[ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Trump - kcar - Jan 16, 2017 - 6:58pm
 
Movie Recommendation - Antigone - Jan 16, 2017 - 6:22pm
 
Sonos - ojibwe - Jan 16, 2017 - 5:24pm
 
Name My Band - BlueHeronDruid - Jan 16, 2017 - 5:17pm
 
Things You Thought Today - Antigone - Jan 16, 2017 - 5:01pm
 
Celebrity Face Recognition - Antigone - Jan 16, 2017 - 4:29pm
 
Gotta Get Your Drink On - Skydog - Jan 16, 2017 - 4:29pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - Red_Dragon - Jan 16, 2017 - 3:08pm
 
music that makes you dance with big wavy gestures - rhahl - Jan 16, 2017 - 2:46pm
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - aflanigan - Jan 16, 2017 - 1:32pm
 
All Dogs Go To Heaven - Dog Pix - Antigone - Jan 16, 2017 - 1:24pm
 
What Did You Have For Breakfast? - BlueHeronDruid - Jan 16, 2017 - 1:06pm
 
What Makes You Cry :) ? - oldviolin - Jan 16, 2017 - 12:21pm
 
What do you want on YOUR trombone? - Proclivities - Jan 16, 2017 - 12:20pm
 
Dialing 1-800-Manbird - oldviolin - Jan 16, 2017 - 12:02pm
 
WTF??!! - Skydog - Jan 16, 2017 - 11:41am
 
Graphs, Charts & Maps - R_P - Jan 16, 2017 - 11:19am
 
Network receiver issue - barryflanagan - Jan 16, 2017 - 11:09am
 
The power of nightmares - Proclivities - Jan 16, 2017 - 10:01am
 
Back to the 70's - Red_Dragon - Jan 16, 2017 - 9:54am
 
Regarding dogs - Antigone - Jan 16, 2017 - 7:57am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - Skydog - Jan 16, 2017 - 7:46am
 
Get Your Ducks In A Row - Proclivities - Jan 16, 2017 - 7:29am
 
Health Care - Red_Dragon - Jan 16, 2017 - 6:53am
 
Martin Luther King day - Skydog - Jan 16, 2017 - 5:13am
 
Obama's Second Term - Steely_D - Jan 15, 2017 - 7:59pm
 
Brian Eno - Steely_D - Jan 15, 2017 - 5:25pm
 
What Did You Do Today? - Antigone - Jan 15, 2017 - 4:20pm
 
How's the weather? - haresfur - Jan 15, 2017 - 3:09pm
 
Name My President - NWReb@optonline.net - Jan 15, 2017 - 2:54pm
 
Counting with Pictures - ScottN - Jan 15, 2017 - 2:32pm
 
RP3 Beta Player - slupesky - Jan 15, 2017 - 1:23pm
 
Things that make you go Hmmmm..... - kurtster - Jan 15, 2017 - 12:13pm
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - olivertwist - Jan 15, 2017 - 10:24am
 
Beer - ScottFromWyoming - Jan 15, 2017 - 6:37am
 
Today in History - Red_Dragon - Jan 15, 2017 - 6:23am
 
What Are You Going To Do Today? - Antigone - Jan 15, 2017 - 4:13am
 
Don't Make Me Laugh - Steely_D - Jan 15, 2017 - 12:05am
 
Vinyl Only Spin List - kurtster - Jan 15, 2017 - 12:02am
 
Movie rental suggestions & reviews - Netflix or Blockbuster - Antigone - Jan 14, 2017 - 7:31pm
 
I posted this as my Facebook status: - oldviolin - Jan 14, 2017 - 3:44pm
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - SeriousLee - Jan 14, 2017 - 1:11pm
 
