for the benefit of posters who aren't familiar with it as I'm sure you undoubtedly are familiar):
 

Chaos theory states that within the apparent randomness of chaotic complex systems, there are underlying patterns, interconnectedness, constant feedback loops, repetition, self-similarity, fractals, and self-organization.  The butterfly effect, an underlying principle of chaos, describes how a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state (meaning that there is sensitive dependence on initial conditions).  A metaphor for this behavior is that a butterfly flapping its wings in Brazil can cause a tornado in Texas.

 

So in order to accurately make climate predictions one has to account for every influential variable and have a complete and unerring understanding of all of the interconnections of all of the variables in practical and real time operational terms.  Feel free to let me know if you think I'm in error on this.

 

My advice?  Practice on, say, a ten-day forecast and keep working on it until you get you're able to get consistent, predictable results time after time.  Then try a month, and then a year.  In the meanwhile, while I don't mean to rub an alarmist's nose in it, wake me up when something, anything of true significance happens which is in line with your doomsday predictions.  I don't want to hear that all time record cold spells are due to global warming, too.  In other words, constantly shifting goal posts (which they have been) to the point where every unusual weather event is due to global warming climate change.

Per CNN - Antarctica's last 6 months were the coldest on record - Oct. 9, 2021

 

One other thing you might want to consider adding to the mix;  the unknown.  Don't thoughtlessly dismiss it.

 

I’ll preface my response by saying climate change is not important to me, I will be dead long before its full effects are here. Having said that, logic and reason is.

 

You are quite correct in stating short-term weather effects cannot be predicted accurately. It does well as a red herring argument.

 

Similarly, implying I am gullible is argument ad hominem, which is a dishonest form of argument.

 

Scientists focus on facts and trends. Here are a few:

 

Fact 1. The Larsen Ice Shelf is melting at an unprecedented rate.

 

Fact 2. Iceland’s glaciers have lost 7% of their surface area since 2000.

 

Fact 3. Polar bears are an endangered species, they are running out of Arctic icecap to live on.

 

Fact 4. In the last decade, Australia has experienced heat cells greater than anything since

record-keeping began.

 

Fact 5. Carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases.

 

Trend 1. Since the Industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels have risen from 300 ppm to

above 400 ppm.

 

Trend 2. Deforestation of the Amazon is about 20% over the last 30-40 years.

 

Trend 3. Demand for protein – pork ,beef and sheep – is increasing. These animals produce methane. As a greenhouse gas, methane is 100 times more effective than carbon dioxide in terms of

absorbing solar radiation.

 

Here are two non-scientific trends. Governments worldwide are shifting away from fossil fuel power and transport. Financiers are refusing to fund new fossil fuel projects.

 

Governments and markets are not populated by starry-eyed idealists. They are cold-eyed pragmatists who recognise the risks of climate change in terms of property and reputational damage. In local government, there is probably not a single seaside council that does not have a disaster plan in place for what they know is coming. In Australia, power companies are screaming blue murder because they gold-plated their fossil-fueled assets in anticipation of captive markets, only to find sensible Australians are putting solar panels on their roofs as fast as they can be manufactured. I was one of the first.

 

Global warming is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation. Climate change is an example of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

The laws of thermodynamics have no escape clauses. They are as immutable as Muslims believe the Koran is, and unavoidable as the fact the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west. They govern the lives of all of us.

 

Yet if I was to ask randomly selected persons to explain their understanding of the laws of thermodynamics without resorting to Google, I guarantee over 99% of people would look blank.

 

Similarly, I would be drawing blanks if I asked people what albedo and clathrates are, and how they can affect the rate of climate change.

 

Trying to explain this is an exercise in frustration. Indifference, denial, abuse for discussing an uncomfortable topic.

 

That annoys me, because all the facts and evidence point towards global warming resulting from human activity, principally the burning of fossil fuels.

 

I’m also insulted because I trained for 4 years to be a scientist, then worked for almost 50 years in that capacity, and in research. I think I can be deemed to be impartial, as I have never received research funding for anything associated with the fuel industry. It’s absurd to think I am part of a global conspiracy.

 

The last gasp of the fossil fuel industry is called carbon capture and storage, or CCS.

