| Dark_Lord_2008 said: Climate change is not created by humans. Climate change is natural and not a problem at all. Companies can be trusted to self regulate and do what they believe is best for the environment. Politicians must not take any action on climate change. Imposing taxes on citizens for climate change will have an adverse impact upon the economy. Governments need to wait and see before taking action on climate change. |
The general scientific consensus is that Climate Change is being influenced by Humans.
Now unless you have more experience, better qualifications and a better understanding of climate than the majority of the scientific community... We can probably agree that your position is the incorrect one.
Here is some information to get you up to speed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/scientists-agree-global-warming-happening-humans-primary-cause
https://www.science.org.au/learning/general-audience/science-booklets-0/science-climate-change
https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2017-10-25/climate-change-sceptics-converted/9053406
And it's enough of an issue where countries from all around the world are getting together to solve the problem.
https://unfccc.int/process/the-kyoto-protocol
http://www.environment.gov.au/climate-change/government/international
| Dark_Lord_2008 said: There is no cheap alternative to oil that can be used to replaced oil to keep the high energy consumption based economy going. Companies must market oil as green energy, claim they are reducing carbon emissions with improved technology and claim oil as a more efficient energy source with less damage to environment. |
False. There are tons of alternatives to oil.
Hydrogen is one such technology where we can use the energy produced by wind, hydro, geothermal, nuclear and solar to split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms.
https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2014/07/hydrogen-energy-storage-a-new-solution-to-the-renewable-energy-intermittency-problem.html
https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/electric-vehicles/how-do-hydrogen-fuel-cells-work
| o_O.Q said: climate change was always irreversible |
We don't know if that is the case actually. We haven't built technologies en-masse that can capture greenhouse gases from the Earths Atmosphere and use them for energy or store them in a non-impactful way.
Our current line of thinking is to capture it where it's being generated, like at a Coal Powerplant.
| VAMatt said: Peak oil and climate change are both greatly overblown, in terms of their threat to our way of life. Humans are very adaptable. I have no concern whatsoever in our ability to survive, and to keep improving the average quality of life indefinitely. There may be some hiccups here and there. But, the long term trend line always has been, and always will be moving in the right direction. |
Quality of life for allot of people will not improve, rather the opposite. - Especially as their inhabited islands sink due to rising sea levels.
https://www.rd.com/advice/travel/islands-will-disappear-80-years/
https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/pacific-island-nations-urge-world-leaders-to-act-as-islands-expected-to-sink/news-story/9416ac1726d1f8d02a1ae435924e364f
Things like Bushfires will become more common and more severe. (Because I need more work to do?)
https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/impacts/global-warming-and-wildfire.html
http://theconversation.com/how-climate-change-is-increasing-the-risk-of-wildfires-99056
Cyclones/Hurricanes/Tornado's will also increase in occurrence and severity.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
https://phys.org/news/2018-09-scientists-world-intense-hurricanes.html
https://www.c2es.org/content/tornadoes-and-climate-change/
| Mnementh said: People need to realize that coal and oil is just stored past solar energy, while we could actually use current solar energy. That's why I always have to chuckle at the notion that solar power cannot replace fossil fuels. |
I think the issue people have is that... Because the wind doesn't always blow, the sun doesn't always shine, that Solar and Wind generation isn't viable... When there has been great strides in allowing things like Solar to generate electricity 24/7.
I.E. Solar Thermal using Molten Salt to generate energy at night.
https://www.solarreserve.com/en/technology/molten-salt-energy-storage
https://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/News/molten-salt-boost-solar-power-generation
Or using Wind Electricity to make Hydrogen to generate power when the wind isn't blowing.
http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/hydrogen-energy-storage
Using giant batteries to store excess green energy for times of demand/low production.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-27/tesla-battery-cost-revealed-two-years-after-blackout/10310680
Using green energy to drive pumps to store water in dams.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity
| Mnementh said: This is an excellent satire account, thanks for the chuckle. |
Actually think he is being serious.
| epicurean said: There is growing sentiment that global warming will have minimal impact. I saw an article a few weeks back saying that somewhere around 70% said minimal to no impact based on a survey of climatologist and meteorologist, but for the life of me I can't find the original article, which wasn't from a biased source. Now all I can find is one from Britbart, which pisses me off, because I wouldn't believe it if it was the only place I found it. But here it is: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2015/07/31/new-study-majority-of-climate-scientists-dont-agree-with-consensus/ |
Conservative vs Progressive, Left vs Right content isn't the issue.
What we should be backing is Scientific Consensus, not conspiracy theories or ideas that are "gaining traction".
| flashfire926 said: I honestly couldnt give less of a shit of climate change and whatnot. We'll all be dead anyways before we see any too many consequences. Honestly, I still have my doubts about it. Just last year, my city had the most snowfall since like 1996 or something. |
You have obviously confused climate and weather.
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/arctic-meteorology/climate_vs_weather.html
Which is a common trap for climate skeptics to fall into.
Climate change doesn't mean you will not have a ton of snowfall.
| fatslob-:O said: It's actually a huge intractable problem to replace fossil fuels with solar energy because of the fact that the former by itself is an extremely good medium for storing energy but we have no viable solution for the latter. If we mined all of the lithium in this world, we'd only have enough to create roughly 1 billion mid-sized cars with similar mileage so North America and Europe would buy all of the lithium if they could leaving nothing else in the process for the rest of the world or other appliances/utilities ... Honestly, I'd bet nuclear fission taking off before seeing either solar or wind energy take off because of logistical reasons ... Wind energy is probably doomed to only be able to meet 30% of the total energy capacity and solar is even more doomed accounting for no more than 10% in the distant future ... If being green comes at the cost of deindustrialization which inevitable leads to austerity then it's going to be a very harsh future like we observe now with how the gilet juanes in France reacts to a price increase in gas ... |
Many electric vehicles actually use Nickel-Metal Hydride cells. So Lithium isn't a requirement for electric vehicles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel%E2%80%93metal_hydride_battery#Electric_vehicles
Even then you have a ton of variants of Lithium based cells which by extension have different power characteristics and thus use differing amounts of lithium.
Like Lithium Ion Manganese, Lithium Sulfur, Lithium Cobalt and so on.
My Electric Motorcycle uses the Manganese variant... And my Electric Bicycle uses the Lithium Ion Phosphate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_ion_manganese_oxide_battery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium_iron_phosphate_battery
The big increases in energy in the battery sphere though won't be chemistries per-sey. It will actually be in building nano-structures.
Nickel-Zinc could be a good replacement for Nickel-Metal Hydride cells anyway, they have a higher nominal voltage too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-zinc_battery
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