Regarding cats - Red_Dragon - Jan 14, 2017 - 11:10am
 
Post your favorite 'You Tube' Videos Here - Red_Dragon - Jan 14, 2017 - 9:19am
 
TV shows you watch - SeriousLee - Jan 14, 2017 - 6:42am
 
That's good advice - SeriousLee - Jan 14, 2017 - 6:27am
 
Republican Party - Red_Dragon - Jan 14, 2017 - 5:41am
 
What makes you smile? - Antigone - Jan 14, 2017 - 5:38am
 
Learn something every day - oldviolin - Jan 13, 2017 - 10:57pm
 
Fire - oldviolin - Jan 13, 2017 - 10:54pm
 
Should the Rolling Stones retire?? - oldviolin - Jan 13, 2017 - 10:46pm
 
This is amazing! - oldviolin - Jan 13, 2017 - 10:36pm
 
Live Music - oldviolin - Jan 13, 2017 - 10:33pm
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Jan 13, 2017 - 10:28pm
 
Corruption - Red_Dragon - Jan 13, 2017 - 6:20pm
 
::it's a dress thing:: - oldviolin - Jan 13, 2017 - 1:43pm
 
Those Lovable Policemen - R_P - Jan 13, 2017 - 1:34pm
 
The Obituary Page - n4ku - Jan 13, 2017 - 11:10am
 
Derplahoma Questions and Points of Interest - Red_Dragon - Jan 13, 2017 - 10:10am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - sacaric - Jan 13, 2017 - 10:07am
 
Food - Proclivities - Jan 13, 2017 - 9:44am
 
Best Song Comments. - ptooey - Jan 13, 2017 - 8:54am
 
Breaking News - Red_Dragon - Jan 13, 2017 - 8:22am
 
Now That's Punny! - Proclivities - Jan 13, 2017 - 7:36am
 
songs that ROCK! - ptooey - Jan 13, 2017 - 7:30am
 
New Music - ptooey - Jan 13, 2017 - 7:23am
 
What Makes You Sad? - Antigone - Jan 13, 2017 - 5:33am
 
What's your favorite quote? - miamizsun - Jan 13, 2017 - 5:29am
 
Great guitar faces - Proclivities - Jan 13, 2017 - 4:14am
 
NOPE, NOPE, NOPE ! - miamizsun - Jan 13, 2017 - 3:50am
 
2016 Elections - Coaxial - Jan 12, 2017 - 8:28pm
 
Would you drive this car for dating with ur girl? - KurtfromLaQuinta - Jan 12, 2017 - 7:57pm
 
Christmas Trees - buddy - Jan 12, 2017 - 7:38pm
 
RPeep News You Should Know - buddy - Jan 12, 2017 - 7:36pm
 
Cryptic Posts - Leave Them Guessing - haresfur - Jan 12, 2017 - 4:12pm
 
Index » Radio Paradise/General » General Discussion » Global Warming Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 29, 30, 31  Next
Post to this Topic
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 20, 2016 - 7:48am

 ScottN wrote:
Nicely written and cited.
We're fucked, basically.  Some think that as a practical matter Earth has already passed the "tipping point".
Overpopulation is the fundamental problem.  Count on Mother Nature to reliably counter with a self-correcting action of some sort.
 
i don't think we are doomed

if we can get enough energy to the developing world it will raise their standard of living and population will level off and maybe even eventually decrease

you can google hans rosling he has done a lot of research on this

regards



miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 20, 2016 - 7:27am

 kcar wrote:
This discovery is really interesting and quite cool, but it alone isn't going to "save" us.

1. It wouldn't do anything to remove atmospheric heat and lower our too-high global temperature. Even if we suddenly stopped emitting CO2 entirely tomorrow, the global temperature is way too high. This SciAm piece pegs the tipping point of our hitting environmental ruin, assuming current emission levels, at 2036. 

2. There's also the risk of a "Jevons paradox" that 

occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand.


An analogy: a person buys a box of a new type of lower-calorie cookies but eats so many more cookies out of a false sense of diet security that he actually takes in more calories than he normally would have. India, for instance, may sharply increase its demand for energy as more Indians enter middle-class status and buy energy-intensive air conditioners and cars. New technologies like this may give people, even governments, a false sense of environmental security.
  
