| General > General Technical Chat |
| heartbroken that John Clauser seems to have joined climate change denial. |
| << < (17/67) > >> |
| Zero999:
--- Quote from: snarkysparky on August 02, 2023, 02:12:31 pm ---Ok, I get it. Most here believe that CO2 is causing problems by disturbing our climate but it just isn't worth doing much about since the end outcome of burning all the fossil fuel in the ground will just be some "weather". I hope your right, cause that is exactly what we are going to do. --- End quote --- Burning fossil fuels have been responsible for the greatest rise in living standards ever. There is no way to stop using them, given today's technology, without a huge reduction in living standards, which would disproportionately affect the poor and minorities. An authoritarian government would be required to achieve such a goal and I'm far more fearful of that, than I am higher temperatures and precipitation, which will save more lives, than it would take. I'm not saying we should emit greenhouses willy nilly. If it's easy to find an alternative, then it makes sense, but the damaging net zero targets should end. Invest in nuclear energy would be a start. Solar doesn't make any sense for much of the northern hemisphere, as it doesn't work in winter, when it's most needed. Wind is good, but improvements need to be made on turbine recycling. |
| SiliconWizard:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on August 02, 2023, 08:35:32 pm --- --- Quote from: snarkysparky on August 02, 2023, 02:12:31 pm ---Ok, I get it. Most here believe that CO2 is causing problems by disturbing our climate but it just isn't worth doing much about since the end outcome of burning all the fossil fuel in the ground will just be some "weather". I hope your right, cause that is exactly what we are going to do. --- End quote --- Burning fossil fuels have been responsible for the greatest rise in living standards ever. There is no way to stop using them, given today's technology, without a huge reduction in living standards, which would disproportionately affect the poor and minorities. An authoritarian government would be required to achieve such a goal and I'm far more fearful of that, than I am higher temperatures and precipitation, which will save more lives, than it would take. --- End quote --- Yes. Absolutely. The times when we were "carbon neutral" and only using renewables was most of humanity before discovering fossil fuels. Fossil fuels have allowed us to get where we are now. Including obviously the growth of the world's population. --- Quote from: Zero999 on August 02, 2023, 08:35:32 pm ---I'm not saying we should emit greenhouses willy nilly. If it's easy to find an alternative, then it makes sense, but the damaging net zero targets should end. Invest in nuclear energy would be a start. Solar doesn't make any sense for much of the northern hemisphere, as it doesn't work in winter, when it's most needed. Wind is good, but improvements need to be made on turbine recycling. --- End quote --- Yes, and I'm pretty sure we can do much better over time as long as we invest (wisely) in that. Absolutely no doubt about it. Disclaimer: the following is 100% only opinion. My opinion on this is that the most pressing goal of many of the leaders of this "climate change movement" is not to lower our emissions or become carbon-neutral, but it is to drastically reduce the human population, and that's consistent with what you mentioned above: the first, immediate effect of drastically reducing our use of fossil fuels is not going to be less CO2 in the atmosphere (which has big inertia), but a drastic reduction of standards of living and relatively rapidly, of the overall population. |
| tautech:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on August 02, 2023, 08:35:32 pm ---Wind is good, but improvements need to be made on turbine recycling. --- End quote --- Yep, another inconvenient truth. |
| thm_w:
--- Quote from: SiliconWizard on August 02, 2023, 09:27:47 pm ---Disclaimer: the following is 100% only opinion. My opinion on this is that the most pressing goal of many of the leaders of this "climate change movement" is not to lower our emissions or become carbon-neutral, but it is to drastically reduce the human population, and that's consistent with what you mentioned above. --- End quote --- Makes no sense, you are entering conspiracy territory. Many countries try to encourage higher birth rates and straight up give you money for having a child. --- Quote from: tautech on August 02, 2023, 09:31:03 pm --- --- Quote from: Zero999 on August 02, 2023, 08:35:32 pm ---Wind is good, but improvements need to be made on turbine recycling. --- End quote --- Yep, another inconvenient truth. --- End quote --- Wind turbines can pay back in terms of co2 in less than a year. Saying improvements *need* to be made an odd statement. Should recycling be improved? Yes. Should we stop deploying wind turbines in their current form due to existing recycling methods being difficult? no, not at all. https://www.statesman.com/story/news/politics/2021/10/13/wind-turbine-never-generate-much-energy-cost-build/8423146002/ https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frsus.2022.1060130/full "The results demonstrate that the payback periods are much lower than the lifetime of the wind turbine, the important role of EPBT and GPBT in addressing climate change and energy savings." |
| coppice:
--- Quote from: Zero999 on August 02, 2023, 08:35:32 pm --- --- Quote from: snarkysparky on August 02, 2023, 02:12:31 pm ---Ok, I get it. Most here believe that CO2 is causing problems by disturbing our climate but it just isn't worth doing much about since the end outcome of burning all the fossil fuel in the ground will just be some "weather". I hope your right, cause that is exactly what we are going to do. --- End quote --- Burning fossil fuels have been responsible for the greatest rise in living standards ever. There is no way to stop using them, given today's technology, without a huge reduction in living standards, which would disproportionately affect the poor and minorities. An authoritarian government would be required to achieve such a goal and I'm far more fearful of that, than I am higher temperatures and precipitation, which will save more lives, than it would take. I'm not saying we should emit greenhouses willy nilly. If it's easy to find an alternative, then it makes sense, but the damaging net zero targets should end. Invest in nuclear energy would be a start. Solar doesn't make any sense for much of the northern hemisphere, as it doesn't work in winter, when it's most needed. Wind is good, but improvements need to be made on turbine recycling. --- End quote --- Its not just living standards. Its population. 1/2 the nitrogen in your body is said to have been through the Haber process. Before that was developed limited high fertility resources, like guano, were being depleted rapidly, as technology allowed the population to grow rapidly after 1769 (i.e. James Watt's key patent). If you want to run down fossil fuel consumption faster than alternatives can be developed and deployed you are calling for mass murder. The world's population is going to decline massively over the next century. Some countries are likely to have less than 10% of their current population, unless their is a massive reversal in current trends. I don't want to see a population reduction by mass starvation. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |