The Feedback Loop: Ecological Damage Soon Beyond Control

[david222444]

Why does no one mention that rain absorbs co2 hence removing it from the atmosphere?

[co2isgoodal]

Who know how much in economic ruin and human suffering draconian AGW laws will cause as they total devastate business and give up our freedoms to government?

[co2isgoodal]

"It it warms, it caused by humans, if it cools it's caused by warming which is caused by humans, wetness causes dryness, dryness causes wetness, dryness causes dryness, unless it doesn't" pseudo-science babble.

If you play the AGW game buy the scammers' rules, any time your marble lands on either red or black, the house wins. Everytime. Any outcome supposedly "proves" man-made global warming.

[isocrate27]

Not convincing. Very superficial. Reminds me of catholic priests talking of Devil.

[dmlt12]

con'd....have heard volcanoes discussed & discounted..especially those on land where their recent average annual CO2 output equates to less than a week of mans recent average CO2 output)

[dmlt12]

phantomscotts As far as I am aware the scientists have checked other possibilities..in fact its often part of science to look at these other possibilities eg sun spots & sun - yes looked at....nuclear explosions & volcanoes hard to see them not considering these (have heard volcanoes discussed & discounted..especially those on land where recent CO2 output)

[richardmtl]

we're doomed

[mcanoy2]

Very funny! "Green" energy represents energy claimed a couple of steps down along the thermodynamic ladder. It takes more fossil carbon energy to reclaim "clean" energy than you get out of it. Remember 2 things, raw materials, manufactured parts, transporting and assembling it all; and maintaining the whole is not "free". That takes fossil carbon. Second; when you transform fossil energy into technology for "green" energy, you lose more than you gain. Second law of Thermodynamics you know.

[torturedgenius314]

WE ARE FUCKED !!! I trust the human race to do something about this like I trust a paranoid schizophrenic on acid not to think anyone is out to get him. I AM GOING TO THE SHOP AND GETTING A BOTTLE OF WHISKEY !!!!!

[MazeleyFanClub]

We can't fix it and our race doesn't deserve to survive. A few centuries and no more humans, wipe the slate clean for the next species.

[mycatisromeo]

Of course it is too late. China is building 2 coal fired power plants weekly. Try telling those people that they don't deserve a better standard of living. Coal is easy and cheap to burn. People need to stop talking about the fact it is happening. There is no changing it. You'd have to have a total global economic meltdown and put us back in the stone age and even then, we'd be burning COAL in our homes to keep warm. Overshoot and collapse - PERIOD!

[mycatisromeo]

This problem has never been within our grasp of control. The human instinct to procreate and destroy is too strong. If chastity belts were mandatory starting in the middle ages, then yes, it might have been adverted. But women, as men, are hedons and like to produce babies by the bundle - it is in our DNA to mass-produce like rabbits. Are people smart enough to fix the problem?  Not as long as religion controls people's thoughts.

[duck24x]

Conservatives want to take away everyone's freedom by forcing them to go to court illegally just because they express their First Amendment right to say whatever they want - including the political position that GW Bush & Governor Christie should be tortured & executed. Conservatives are anti-sex terrorists who want to take away the property rights of people (e.g. Roman Polanski, who is on his OWN property in Switzerland).

[duck24x]

Worthless corporate-welfare freeloading unpatriotic traitors like xyberpunk, who have never done a day of work in their lives and have contributed nothing to civilization, are thankfully in the vast minority. The majority of the scientists who have done the actual work and the majority of the public throughout the world know that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real & serious and are taking action now.

[alfuzaia]

bill trying to reduce our bill but we are not listening to him so far so please and please let us work together  to purify our environment 350 ppm of carbon dioxide

emissions is the red mark .

[xyberfunk]

uhmmm... the MAJORITY of scientists disagree with YOU...

and the MAJORITY of the public disagrees with YOU...

you sound angry-why don't you people go live in the mountains by yourself if you are so worried about it - eat some twigs and berries and plant some seeds.

because me, I'm going to litter, pollute and drive my disel sucking 4x4 up and down your street spewing exhaust everywhere and there is not a damn thing that you or anyone else is gonna do about it.

have a nice day! :-)

[quidproquo2004]

@xyberfunk You are a proud enemy of humanity.

[Meurglys33]

@xyberfunk "the MAJORITY of scientists disagree with YOU..."

75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries, The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, and NASA.

You may want to recheck your "data". Or tell us where this majority you're speaking of is hiding.

[xyberfunk]

So then tell me Einstein, since you enviro-marxists are so much more smart than all of us common folk.

What caused the Ice Age, volcanoes, floods, fires and earthquares thousands and thousands of years ago?

Styrofoam cups? Plastic bags? Our lawnmowers, TVs and refridgerators?

it sounds like it's HARD evidence like your head..

free your mind brother you wanna be a slave to the enviromarxist? sounds more like you are jealous of rich countries and want to punish progress. nice try

[TheTimelessTruth]

Let's hope some more generations of humans are able to live on this planet.

If we take the existence of homo erectus as 24 hours, the invention of agriculture is just 8 minutes ago. Before this, just around 7 Million people lived on the planet. 1500 we were 500 Million, now we are heading to become 10 Billion.

If we can survive just 300 more years (15 sec.), as much homo sapiens could enjoy their lives in this period as in our entire history before.

[Wisdomspeeker]

Liberals want to destroy everything on the planet to remove carbon dioxide from the air, because its no easy thing to do when the oceans suck all carbon dioxide from the air and only release one third as much as plants need to grow on. Try to out-ocean the oceans.

[EasyEs]

Somebody should tell Bill McKibbion that there are negative feedback mechanism as well and IPCC report doesn't really even talk about them. strange I wonder why......

[xyberfunk]

LIES! too bad more scientists disagree...

if the truth makes you so miserable, why don't you just go live in the woods by yourself and eat mushrooms and berries..

then maybe you can be at peace..

the planet is doing just fine, it's people like this that are the problem..

[david222444]

Why does no one mention that rain absorbs co2 hence removing it from the atmosphere?

[co2isgoodal]

Who know how much in economic ruin and human suffering draconian AGW laws will cause as they total devastate business and give up our freedoms to government?

[co2isgoodal]

"It it warms, it caused by humans, if it cools it's caused by warming which is caused by humans, wetness causes dryness, dryness causes wetness, dryness causes dryness, unless it doesn't" pseudo-science babble.

If you play the AGW game buy the scammers' rules, any time your marble lands on either red or black, the house wins. Everytime. Any outcome supposedly "proves" man-made global warming.

[isocrate27]

Not convincing. Very superficial. Reminds me of catholic priests talking of Devil.

[dmlt12]

con'd....have heard volcanoes discussed & discounted..especially those on land where their recent average annual CO2 output equates to less than a week of mans recent average CO2 output)

[dmlt12]

phantomscotts As far as I am aware the scientists have checked other possibilities..in fact its often part of science to look at these other possibilities eg sun spots & sun - yes looked at....nuclear explosions & volcanoes hard to see them not considering these (have heard volcanoes discussed & discounted..especially those on land where recent CO2 output)

[richardmtl]

we're doomed

[mcanoy2]

Very funny! "Green" energy represents energy claimed a couple of steps down along the thermodynamic ladder. It takes more fossil carbon energy to reclaim "clean" energy than you get out of it. Remember 2 things, raw materials, manufactured parts, transporting and assembling it all; and maintaining the whole is not "free". That takes fossil carbon. Second; when you transform fossil energy into technology for "green" energy, you lose more than you gain. Second law of Thermodynamics you know.

[torturedgenius314]

WE ARE FUCKED !!! I trust the human race to do something about this like I trust a paranoid schizophrenic on acid not to think anyone is out to get him. I AM GOING TO THE SHOP AND GETTING A BOTTLE OF WHISKEY !!!!!

[MazeleyFanClub]

We can't fix it and our race doesn't deserve to survive. A few centuries and no more humans, wipe the slate clean for the next species.

[mycatisromeo]

Of course it is too late. China is building 2 coal fired power plants weekly. Try telling those people that they don't deserve a better standard of living. Coal is easy and cheap to burn. People need to stop talking about the fact it is happening. There is no changing it. You'd have to have a total global economic meltdown and put us back in the stone age and even then, we'd be burning COAL in our homes to keep warm. Overshoot and collapse - PERIOD!

[mycatisromeo]

This problem has never been within our grasp of control. The human instinct to procreate and destroy is too strong.  If chastity belts were mandatory starting in the middle ages, then yes, it might have been adverted. But women, as men, are hedons and like to produce babies by the bundle - it is in our DNA to mass-produce like rabbits. Are people smart enough to fix the problem? Not as long as religion controls people's thoughts.

[duck24x]

Conservatives want to take away everyone's freedom by forcing them to go to court illegally just because they express their First Amendment right to say whatever they want - including the political position that GW Bush & Governor Christie should be tortured & executed. Conservatives are anti-sex terrorists who want to take away the property rights of people (e.g. Roman Polanski, who is on his OWN property in Switzerland).

[duck24x]

Worthless corporate-welfare freeloading unpatriotic traitors like xyberpunk, who have never done a day of work in their lives and have contributed nothing to civilization, are thankfully in the vast minority. The majority of the scientists who have done the actual work and the majority of the public throughout the world know that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real & serious and are taking action now.

[alfuzaia]

bill trying to reduce our bill but we are not listening to him so far so please and please let us work together to purify our environment 350 ppm of carbon dioxide

emissions is the red mark .

[xyberfunk]

uhmmm... the MAJORITY of scientists disagree with YOU...

and the MAJORITY of the public disagrees with YOU...

you sound angry-why don't you people go live in the mountains by yourself if you are so worried about it - eat some twigs and berries and plant some seeds.

because me, I'm going to litter, pollute and drive my disel sucking 4x4 up and down your street spewing exhaust everywhere and there is not a damn thing that you or anyone else is gonna do about it.

have a nice day! :-)

[quidproquo2004]

@xyberfunk You are a proud enemy of humanity.

[Meurglys33]

@xyberfunk "the MAJORITY of scientists disagree with YOU..."

75 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries, The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, and NASA.

You may want to recheck your "data". Or tell us where this majority you're speaking of is hiding.

[xyberfunk]

So then tell me Einstein, since you enviro-marxists are so much more smart than all of us common folk.

What caused the Ice Age, volcanoes, floods, fires and earthquares thousands and thousands of years ago?