 
 3. This accompanying PopSci interview of one of the scientists involved (Oak Ridge is funded and owned by the federal government, kurster, btw) talks about using this new process to convert extra renewable energy into ethanol for storage of energy in order to smooth out fluctuations in energy supply. It doesn't really talk about saving the planet or replacing fossil fuels for cars. Right now the process's energy efficiency is too low. This part of the interview points to possibly the main stumbling block:

Now let's talk about the energy efficiency. The energy efficiency is essentially the energy you store divided by the energy you put into the reaction. We haven't really investigated this, but we're ballparking it around 20 percent, which is low. This is why, in the paper, we actually said that the overpotential (which defines the energy efficiency) is probably too high for the catalyst as it currently stands to be used commercially.

Now, that's against, say, corn ethanol. For other applications it actually may be very competitive. However, that would be the sort of thing that we'd be looking at in the future. We've got a better handle on the mechanism and how it works, so now there are strategies that can be developed to hopefully raise that energy efficiency.

...

But if you were really interested in closing the carbon cycle, and when you think about cap and trade or a carbon tax, then it could become competitive.


4. This process doesn't do anything to address the rising levels of other greenhouse gases like methane (far more potent GhG than CO2, albeit shorter-lived in the atmosphere).

5. I have to ask: to put a real dent in the excess of CO2 now in our atmosphere, how much would we have to scale up this process? Neither the article nor the interview address this question.
 
i'm quite optimistic about our future and obviously i was being a bit sarcastic when i said "are we saved yet?"


i've posted quite a bit of info on green energy, especially nuclear/molten salt/lftr tech

it includes reducing carbon emissions to nil and actually removing co2 from the atmosphere to make green fuels like dimethyl ether, etc. (green diesel)

just take a peak over in the other threads and look for thorium and kirk sorensen or just go to gordon mcdowell's youtube site

you'll see interviews from oak ridge scientists speaking about the reactors, including how alvin weinberg  had that project up and running and how the funding was pulled

here's a five minute mashup (and i encourage everyone to explore gordon's yt channel)





regards
ScottFromWyoming
I eat pints
ScottFromWyoming Avatar

Location: Powell
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Pisces
Chinese Yr: Tiger


Posted: Nov 18, 2016 - 3:38pm

 ScottN wrote:

Nicely written and cited.
We're fucked, basically.  Some think that as a practical matter Earth has already passed the "tipping point".
Overpopulation is the fundamental problem.  Count on Mother Nature to reliably counter with a self-correcting action of some sort.

 

ScottN
"Thought for today" has been postponed until tomorrow.
ScottN Avatar

Location: An inch above the K/T boundary. But smth near fracking still has appeal.
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aries
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Nov 18, 2016 - 3:30pm

 kcar wrote:
 miamizsun wrote:
This discovery is really interesting and quite cool, but it alone isn't going to "save" us.

1. It wouldn't do anything to remove atmospheric heat and lower our too-high global temperature. Even if we suddenly stopped emitting CO2 entirely tomorrow, the global temperature is way too high. This SciAm piece pegs the tipping point of our hitting environmental ruin, assuming current emission levels, at 2036. 

2. There's also the risk of a "Jevons paradox" that 

occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand.


An analogy: a person buys a box of a new type of lower-calorie cookies but eats so many more cookies out of a false sense of diet security that he actually takes in more calories than he normally would have. India, for instance, may sharply increase its demand for energy as more Indians enter middle-class status and buy energy-intensive air conditioners and cars. New technologies like this may give people, even governments, a false sense of environmental security.
  
 
 3. This accompanying PopSci interview of one of the scientists involved (Oak Ridge is funded and owned by the federal government, kurster, btw) talks about using this new process to convert extra renewable energy into ethanol for storage of energy in order to smooth out fluctuations in energy supply. It doesn't really talk about saving the planet or replacing fossil fuels for cars. Right now the process's energy efficiency is too low. This part of the interview points to possibly the main stumbling block:

Now let's talk about the energy efficiency. The energy efficiency is essentially the energy you store divided by the energy you put into the reaction. We haven't really investigated this, but we're ballparking it around 20 percent, which is low. This is why, in the paper, we actually said that the overpotential (which defines the energy efficiency) is probably too high for the catalyst as it currently stands to be used commercially.

Now, that's against, say, corn ethanol. For other applications it actually may be very competitive. However, that would be the sort of thing that we'd be looking at in the future. We've got a better handle on the mechanism and how it works, so now there are strategies that can be developed to hopefully raise that energy efficiency.