 

Not many people know when natural gas is produced, it is just as polluting as coal. It does not come out of the ground as pure methane and ethane, it contains up to 30% carbon dioxide, which has to be separated before distribution. If not, the pipelines would collapse with corrosion.

 

CCS has had billions of dollars poured into it worldwide, yet there is not one plant that has performed as designed, or to expectations.

Put simply, CCS is up against entropy, a thermodynamic concept that says the gains in capturing and storing carbon dioxide are always going to be less than the losses incurred while doing it.

 

95% of scientists accept the data and trends behind global warming and climate change. As you seem to think you are smarter than all of them, good luck with that too.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, connda said:

If you wish to see science as religion, then look no further than the self-proclaimed inquisitors who seek out the heretics from among the diverse opinions and counter-questions within a thread such as this, and then excoriates their views with pejoratives, name-calling, and calls for censorship and bans of their heretical thought and counter-arguments..
The Scientific Method does not work that way. 
However, when there are literally billions if not trillions of dollars in revenue and profits at stake - when there are fortunes to be made - suddenly the Scientific Method gets tossed to the wayside and replaced with a Scientism of Personality and Cult Devotion toward proclaimed 'experts' who have been anointed by the political class: That is the political classes in both government and within corporate and regulatory entities.  As I said above: "Science as politic is equally as bad."  And this so-called 'science' is based on political manipulation posing as scientific inquiry and research.  It's dangerous.

Scientism of Personality is the anti-thesis of the Scientific Method.

Thank you.  It's a point I tried to get across to the climate alarmists.  There's more to "climate change" than the science.  Yet not a one will address the financial aspects of "climate change."  They wave that off as conspiracy theory without doing any investigative work on it whatsoever.  Yet that is precisely where the root cause of "climate change" is to be found.  Where's the rigid scientific thinking which must consider all data, not just cherry picked favourable data?

From Oct. 1, 2015 in Newsweek - Should Climate Change Deniers Be Prosecuted?

And the climate alarmists cheer!!  Such pathetic ignorance in a world describing itself as civilised.  One would think that true science would prevent this sort of Neanderthal thinking.  Perhaps I need a change of heart on evolution.  Science has evolved to scientism.  Perhaps Darwinism is accurate.  Only the strong ($$$$$$) survive.

[TropicalGuy]

21 hours ago, TKDfella said:

I think some people tend to forget that 'science' began within the confines of religion and it wasn't until (comparatively) recent that the two began to separate. For example, Tycho Brae (Latinized form of his name) in the early 17th century, did very accurate work (for that period) in astronomy yet when the heliocentric model was suggested, which introduced very large, differing numbers (distances, sizes etc), he rejected it. Why? He insisted that '...God being author of the universe...' would prefer otherwise. Of course this is just one example and there are plenty more (for those interested).

But some of today's scientists (often famous for one reason or another) have, arguably, replaced a deity with another 'belief', Beauty. It works similar to Occam's Razor, but is not synonymous with it, and very very roughly suggests that if the equations describing a certain topic 'flow and look 'beautiful'' they must be right. Unfortunately, sometimes the is no physical evidence to back them up and so currently this is very hotly debated issue in science.

(For those interested there are plenty of books on the market describing this situation; Not Even Wrong, by Peter Woit; Why Beauty is Truth by Ian Stewart, Lost in Math by Sabine Hossenfelder and the list goes on ????)

When you lived prior to 1700 or so or even now in uncivilized places EVERYTHING is confined by Religion. It’s Prison & Poison. Church also monopolized Learning & Knowledge & Writing. Held back & dismissed much Science for 1500 years…..yeah good job….for False Priests. 

[mikebike]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Tell us about your degree in Science again?

Would you believe me if I told you?

 

Discerning valid statements from fantasy does not seem to be in your wheelhouse.

[ozimoron]

2 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I'll admit I can't see any rise in sea levels over the past 60 years (I lived by the sea until I was 20).

So I have no reason to believe it will happen in the next 60 years.

 

Why is it all the alarmists predictions are always for 10-20 years in the future?

42 'top scientists' wrote to Nixon saying he had to do something about global COOLING!

 

"Rates of sea-level rise are not uniform around the globe and vary from year to year.

Since 1993, the rates of sea-level rise to the north and southeast of Australia have been significantly higher the global average, and rates of sea-level rise on other coasts of the continent have been closer to the global average.