Styrofoam cups? Plastic bags? Our lawnmowers, TVs and refridgerators?

it sounds like it's HARD evidence like your head..

free your mind brother you wanna be a slave to the enviromarxist? sounds more like you are jealous of rich countries and want to punish progress. nice try

[TheTimelessTruth]

Let's hope some more generations of humans are able to live on this planet.

If we take the existence of homo erectus as 24 hours, the invention of agriculture is just 8 minutes ago. Before this, just around 7 Million people lived on the planet. 1500 we were 500 Million, now we are heading to become 10 Billion.

If we can survive just 300 more years (15 sec.), as much homo sapiens could enjoy their lives in this period as in our entire history before.

[Wisdomspeeker]

Liberals want to destroy everything on the planet to remove carbon dioxide from the air, because its no easy thing to do when the oceans suck all carbon dioxide from the air and only release one third as much as plants need to grow on. Try to out-ocean the oceans.

[EasyEs]

Somebody should tell Bill McKibbion that there are negative feedback mechanism as well and IPCC report doesn't really even talk about them. strange I wonder why......

[xyberfunk]

LIES! too bad more scientists disagree...

if the truth makes you so miserable, why don't you just go live in the woods by yourself and eat mushrooms and berries..

then maybe you can be at peace..

the planet is doing just fine, it's people like this that are the problem..

[araless]

Scrolling through the comments on videos like these makes me so . . . filled with pity. The uneducated masses sit in their computer chairs watching experts talk about a unanimously agreed on subject, denying it with no verifiable evidence to lean on. Simply because it makes them uncomfortable, I guess. Why isn't logic 101 a mandatory class in every public school? Maybe things wouldn't be so bleak. It's too late probably anyway. We're fucked.

[freesk8]

I was a Philosophy major at Cornell U. My focus was on logic.

One thing I learned was not to blindly accept the "consensus of experts."

Instead, I think for myself.

I highly recommend it to you too, even if the experts' opinion re-enforces your own emotions or political leanings.

To the extent that people are willing to give up their rights and liberties in order to grant unprecedented power to politicians, you are right; we are, indeed fu#%ed.

Lack of logic is, indeed the problem.

[araless]

If your focus was logic, then you must know that it's okay to rely on a reliable expert's opinion in a field that you are not an expert in. It's not blind faith to believe in verifiable evidence presented to you by someone who knows what he's talking about. Right? Especially if all the experts in that field generally agree. As far as the politicians, absolutely right they have too much power, but this should be a decision we all decide on. We shouldn't leave it to the politicians.

[freesk8]

In Aristotle's day, the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat and the sun went around the earth. 'Twas wrong.

All the experts in the climate field do NOT agree that global warming can be significantly slowed through human CO2 emissions reductions.

How shall "we" decide to solve the problem without the politicians? If you mean persuading people to reduce CO2 emissions voluntarily, then I am on your side. But if you mean voting, that is just the tyranny of the majority. Force.

[FRTothus]

True, not all of the experts agree, just the VAST MAJORITY of them. Tyranny of the majority (an absurd and nonsensical concept)? As opposed to what, pray tell? Tyranny of the minority? Consensus? Maybe you can enlighten the rest of us by coming up with a better or fairer method for deciding on a course of action other than majority rule, and a better system than representational government.

[araless]

First of all, in Aristotle's day, the church was in charge of determining what was scientific fact or not. It is no longer like that. Also, although the experts may be wrong at some point, they will know better than those of us just pulling ideas out of our ass, or letting unqualified hacks tell us their crackpot theories. Perhaps not ALL the experts agree, but enough that we should probably pay attention to what they're saying.

[araless]

Hypothetically, just for the sake of argument, let's say that CO2 emissions are in fact upsetting the balance and wreaking havoc on our planet. You know that major industry is where the majority of these emissions are coming from. You also know that industry will not regulate itself. What do you propose we do about it?

[videochick770]

yes. sobering.

[YouXKneekXIT]

see also tundra @ lichens bicot by dicots

[LeGioNoFZioN]

this guy is a goof

[LeGioNoFZioN]

lame

[offsprng46]

It would be a lot easier for me to be concerned about this issue if the same eco-fanatics talking about how we're all doomed if we don't radically reduce our CO2 emissions soon, weren't also the same assholes who keep trying to obstruct the construction of new nuclear generating capacity.

That they are doing both of these things tells me that they're either:

1) Exaggerating and/or lying outright.

2) Pushing a radical agenda of de-development & de-industrialization.

3) Seriously mentally ill.

[araless]

"the same assholes who keep trying to obstruct the construction of new nuclear generating capacity." Are you serious? As we should already know, nuclear really isn't a safe and viable option. We still don't know all the future consequences of nuclear power and don't know how to properly store it. There are and always have been alternative methods of development, technology, and industry. These methods haven't progressed because there's just too much money in them as they are now.

[offsprng46]

"Are you serious?"

Of course I'm serious. If you think we can generate 17 TW of power (60 TW in 50 years) with windmills and solar panels, you belong in an insane asylum.

"nuclear really isn't a safe"

Name a power source that has had fewer deaths per gigawatt hour than nuclear. Oh that's right, there isn't one. QED.