...

But if you were really interested in closing the carbon cycle, and when you think about cap and trade or a carbon tax, then it could become competitive.


4. This process doesn't do anything to address the rising levels of other greenhouse gases like methane (far more potent GhG than CO2, albeit shorter-lived in the atmosphere).

5. I have to ask: to put a real dent in the excess of CO2 now in our atmosphere, how much would we have to scale up this process? Neither the article nor the interview address this question.
 
Nicely written and cited.
We're fucked, basically.  Some think that as a practical matter Earth has already passed the "tipping point".
Overpopulation is the fundamental problem.  Count on Mother Nature to reliably counter with a self-correcting action of some sort.
kcar

kcar Avatar



Posted: Nov 18, 2016 - 2:44pm

 miamizsun wrote:
This discovery is really interesting and quite cool, but it alone isn't going to "save" us.

1. It wouldn't do anything to remove atmospheric heat and lower our too-high global temperature. Even if we suddenly stopped emitting CO2 entirely tomorrow, the global temperature is way too high. This SciAm piece pegs the tipping point of our hitting environmental ruin, assuming current emission levels, at 2036. 

2. There's also the risk of a "Jevons paradox" that 

occurs when technological progress increases the efficiency with which a resource is used (reducing the amount necessary for any one use), but the rate of consumption of that resource rises because of increasing demand.


An analogy: a person buys a box of a new type of lower-calorie cookies but eats so many more cookies out of a false sense of diet security that he actually takes in more calories than he normally would have. India, for instance, may sharply increase its demand for energy as more Indians enter middle-class status and buy energy-intensive air conditioners and cars. New technologies like this may give people, even governments, a false sense of environmental security.
  
 
 3. This accompanying PopSci interview of one of the scientists involved (Oak Ridge is funded and owned by the federal government, kurster, btw) talks about using this new process to convert extra renewable energy into ethanol for storage of energy in order to smooth out fluctuations in energy supply. It doesn't really talk about saving the planet or replacing fossil fuels for cars. Right now the process's energy efficiency is too low. This part of the interview points to possibly the main stumbling block:

Now let's talk about the energy efficiency. The energy efficiency is essentially the energy you store divided by the energy you put into the reaction. We haven't really investigated this, but we're ballparking it around 20 percent, which is low. This is why, in the paper, we actually said that the overpotential (which defines the energy efficiency) is probably too high for the catalyst as it currently stands to be used commercially.

Now, that's against, say, corn ethanol. For other applications it actually may be very competitive. However, that would be the sort of thing that we'd be looking at in the future. We've got a better handle on the mechanism and how it works, so now there are strategies that can be developed to hopefully raise that energy efficiency.

...

But if you were really interested in closing the carbon cycle, and when you think about cap and trade or a carbon tax, then it could become competitive.


4. This process doesn't do anything to address the rising levels of other greenhouse gases like methane (far more potent GhG than CO2, albeit shorter-lived in the atmosphere).

5. I have to ask: to put a real dent in the excess of CO2 now in our atmosphere, how much would we have to scale up this process? Neither the article nor the interview address this question.

kurtster
behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Nov 18, 2016 - 6:34am

 miamizsun wrote:
are we saved yet?

Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol

The process is cheap, efficient, and scalable, meaning it could soon be used to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee have discovered a chemical reaction to turn CO2 into ethanol, potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change. Their findings were published in the journal ChemistrySelecthere for a new in-depth interview about the findings with one of the lead researchers.>

The researchers were attempting to find a series of chemical reactions that could turn CO2 into a useful fuel, when they realized the first step in their process managed to do it all by itself. The reaction turns CO2 into ethanol, which could in turn be used to power generators and vehicles. 

The tech involves a new combination of copper and carbon arranged into nanospikes on a silicon surface. The nanotechnology allows the reactions to be very precise, with very few contaminants.

"By using common materials, but arranging them with nanotechnology, we figured out how to limit the side reactions and end up with the one thing that we want," said Adam Rondinone.

 
This is very cool indeed.  And without government intervention and get rich cronyism.  