Melting ice from Greenland, Antarctica and glaciers due to anthropogenic climate change has been the main cause of global sea-level rise since the early 1990s."

 

https://www.csiro.au/en/research/environmental-impacts/climate-change/climate-change-qa/sea-levels

 

This may not seem much but it has scientists very worried. Obama doesn't have to worry much about it and neither do you because both of you are very old. Younger people will be much more concerned. I am also very old but in my case I have read about the ramifications of such sea level changes and my level of concern extends far beyond my own interests.

[BritManToo]

31 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Would you believe me if I told you?

 

Discerning valid statements from fantasy does not seem to be in your wheelhouse.

You're right, no point in reading your posts anymore.

Ignored.

[ozimoron]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Thank you.  It's a point I tried to get across to the climate alarmists.  There's more to "climate change" than the science.  Yet not a one will address the financial aspects of "climate change."  They wave that off as conspiracy theory without doing any investigative work on it whatsoever.  Yet that is precisely where the root cause of "climate change" is to be found.  Where's the rigid scientific thinking which must consider all data, not just cherry picked favourable data?

From Oct. 1, 2015 in Newsweek - Should Climate Change Deniers Be Prosecuted?

And the climate alarmists cheer!!  Such pathetic ignorance in a world describing itself as civilised.  One would think that true science would prevent this sort of Neanderthal thinking.  Perhaps I need a change of heart on evolution.  Science has evolved to scientism.  Perhaps Darwinism is accurate.  Only the strong ($$$$$$) survive.

You are correct, the financial ramifications of not doing anything to combat climate change are a cause for concern. The biggest worry is that delaying action now will increase those costs exponentially into the future.

[BritManToo]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Rates of sea-level rise are not uniform around the globe ..........

555 ...... classic!

[ozimoron]

7 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

555 ...... classic!

Do you believe they should be and why? Oh, wait. I forgot. You believe the Earth is flat and gravitational pull is the same everywhere. Ever thought you might do some reading before posting your uninformed opinion?

 

https://sealevel.nasa.gov/faq/9/are-sea-levels-rising-the-same-all-over-the-world-as-if-were-filling-a-giant-bathtub/

Edited December 30, 2021 by ozimoron

[TropicalGuy]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Thank you.  It's a point I tried to get across to the climate alarmists.  There's more to "climate change" than the science.  Yet not a one will address the financial aspects of "climate change."  They wave that off as conspiracy theory without doing any investigative work on it whatsoever.  Yet that is precisely where the root cause of "climate change" is to be found.  Where's the rigid scientific thinking which must consider all data, not just cherry picked favourable data?

From Oct. 1, 2015 in Newsweek - Should Climate Change Deniers Be Prosecuted?

And the climate alarmists cheer!!  Such pathetic ignorance in a world describing itself as civilised.  One would think that true science would prevent this sort of Neanderthal thinking.  Perhaps I need a change of heart on evolution.  Science has evolved to scientism.  Perhaps Darwinism is accurate.  Only the strong ($$$$$$) survive.

NO. Science is Truth. Evidenced from Scientific Method.

Politics & Economics sit around Climate Change & do not affect the immutable Science which is Proven beyond Any Reasonable Doubt.

Accepted Openly by 95% of Scientists.Others having Political or Business motives.
Irrational Statements like yours are merely False Opinion presented without Evidence for Political or Pseudo/  Crackpot reasons.  They can be similarly Dismissed as such.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

NO. Science is Truth. Evidenced from Scientific Method.

Politics & Economics sit around Climate Change & do not affect the immutable Science which is Proven beyond Any Reasonable Doubt.

Accepted Openly by 95% of Scientists.Others having Political or Business motives.
Irrational Statements like yours are merely False Opinion presented without Evidence for Political or Pseudo/  Crackpot reasons.  They can be similarly Dismissed as such.

Can you get your keyboard fixed please? It's a real effort to read your posts. Seriously.

[TropicalGuy]

16 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

You're right, no point in reading your posts anymore.

Ignored.

Beaten Again. By Reason & Logic. Retreats Back into Chosen Ignorance.

[Neeranam]

On 12/26/2021 at 4:25 PM, Skeptic7 said:

I couldn't disagree more with his science part. I'd contend science has saved untold millions, increased life expectancy and vastly improved quality of life.

Don't you understand that people die when there time is up?