"viable option"

France generates 80% of their electrical power from nuclear. Is that your idea of a technology which isn't viable? Or are you just delusional?

[offsprng46]

"There are and always have been alternative methods of development, technology, and industry."

No. We must continually progress to higher flux density sources of energy, or the machines and industrial processes which sustain life physically break down.

[araless]

So rather than slowing down our energy usage, and having some discipline, we should rush into "higher flux density sources" of energy? Tell me this - what would scientists gain by lying to the public in order to stop a nuclear power plant's construction? Why, when looking at the evidence, choose an unfounded conspiracy theory rather than the obvious truth?

[offsprng46]

"So rather than slowing down our energy usage, and having some discipline"

IOW - "Discipline" and higher utility bills for spoiled westerners. Genocide for those not so fortunate.

If you want to indulge your sado-masochistic tendencies, you're free to do that. Where I draw the line, however, is when you feel that you need to collectively punish the entire species because you've been brainwashed into accepting the dogmas of the Malthusian cult.

[offsprng46]

"we should rush into "higher flux density sources" of energy"

Yes, definitely. The alternative is to regress into a new dark age. There is no middle ground; even economic stagnation requires a continual progression in an economy's overall EFD.

"what would scientists gain by lying to the public in order to stop a nuclear power plant's construction?"

Most of this ilk have been bought up by the corporate oligarchy; some others are ideological eco-fascists. Many more are just on the bandwagon.

[araless]

Now why would the corporate oligarchy want to stop the construction of nuclear power plants? If the effects are as damaging as you say, it seems that the economy that allow the corporate oligarchy to thrive would collapse. Why would they want that? What would ideological eco-fascists stand to gain by destroying our system?

[offsprng46]

The oligarchs wish to deindustrialize the world; this will create a set of economic structures which then compel a return to feudalism. This process has been carried out many times in the developing world.

[araless]

I would have to say this system is too close to feudalism for me to tell the difference.

[offsprng46]

But what is this system? In the US, it is a fraudulent, "post-industrial" overhead economy. The less energy we produce, the more actually productive industries shut down, and the nearer we approach feudalism.

[araless]

Lastly, I'd like to reiterate that nuclear power is extremely volatile. There have been far too many melt-downs or close calls for my comfort. We still do not have a fool-proof method for storing nuclear waste, and the radiation can cause irreparable damage to the earth. At some point we'll have to reap what we've sown, and not rush to the most efficient alternative no matter the cost in order to continue our level of comfort.

[offsprng46]

"nuclear power is extremely volatile"

By what metric? Relative to what? Where are your facts? In reality, nuclear power is the safest form. I realize that doesn't fit with your religious beliefs, but that's not my concern.

Tell me, do you think jet air travel is extremely volatile as well? Should it be banned because it's too 'potentially' dangerous?

"far too many melt-downs or close calls"

Just how many of these incidents do you think have occurred? And what are you comparing it to?

[araless]

Three mile island, Chernobyl, NRX, Windscale, Santa Susana. These and many more incidents force me to believe nuclear power should be our last resort. I'm not looking for a perfect solution, but certainly not for a solution that's frought with disaster. There is no way to safely store the waste, and it's far too detrimental to gamble with. You still haven't explained how a lack of nuclear energy will result in genocide.

[offsprng46]

Once again, WHAT ARE YOU COMPARING NUCLEAR POWER TO? For the last damn time, there is no other energy source that has as good a track record as nuclear. I realize it's not PERFECT, but YOU MUST COMPARE SOMETHING TO SOMETHING ELSE. Objectively, nuclear is the SAFEST of all alternatives. That is a FACT. It is not up for debate.

"There is no way to safely store the waste"

Bollocks. There are plenty of safe ways to store the waste, and it doesn't need to be stored long-term anyways.

[offsprng46]

"You still haven't explained how a lack of nuclear energy will result in genocide."

Have you thought about what it is that keeps you and the other 6.7 billion people alive yet? What is it that allows you to have plenty of clean water to drink and plenty of food to eat? Do the things which provide you with the essentials of life last forever? Think about it, and the answer will become clear.

[araless]

What are you talking about? Controlling our energy usage would cost more money in utility bills? And genocide? Explain. What dogmas have I been brainwashed into accepting? Also, you've neglected to answer my question. What do scientists gain by lying to the public about this?

[offsprng46]

"...cost more money in utility bills?"

Utility bills are not the important point. The 'cost' would be in the form of sharply decreased real income resulting from the necessary decline in physical production.

"And genocide?"

Yes. As you sit in comfort lamenting the evils of technology and industry, please consider just what it is that keeps you and the bulk of the other 6.7 billion human beings alive.

Once you've figured that out, you will see what I mean by that statement.

[araless]

I didn't say windmills and solar panels. I said there are and always have been alternative methods. We should research a bit more before we settle on nuclear power. The fact remains that there is no absolutely safe plan for storing nuclear waste. And what about three mile island and Chernobyl? The effects of a meltdown are devastating and efficiency is not worth the cost.

[offsprng46]

"I didn't say windmills and solar panels."

So what then, biofuels? Geothermal? Magic power? Please describe how you plan to meet our energy needs without nuclear power.

"We should research a bit more before we settle on nuclear power."

No, we should do more research as we develop nuclear power.

"The fact remains that there is no absolutely safe plan"

That's probably because there isn't anything that's absolutely safe. You are blatantly committing a perfect solution fallacy.

[offsprng46]

"And what about three mile island and Chernobyl?"

What about them? One was an accident due to a comical level of bureaucratic incompetence and a poor facility design. The other was an accident in a now-antiquated type of reactor, and it was contained.

"The effects of a meltdown are devastating"

So is the effect of an jet airliner crashing into a densely-populated city. Yet, jet air travel is still the safest form of transportation by a huge margin. Same story with nukes.

[offsprng46]

"efficiency is not worth the cost."

What makes you think I care about accounting cost? The only thing I'm concerned with here is getting the necessary power to sustain human civilization.

[araless]

"What makes you think I care about accounting cost?". You should account cost every time there is a decision of this magnitude to be made. Once again, it boils down to believing the ends justify the means. Uranium is a finite resource, and takes energy to be mined. We're still not entirely sure what effects a leak have on us, and there's always a chance for a melt-down. The waste is radio-active for thousands of years. Too many downsides. We've spent no time earnestly researching alternatives.

[offsprng46]

"You should account cost..."

Naturally. That is not the dominant factor in making a competent decision on energy policy, however.

"Uranium is a finite resource"

The universe is a finite resource. Uranium is not the only available fuel for fission reactors, either.

"there's always a chance for a melt-down."

If you live in a house, there's always the chance your roof will cave in and crush you to death. Does that mean we should build housing?

[offsprng46]

err... "Shouldn't build housing..."

"We've spent no time earnestly researching alternatives."

We already know all we need to about wind, solar, and the like. We know with certainty what their potential as power sources is, because the density of their energy flux is precisely known.

The only viable alternative to nuclear fission - insofar as we currently understand physics - is nuclear fusion.

[offsprng46]

OK, I guess I should mention that there is one way solar could be useful in meeting most of our energy needs - which would be orbital solar collection with microwave power transmission. That would be a huge undertaking, and we don't yet have anywhere near the capacity to build something like that on a scale where it would be economical.

[araless]

It seems to me we learn new things every day. Electric powered cars were pitiful a decade ago, and now they're economical and efficient. I think if we spent more research on alternative sources we would find something. That very well could be naivete, but I am not at ease with more nuclear reactors in my vicinity.

[offsprng46]

THE DENSITY OF ENERGY FLUX FOR "GREEN" ENERGY SOURCES IS PHYSICALLY LIMITED BY THE AMOUNT OF POWER THEY RECEIVE IN WIND AND SOLAR RADIATION. Please consult an introductory engineering textbook.

"I am not at ease with more nuclear reactors in my vicinity."

That's because you're an idiot. You almost certainly already have one or more nuclear plants in your vicinity, you self-absorbed cock. For the good of humanity, please consider educating yourself or, alternatively, taking a cyanide tablet.

[araless]

There are nuclear reactors in my vicinity, and it doesn't make me feel comfortable. But we're not talking about what is or isn't, I said "I am not at ease with more nuclear reactors in my vicinity." Which, in retrospect, probably should have read "I am not at ease with the prospect of more nuclear reactors in my vicinity." to be more specific. Talking about the future. Why pick a quote out just to make an irrelevant comment about it? And how does it necessarily follow that I'm self absorbed?

[BeondaPale]

you're right araless, he really looks like a jack-ass

[duck24x]

@offsprng46 All sources of energy - nuclear, coal, gas - have a finite density of energy flux. The question is how much. Even though wind, solar, wave have a lower limit, it is sufficient for those of us who sacrifice & conserve. The greedy selfish anti-marxist pro-corporate fanatics do not deserve to have any energy.

[araless]

The universe is a finite resource, but for nuclear power large amounts of uranium are needed. We will run out in a forseeable amount of time, and what will we switch to after that? The chance of a roof caving in randomly is far lesser than the chance of a nuclear melt-down happening in a reactor.

[offsprng46]

"The universe is a finite resource"

That's the first intelligent thing you've said.

"ut for nuclear power large amounts of uranium are needed."

No you fucktarded moron, uranium is not the only source of fuel for nuclear fission. See "thorium." Do the world a favor and either shut up or kill yourself, you ignorant cretin.

"what will we switch to after that?"

Obviously, that would be nuclear fusion - thought I wouldn't expect an incompetent fool like yourself to understand elementary physics.

[offsprng46]

"The chance of a roof caving in randomly is far lesser than the chance of a nuclear melt-down happening in a reactor."

Any jackass can make a claim - for the 50th fracking time, WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS?! If reality jives with your radical, fascist, anti-technology, anti-humanist religion, it should be a simple matter to produce them.

While you're working on it, here's a fact for you: according to the Dept. of Labor, working in a nuke plant is about as dangerous as working in financial services.

[araless]

Supposedly in 2003 Bureau of Labor Statistics put out a study that says working in a plant is safer than in the manufacturing sector, but I haven't been able to find it. Give me a link. Where are my facts? I gave you the evidence that backs my belief, and you disregarded it. I do not feel comfortable with our excessive energy consumption, and I won't feel comfortable boosting it no matter the outcome. Also, to reiterate, you can convince someone you're correct without insulting them personally.