 

If scientists save people from dying by inventing a vaccine, they will be struck by a thunderbold or be run over by a bus. 

[TropicalGuy]

3 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Can you get your keyboard fixed please? It's a real effort to read your posts. Seriously.

My chosen style is Sufficiently Clear. Full Keyboard Control.

Not writing any Dissertations here.

[Hummin]

14 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

NO. Science is Truth. Evidenced from Scientific Method.

Politics & Economics sit around Climate Change & do not affect the immutable Science which is Proven beyond Any Reasonable Doubt.

Accepted Openly by 95% of Scientists.Others having Political or Business motives.
Irrational Statements like yours are merely False Opinion presented without Evidence for Political or Pseudo/  Crackpot reasons.  They can be similarly Dismissed as such.

Just giving up, it is not possible to make people understand the way we (yes @BritManToo we) have been exploiting this planet and disturbed its balance additional to natural cycles that infuence our enviroment. 

 

But the big Q is, are we willing ot pay the cost and toll it will have to our lives to do something about it? Are we willing to take the risk it have to the balance in power between Asia and Western world? Are we willing to let China, India and other asian countries continue polluting more until 2050 and 2080, and we in western world going to cut our emissions ? 

 

Therefor the solution our politicians today have, is to consume more to save the clima, and that is quite bissar if you ask me, instead of less, but again, it is all about the economic power, nothing else. 

Edited December 30, 2021 by Hummin

[Tippaporn]

7 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

 

I’ll preface my response by saying climate change is not important to me, I will be dead long before its full effects are here. Having said that, logic and reason is.

 

You are quite correct in stating short-term weather effects cannot be predicted accurately. It does well as a red herring argument.

 

Similarly, implying I am gullible is argument ad hominem, which is a dishonest form of argument.

 

Scientists focus on facts and trends. Here are a few:

 

Fact 1. The Larsen Ice Shelf is melting at an unprecedented rate.

 

Fact 2. Iceland’s glaciers have lost 7% of their surface area since 2000.

 

Fact 3. Polar bears are an endangered species, they are running out of Arctic icecap to live on.

 

Fact 4. In the last decade, Australia has experienced heat cells greater than anything since

record-keeping began.

 

Fact 5. Carbon dioxide and methane are greenhouse gases.

 

Trend 1. Since the Industrial revolution, carbon dioxide levels have risen from 300 ppm to

above 400 ppm.

 

Trend 2. Deforestation of the Amazon is about 20% over the last 30-40 years.

 

Trend 3. Demand for protein – pork ,beef and sheep – is increasing. These animals produce methane. As a greenhouse gas, methane is 100 times more effective than carbon dioxide in terms of

absorbing solar radiation.

 

Here are two non-scientific trends. Governments worldwide are shifting away from fossil fuel power and transport. Financiers are refusing to fund new fossil fuel projects.

 

Governments and markets are not populated by starry-eyed idealists. They are cold-eyed pragmatists who recognise the risks of climate change in terms of property and reputational damage. In local government, there is probably not a single seaside council that does not have a disaster plan in place for what they know is coming. In Australia, power companies are screaming blue murder because they gold-plated their fossil-fueled assets in anticipation of captive markets, only to find sensible Australians are putting solar panels on their roofs as fast as they can be manufactured. I was one of the first.

 

Global warming is the Second Law of Thermodynamics in operation. Climate change is an example of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

 

The laws of thermodynamics have no escape clauses. They are as immutable as Muslims believe the Koran is, and unavoidable as the fact the sun rises in the east, and sets in the west. They govern the lives of all of us.

 

Yet if I was to ask randomly selected persons to explain their understanding of the laws of thermodynamics without resorting to Google, I guarantee over 99% of people would look blank.

 

Similarly, I would be drawing blanks if I asked people what albedo and clathrates are, and how they can affect the rate of climate change.

 

Trying to explain this is an exercise in frustration. Indifference, denial, abuse for discussing an uncomfortable topic.

 

That annoys me, because all the facts and evidence point towards global warming resulting from human activity, principally the burning of fossil fuels.

 

I’m also insulted because I trained for 4 years to be a scientist, then worked for almost 50 years in that capacity, and in research. I think I can be deemed to be impartial, as I have never received research funding for anything associated with the fuel industry. It’s absurd to think I am part of a global conspiracy.