[araless]

If you believe that I'm uninformed, that says nothing of my intelligence. It's unnecessary to insult someone when arguing your case. It makes you look like a jack-ass and takes away from the point you're making. I am aware of the process of nuclear fusion, but I would never suggest it as an energy source.

[araless]

Also, thorium would also need to be mined, yes? How much energy would it take to mine thorium? And how are we going to provide that energy? Not by nuclear power.

[offsprng46]

"You should account cost..."

Naturally. That is not the dominant factor in making a competent decision on energy policy, however.

"Uranium is a finite resource"

The universe is a finite resource. Uranium is not the only available fuel for fission reactors, either.

"there's always a chance for a melt-down."

If you live in a house, there's always the chance your roof will cave in and crush you to death. Does that mean we should build housing?

[offsprng46]

err... "Shouldn't build housing..."

"We've spent no time earnestly researching alternatives."

We already know all we need to about wind, solar, and the like. We know with certainty what their potential as power sources is, because the density of their energy flux is precisely known.

The only viable alternative to nuclear fission - insofar as we currently understand physics - is nuclear fusion.

[offsprng46]

OK, I guess I should mention that there is one way solar could be useful in meeting most of our energy needs - which would be orbital solar collection with microwave power transmission. That would be a huge undertaking, and we don't yet have anywhere near the capacity to build something like that on a scale where it would be economical.

[araless]

It seems to me we learn new things every day. Electric powered cars were pitiful a decade ago, and now they're economical and efficient. I think if we spent more research on alternative sources we would find something. That very well could be naivete, but I am not at ease with more nuclear reactors in my vicinity.

[offsprng46]

THE DENSITY OF ENERGY FLUX FOR "GREEN" ENERGY SOURCES IS PHYSICALLY LIMITED BY THE AMOUNT OF POWER THEY RECEIVE IN WIND AND SOLAR RADIATION. Please consult an introductory engineering textbook.

"I am not at ease with more nuclear reactors in my vicinity."

That's because you're an idiot. You almost certainly already have one or more nuclear plants in your vicinity, you self-absorbed cock. For the good of humanity, please consider educating yourself or, alternatively, taking a cyanide tablet.

[araless]

There are nuclear reactors in my vicinity, and it doesn't make me feel comfortable. But we're not talking about what is or isn't, I said "I am not at ease with more nuclear reactors in my vicinity." Which, in retrospect, probably should have read "I am not at ease with the prospect of more nuclear reactors in my vicinity." to be more specific. Talking about the future. Why pick a quote out just to make an irrelevant comment about it? And how does it necessarily follow that I'm self absorbed?

[BeondaPale]

you're right araless, he really looks like a jack-ass

[duck24x]

@offsprng46 All sources of energy - nuclear, coal, gas - have a finite density of energy flux. The question is how much. Even though wind, solar, wave have a lower limit, it is sufficient for those of us who sacrifice & conserve. The greedy selfish anti-marxist pro-corporate fanatics do not deserve to have any energy.

[araless]

The universe is a finite resource, but for nuclear power large amounts of uranium are needed. We will run out in a forseeable amount of time, and what will we switch to after that? The chance of a roof caving in randomly is far lesser than the chance of a nuclear melt-down happening in a reactor.

[offsprng46]

"The universe is a finite resource"

That's the first intelligent thing you've said.

"ut for nuclear power large amounts of uranium are needed."

No you fucktarded moron, uranium is not the only source of fuel for nuclear fission. See "thorium." Do the world a favor and either shut up or kill yourself, you ignorant cretin.

"what will we switch to after that?"

Obviously, that would be nuclear fusion - thought I wouldn't expect an incompetent fool like yourself to understand elementary physics.

[offsprng46]

"The chance of a roof caving in randomly is far lesser than the chance of a nuclear melt-down happening in a reactor."

Any jackass can make a claim - for the 50th fracking time, WHERE ARE YOUR FACTS?! If reality jives with your radical, fascist, anti-technology, anti-humanist religion, it should be a simple matter to produce them.

While you're working on it, here's a fact for you: according to the Dept. of Labor, working in a nuke plant is about as dangerous as working in financial services.

[araless]

Supposedly in 2003 Bureau of Labor Statistics put out a study that says working in a plant is safer than in the manufacturing sector, but I haven't been able to find it. Give me a link. Where are my facts? I gave you the evidence that backs my belief, and you disregarded it. I do not feel comfortable with our excessive energy consumption, and I won't feel comfortable boosting it no matter the outcome. Also, to reiterate, you can convince someone you're correct without insulting them personally.

[araless]

If you believe that I'm uninformed, that says nothing of my intelligence. It's unnecessary to insult someone when arguing your case. It makes you look like a jack-ass and takes away from the point you're making. I am aware of the process of nuclear fusion, but I would never suggest it as an energy source.

[araless]

Also, thorium would also need to be mined, yes? How much energy would it take to mine thorium? And how are we going to provide that energy? Not by nuclear power.

[FRTothus]

2012 is a curious date. Isn't that they year the ancient Mayan calendar ends? I wonder what would change if we knew we only had a few more years left. The problem is that no matter how complete the evidence, no matter how conclusive, there will still be hard core group of people whose wealth depends on doing nothing about it, and an even larger group, long inurred by their rulers and owners and unable to think critically, who will go along with whatever their masters tell them they believe.

[freesk8]

Carbon tax will hurt the poor more than the rich.

It will put many of the lowest-paid employees out of work.

The number who will die because of rising sea levels (a few feet over a century) will be totally dwarfed by the number who will die because of increased poverty as a result of carbon tax increases.

The rich want more power to the govt, because then they can buy the influence to maintain their wealth with less effort. Power corrupts.

The rich want corporate welfare, not the free market.

[BrianDgreat123]

I completely agree, why should the government be the ones to handle the problem? Why shouldn't it be private organizations and corporations, perhaps being offered incentives by the government. I imagine the result would be more efficiant than having the government deal with it, if the problem is really as severe as claimed. I believe that global warming is a big problem (due to evidence) but the left tends to take many different questions, and put them all together.

[FRTothus]

So, freesk8, you disagree with the means. You're not alone. I do not trust the market or the corporations to care about anything other than their respective bottom lines. But, I ask you, what makes you the expert? What powers of pre-cognition do you have that somehow the rest of us do not? How is it that you have all the answers that, surprisingly, directly contradict the majority of actual experts in the field? What evidence would convince you? And what if you are wrong?

[freesk8]

It is by their own respect for their bottom lines that things get better overall for nearly all of us. Adam Smith.

Reliance on the opinions of experts is the road to totalitarianism. I think for myself, even though I am not an expert. I recommend it.

You are the one who advocates a change to cap and trade or some other governmental means of reducing CO2 emissions (I assume.)  The burden of proof is on you. So what if YOU are wrong?

What if the increased taxes reduce jobs and hurt the poor?

[FRTothus]

If you actually read Smith's work, you will also see his disdain for and reference to what he calls the "vile maxim" of the owners: "All for ourselves, and nothing for anyone else". Capitalism, as Smith wrote, is a disaster for poor people, which means the majority, and he was correct. As Keynes put it, "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men for the nastiest of motives will somehow work for the benefit of all." (Continued)

[freesk8]

Government is the alternative to free market capitalism. And even though the CEO's have a terrible image and reputation these days, the reputations of the politicians and bureaucrats is still worse. So when you extend power to the govt at the expense of CEOs and individuals, you are making things just a little bit worse.

Capitalists have competitors and the govt to keep them in check. Politicians used to have the Constitution to keep them in check. But the people no longer insist on this.

[FRTothus]

The "free market" is a myth. Read Adam Smith and you will see that the conditions for it and for fair competition have never existed. Trusting corporations to do the right thing is a fool's errand. To the extent that corporations decide state policy, government provides no check on avarice or socially destructive practices. The poor image of CEO's and corporations is more than justified. They are private tyrannies with all the characteristics of a sociopath, never to be trusted.

[FRTothus]

Freesk8, YOU are the one who brought up "cap and trade," NOT I. If those who advocate doing something about it are wrong, then there will be resources devoted to a problem that doesn't exist, an economic stimulus with a better return than state socialism through the Pentagon. If they are correct, then there is a chance that the problem will be mitigated, and our biosphere saved, a result well worth the cost. If they are correct, and nothing is done, we ALL (even you) suffer the consequences.

[freesk8]

The problem is that stimulus does not work. It creates debt or higher taxes, and this destroys more jobs than it creates because the government is less efficient at creating jobs per dollar than the private sector is.

I agree that military socialism is a bad idea, but so is welfare state socialism. Neither work.

It is better for the poor to help them adapt to climate change than to destroy their jobs in a futile attempt to stop it.

[FRTothus]

Adapt to climate change? The changes to the climate being discussed cannot be adapted to. They threaten the very conditions that make life possible. Stimulus doesn't work? It seems to work very well for those receiving corporate welfare. As to whether attempts to halt the practice of treating the world like a toilet are futile is hardly a foregone conclusion. Jobs can be created in many ways, including those that help alleviate rather than exacerbate the problem.

[dbryandolman]

So the ancient Mayans predicted the date on which we would all become unable to think critically.

[666norton420]

whenever 2012 is mentioned, i think of an old BC comic.

1st scene, one of the cavemen sees warm lava.

2nd scene, he makes footprints in it with a rock foot on a stick.

3rd scene, buddy comes by and asks what he's doing.

response: in a million years, this will drive them crazy!

while it may not have been the mayan's intention, it does drive some of us crazy!

;d

[3aw77]

Australia's most wonted Desalination plants are a No No

[offsprng46]

Perhaps you'd feel differently about the "evils" of development, technology, and industry if you didn't have the luxury of clean tap water, sanitation systems, electricity, plenty of food, and a high-speed internet connection which you use to spout idiotic anti-humanist propaganda.

[freesk8]

CARBON BOMB!

OH MY GOD!

WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!

This is such fear-mongering. It is just as bad as Fox news scaring people about terrorism. This is the left's version of that. The goal of both the left and the right in these cases is to scare us so much that we will give up our rights by granting unprecedented power to governments to try and solve the mostly imaginary problems.

This is chicken-little. The sky is NOT falling, friends.

Carbon taxes will kill more poor people than warming.

[ragingflamerboy]

Actually, choosing a 'side' is what's part of the problem. This isn't a 'left' video. This isn't a 'right' video. this is an intelligent discussion on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Sure, it's 'alarming', but what we've been listening to over the last 20 years, acid rain, holes in the ozone layer, and deforrestation, all have been in the same tone. 20 years 'we' said that shit was going down... It's been 20 years now.. we've only increased our usage exponentially.