 

The last gasp of the fossil fuel industry is called carbon capture and storage, or CCS.

 

Not many people know when natural gas is produced, it is just as polluting as coal. It does not come out of the ground as pure methane and ethane, it contains up to 30% carbon dioxide, which has to be separated before distribution. If not, the pipelines would collapse with corrosion.

 

CCS has had billions of dollars poured into it worldwide, yet there is not one plant that has performed as designed, or to expectations.

Put simply, CCS is up against entropy, a thermodynamic concept that says the gains in capturing and storing carbon dioxide are always going to be less than the losses incurred while doing it.

 

95% of scientists accept the data and trends behind global warming and climate change. As you seem to think you are smarter than all of them, good luck with that too.

In your entire response you've not once addressed the financial aspects of "climate change."  Not once.  Why?

 

In your post which I responded to you had suggested various factors as being causes for climate science denialism.  Conspiracy was one of them.  Therefore common sense tells me that you must be in possession of beliefs which dissuade you from considering even the possibility of any nefarious intentions ($$$$$) having even the slightest influence on, what, uncorruptable science?  Else you would have entered some of your gained knowledge into the discussion to either confirm or deny outside-of-science influence.  Fair enough deduction?

"Similarly, implying I am gullible is argument ad hominem, which is a dishonest form of argument."

 

There isn't a one of us who hasn't been gullible about on thing or another at one time or another in our lives.  Just as there's no one alive, or has ever lived, who has never lied.  To point out, without judgement, when someone is gullible when they indeed are is not ad hominem.  It's accurately assessing reality.  To see a drunken sot passed out on a park bench and stating that he drinks too much would not be ad hominem or judgmental either.  Do you see the distinction?

To recap with a long-winded sentence:  You alluded to conspiracy being one of the reasons for climate science denialism, which means you dismiss the topic without any further consideration, let alone investigation, as to how it may affect or influence "climate change" in various ways, whereas I have done investigative work and found influence, which puts me in a favourable position to say that your out of hand dismissal of it, especially if your dismissal is due to sources in your life telling you, "nothing to see here - only conspiracy theory," indicates that you are indeed gullible.  You put your blind trust and belief in the mere words of others.

Hopefully you don't ignore the above in your next response . . . if there is a next response.

I applaud you for your education, for your many decades of experience, for the knowledge you've acquired, for your impartial objectivity.  Yet do not assume that everyone who lacks your specific education, your specific experience, your specific knowledge is therefore incapable of accurately deducing a situation.  There is more than one road which leads to Rome.  And definitions and explanations of albedo and clathrates are not required to exist on every road.

I, myself, lack all education.  As I looked back I was, in a sense, grateful for missing out on the experience of attending an institution of higher learning.  That gratefulness was derived from interacting with people who did go that route for from speaking to them it was apparent to me that they had learned more what to think than how to think.  Many were merely parrots.

 

I then had the thought that colleges and universities could also be "good" or "bad."  One could experience a vast expansion of knowledge while at the same time the potential existed to be merely indoctrinated.  The specific outcome for any given individual is, of course, wholly dependent on the individual.

 

My point of sharing this is just to warn against flying off and making erroneous assumptions that the lay person is incapable of gaining any truth for himself/herself.

And finally, you may be firm in your conclusions, comfortable with you data, sure of the outcomes and have concluded that the "science is settled."  I don't know but you may even be one who roots for the incarceration of all these dangerous climate deniers.  But the science is not settled.  And the climate alarmists have not been anointed by any God to be the only ones who can make that declaration.  Sorry.  But not sorry.

 

95% of scientists . . . LOL.  Don't think I'm a rube wholly ignorant about how that number was derived.

[ozimoron]

8 minutes ago, Hummin said:

Just giving up, it is not possible to make people understand the way we (yes @BritManToo we) have been exploiting this planet and disturbed its balance additional to natural cycles that infuence our enviroment. 

 

But the big Q is, are we willing ot pay the cost and toll it will have to our lives to do something about it? Are we willing to take the risk it have to the balance in power between Asia and Western world? Are we willing to let China, India and other asian countries continue polluting more until 2050 and 2080, and we in western world going to cut our emissions ? 

 

Therefor the solution our politicians today have, is to consume more to save the clima, and that is quite bissar if you ask me, instead of less, but again, it is all about the economic power, nothing else. 