[freesk8]

Sorry, dude, this is a left-wing perspective in this video. If you do not see this then you don't know where the political center is.

The acid rain problem is all but solved. The ozone hole is improving. There is net reforestation in industrialized countries, and globally as well. The Amazon is still being deforested, but these are areas with too little property rights and entrepreneurship.

We now see that these issues were mostly hype as well.

Why do we believe the fear-mongering any more?

[ragingflamerboy]

!! No. The ozone isn't improving.

And the guy's all about jesus.. which wing is that?!

[araless]

The ozone hole is certainly not improving. Property rights should not be the only hindrance against deforestation. Most of all the third world has been deforested, and a little reforestation in the first world is of little consequence. The damage is done. These issues were not and are not mostly hype. The guy has a valid point. The poles are melting and our planet is heating up. Coincidentally, temperature rates rise with CO2 emissions almost exactly. Refute this with evidence.

[freesk8]

CO2 rise LAGS temperature rise.

So how can you say that CO2 rises cause temperature rises?

More likely is that rising temperatures cause the oceans to release some of their dissolved CO2 in to the atmosphere.

I believe the planet is heating up (mildly) but it has done so millions of times in the past. I think the process is mostly natural.

In any case, taxing carbon emissions will create more poverty and problems than it will solve.

[araless]

I suppose it would depend on who is going to get taxed. The argument of CO2 lagging temperature rise has been refuted.

[freesk8]

The rich create jobs. The poor tend not to.

Tax the rich and you destroy jobs. QED

Taxing the middle class and poor is just absurd given their current tax burden and the state of the economy.

As for CO2 supposedly leading temperature increases, please give me a link to that refutation. I'd love to read it.

[offsprng46]

If the people freaking out about climate change didn't have a political agenda, why didn't they mention the ease with which we could drastically LOWER the global mean temperature with aerial cloud seeding? I mean, if you were to outfit half of the USAF's C-130's for continuous cloud-seeding, you could easily put this motherfucker back into an ice age.

So, that these guys instead insist on radical CO2 reductions tells me that they have an ideological/political agenda.

[moob744]

I think the "only" political dimension of Climate Change is to fool people into a false sense of hope that merely re-cycling or fiddling with alternative fuels will make any difference.Western Civilization and it's "advances" are at the mercy of Planetary Change,it's happening,perhaps a necessary evil in order for population equilibrium?

[goldgrif]

it isnt "evil" just ecology

[entropyfu]

The first solution is to reduce emissions. This is the root of the problem. Cloud seeding is possible but is a solution of last resort, because of the "law of unintended consequences". Taking such drastic action would undoubtedly cause of many unintended results.

[freesk8]

Reducing emissions will also have unintended consequences, such as increased poverty, reduced employment, reduced economic output, reduced charitable contributions, expansion of government power (slide towards totalitarianism) reduced scientific innovation, etc.

I think a global carbon tax or national cap and trade will have worse unintended consequences than doing nothing.

[jimrennison1]

@ragingflamerboy And yet air quality is higher now than in the last 150 years. Go figure. Andi t turns out acid rain is mostly a natural phenomenon. All rain is acidic, some is just more so. The whole idea that we can cut CO2 emissions if we just muster enough willpower or something is sad and laughable at the same time. The world made 8 giga tons of the stuff in 2005. The US DOE says the world will be making around 50 Gt by yr 2050, a 6x increase. NOBODY is going to cut CO2 emissions!

[jimrennison1]

@ragingflamerboy And yet air quality is higher now than in the last 150 years. Go figure. Andi t turns out acid rain is mostly a natural phenomenon. All rain is acidic, some is just more so. The whole idea that we can cut CO2 emissions if we just muster enough willpower or something is sad and laughable at the same time. The world made 8 giga tons of the stuff in 2005. The US DOE says the world will be making around 50 Gt by yr 2050, a 6x increase. NOBODY is going to cut CO2 emissions!

[wiskawind]

This is a worldwide problem, so everyone must work together, to try and take better care of our planet!

Our planet has gone through many changes over time, and we have adapted. Many could die from changing weather but some will survive. Human beings are pretty smart critters, and we adapt very well.

I think we are living in a very exciting time, and I am just happy to still be here. (grin)

[MudkipBlackieChan9k]

Nobody wants to do anything.

Nobody knows how to do anything about it.

Its not just america but the entire world as a whole. Including them damn north koreans.

[TheDemonPazuzu]

"The average man does not want to be free. He simply wants to be safe."

—H. L. Mencken

[gabiotta]

Goodbye everybody, we all gonna die.

[freaks182]

humanity is fucked

[n8iveidiot13]

humanity is fucked because most people dont stand up and get used to the word... NO, we can do something about this

[seamoremonster]

Absolutely...and they don't stand up and say NO...we can do without all this crap that clutters and pollutes our lives. It's all about more oil, more cars and more hamburgers. It's far easier to say CC is over exaggerated and we're safe. It's far easier to believe the shit that is put out to us every day, on television, radio, magazines, newspapers and on billboards. Consume, consume, consume. Shop till you drop. Buy till we die.