Why not try to understand the economic and technical reasons why China and India will keep increasing their carbon dioxide output into the near future? Where did you get your timeline from, it is false.

 

The bottom line I get from your post is we shouldn't do anything because they won't (paraphrasing you, it's not my opinion). That's classic cutting off your nose to spite your face. China in particular is actually taking majorr steps to reduce their CO2 output and was the first country in the world to implement a carbon tax, years ago now. They are also the world's largest investor in renewable energy technologies. Finally, they are one of the lowest CO2 polluters per capita among major countries in the world. Approx half that of the US, bot in terms of total output and per capita output.

[Tippaporn]

35 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

You are correct, the financial ramifications of not doing anything to combat climate change are a cause for concern. The biggest worry is that delaying action now will increase those costs exponentially into the future.

Have you given them all your money?  If not there's a word that describes "do as I say, not as I do."

 

Money is the panacea of all earthly problems.  Just pour money onto any problem and watch it miraculously go away.  As if from the hand of God.  It's truly amazing.

Have you altered your entire lifestyle in every aspect to conform to green diktats?  If not there's a word that describes "do as I say, not as I do."

 

The general rule for being clever and witty is to do so without ending up with one's foot in one's mouth.

[Tippaporn]

36 minutes ago, TropicalGuy said:

NO. Science is Truth. Evidenced from Scientific Method.

Politics & Economics sit around Climate Change & do not affect the immutable Science which is Proven beyond Any Reasonable Doubt.

Accepted Openly by 95% of Scientists.Others having Political or Business motives.
Irrational Statements like yours are merely False Opinion presented without Evidence for Political or Pseudo/  Crackpot reasons.  They can be similarly Dismissed as such.

I don't know if you're being serious or not but the above certainly reads like parody.

[ozimoron]

9 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Have you given them all your money?  If not there's a word that describes "do as I say, not as I do."

 

Money is the panacea of all earthly problems.  Just pour money onto any problem and watch it miraculously go away.  As if from the hand of God.  It's truly amazing.

Have you altered your entire lifestyle in every aspect to conform to green diktats?  If not there's a word that describes "do as I say, not as I do."

 

The general rule for being clever and witty is to do so without ending up with one's foot in one's mouth.

Or you could post a rational argument that establishes a point with actual reasoning and links to evidence. Tossing around disparaging slogans is not useful to anybody nor does it convince anybody.

 

I guess when you claim that "we'll all be rooned" (said Hanrahan) by the financial cost of doing anything meaningful about climate change you have not considered the financial cost of doing nothing, such as catastrophic weather events like fires, floods, drought, increased hurricane and tornado strength, rising sea levels and forced migration. Have you considered any of that? Furthermore, have you considered that there is a financial offset in developing green technologies such as new jobs, as opposed to the coal industry losing jobs due to automation?

 

Have you considered the major cost savings created by solar and wind energy compared to fossil fuels? Continued development into these technologies has reduced the cost of energy by a lot. One of the major savings is that solar energy is produced locally and does not required huge costs of transmission. Have you considered the cost of cleaning up the waste left behind by coal fired power stations instead of just counting the raw cost of production? What about the enormous costs of transporting coal and oil which disappear with solar and wind energy?

Edited December 30, 2021 by ozimoron

[Hummin]

12 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Why not try to understand the economic and technical reasons why China and India will keep increasing their carbon dioxide output into the near future? Where did you get your timeline from, it is false.

 

The bottom line I get from your post is we shouldn't do anything because they won't (paraphrasing you, it's not my opinion). That's classic cutting off your nose to spite your face. China in particular is actually taking majorr steps to reduce their CO2 output and was the first country in the world to implement a carbon tax, years ago now. They are also the world's largest investor in renewable energy technologies. Finally, they are one of the lowest CO2 polluters per capita among major countries in the world. Approx half that of the US, bot in terms of total output and per capita output.

I aggree with everything you say, still most people live in Asia. By the way, t is not complicated to twist the statistics around to make it fit your own opinion (as I do with claims and numbers maybe not correct, but India . No claim you do, it is just from my point of view and you did answer my post. Thank you!

 

see my numbers was a bit out where india claim their goal will be carbon neutral 2070, and China by 2060. Europe and Usa 2050 

 

It will for sure be a ride for all of us one way or the other the next decades. Imagine the next super power race was to be zero emmission economic efficient and not a space race with new weaponnizing of the world, but that is to far out there

 

Quite interesting stats here

"The Asia-Pacific region produced 16.75 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020. This was more than the combined total emissions of all other regions that year. China alone accounted for nearly 60 percent of Asia-Pacific CO2 emissions, and 31 percent of the global total. The second most polluting region in 2020 was North America, where 5.3 billion metric tons of CO2 were emitted. Emissions in Europe and North America fell roughly 12 percent in 2020 compared to 2019 levels, while those in the Asia-Pacific region reduced by roughly 2.5 percent. "

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/205966/world-carbon-dioxide-emissions-by-region/

 

[Tippaporn]

2 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

Or you could post a rational argument that establishes a point with actual reasoning and links to evidence. Tossing around disparaging slogans is not useful to anybody nor does it convince anybody.

 

I guess when you claim that "we'll all be rooned" (said Hanrahan) by the financial cost of doing anything meaningful about climate change you have not considered the financial cost of doing nothing, such as catastrophic weather events like fires, floods, drought, increased hurricane and tornado strength, rising sea levels and forced migration. Have you considered any of that? Furthermore, have you considered that there is a financial offset in developing green technologies such as new jobs, as opposed to the coal industry losing jobs due to automation?

I'm calling you out, ozimoron.  They're simple questions.  What are YOU doing to fight "climate change?"  Will you tell?

 

Now, if you're one who is a self-described "climate change" fighter but one who ain't doing nothing but jaw boning and I happen to point it out then, why yes, that may well be disparaging to one's character.  Yet if truthful then it wouldn't be unjust, would it?  It would simply be the truth, correct?

 

Ask Al Gore how he's altered his life style.  LOL  "Do as I say, not as I do."  It ain't some defamatory slogan but a time worn accurate statement of the observation of blatant hypocrisy.

 

Go ahead.  Give them all your money.  I doubt you will.  I doubt you have.  Go ahead and bring your life into conformance to whatever green diktats they come up with.  I doubt you will and I doubt you have.

 

Maybe they'll tell you, "Ya know, ozimoron, you been havin' too many barbies.  It ain't good.  But we'll be generous and allow you one a year.  Now you can have more per year but you'll have to purchase these here carbon credits.  That'll make you legal."

 

The science is not settled.  As I mentioned to Lacessit . . . sorry, but not sorry.

[BritManToo]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm calling you out, ozimoron.  They're simple questions.  What are YOU doing to fight "climate change?"  Will you tell?

I don't believe in climate change but generating about half my electricity with solar panels is probably more than most climate alarmists will ever get around to doing.

[ozimoron]

34 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm calling you out, ozimoron.  They're simple questions.  What are YOU doing to fight "climate change?"  Will you tell?

 

Now, if you're one who is a self-described "climate change" fighter but one who ain't doing nothing but jaw boning and I happen to point it out then, why yes, that may well be disparaging to one's character.  Yet if truthful then it wouldn't be unjust, would it?  It would simply be the truth, correct?

 

Ask Al Gore how he's altered his life style.  LOL  "Do as I say, not as I do."  It ain't some defamatory slogan but a time worn accurate statement of the observation of blatant hypocrisy.

 

Go ahead.  Give them all your money.  I doubt you will.  I doubt you have.  Go ahead and bring your life into conformance to whatever green diktats they come up with.  I doubt you will and I doubt you have.

 

Maybe they'll tell you, "Ya know, ozimoron, you been havin' too many barbies.  It ain't good.  But we'll be generous and allow you one a year.  Now you can have more per year but you'll have to purchase these here carbon credits.  That'll make you legal."

 

The science is not settled.  As I mentioned to Lacessit . . . sorry, but not sorry.

It's not about what one person alone can do and you know that. It's what a collective will can do. In line with that I'm voting for political parties who will act.

 

The science is not settled but it is conclusive and it is unequivocal. There is no doubt that climate change is real and not a hoax and there is no doubt that it is caused by human activity. Until 1970 the Earths climate was net cooling. The balance was tipped in the early 70's. Anyone claiming that climate change is still debatable as being real or not or a problem or not is uninformed and likely convinced by conspiracy theories.