This is an example of why panic is counterproductive to solving problems.  Sometimes you gotta believe that things will work themselves out in their own time.  So many things are discovered by accident.  Penicillin.  It changed life on this planet for everyone and saved so many from certain death, ugly death.

But ... if this works it could and most likely would face challenges from a host of sources and a new dependency.  How about Big Oil for openers ?  What happens if it succeeds too well and we take too much CO2 from the atmosphere and cause an ice age ?  Just as everyone is screaming and I mean screaming about too much CO2 and say that we must reduce it at any cost even if it means cutting off our nose to spite or face to solve a problem saying that while the gestures are admittedly insufficient at achieving the goal of actually impacting man's affect on our atmosphere, can we also not, using the same logic, that man could cause an ice age by reducing CO2 too much ?  There is already much renewed chatter about a dawn of a new ice age, which we already know is definitely a cyclical climate event.  We could accelerate it.

We will inevitably end up with ice age deniers comprised of all the people who are now screaming about Global Warming as a crisis.  Its all too predictable.  

At any rate, I really hope this works out.  Good things come to those who wait.  Patience is a virtue that takes time and faith to be rewarded. 
miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: Nov 18, 2016 - 4:11am

are we saved yet?

Scientists Accidentally Discover Efficient Process to Turn CO2 Into Ethanol

The process is cheap, efficient, and scalable, meaning it could soon be used to remove large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere.

Scientists at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee have discovered a chemical reaction to turn CO2 into ethanol, potentially creating a new technology to help avert climate change. Their findings were published in the journal ChemistrySelecthere for a new in-depth interview about the findings with one of the lead researchers.>

The researchers were attempting to find a series of chemical reactions that could turn CO2 into a useful fuel, when they realized the first step in their process managed to do it all by itself. The reaction turns CO2 into ethanol, which could in turn be used to power generators and vehicles. 

The tech involves a new combination of copper and carbon arranged into nanospikes on a silicon surface. The nanotechnology allows the reactions to be very precise, with very few contaminants.

"By using common materials, but arranging them with nanotechnology, we figured out how to limit the side reactions and end up with the one thing that we want," said Adam Rondinone.

 



 




rhahl
If it sounds good, it is good.
rhahl Avatar



Posted: Oct 2, 2016 - 9:46am

Paul Watson talks Climate

An interview with Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepard. He is optimistic about people being able to effect change while discussing dire facts like 40% of the phytoplankton in the oceans have disappeared since 1950. Phytoplankton are the main producers of oxygen on earth.

I support the Sea Shepherds, please think about doing the same.


rhahl
If it sounds good, it is good.
rhahl Avatar



Posted: Sep 15, 2016 - 12:10pm


aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: May 3, 2016 - 6:58am

Millenials better put the Big Easy on their bucket list.

Louisiana Coast is Screwed 
LowPhreak

LowPhreak Avatar

Location: Divided Corporate States of Neo-Feudal Murikka, Inc.
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Gemini
Chinese Yr: Buffalo


Posted: Apr 22, 2016 - 8:34am

 aflanigan wrote:
The links below, particularly the second link, provide a fascinating glimpse into how competent, effective journalism is practiced, or should be practiced. 

It also is a stellar example of ham-handed Public Relations folks at Exxon being pwned.

 Exxon Takes Aim at Columiba University Journalists over Climate Reports

Response from Steve Coll to Exxon Mobil

How Exxon Went From Leader to Skeptic on Climate Change Research

Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago

 
It's cute how deniers conveniently ignore these facts. And last December, this:

A new investigation by the Pulitzer Prize-winning outlet InsideClimate News suggests that nearly every major U.S. and multinational oil and gas company was aware of the impact of fossil fuels on climate change as early as the late 1970s. Earlier exposés by InsideClimate News and the Los Angeles Times have revealed that Exxon scientists knew about climate change as early as 1977, and for decades Exxon concealed its own findings that the burning of fossil fuels causes global warming, alters the climate and melts the Arctic ice. Now, internal documents obtained by InsideClimate News reveal that the entire oil and gas industry had similar knowledge. From 1979 to 1983, the oil and gas industry trade group American Petroleum Institute ran a task force to monitor and share climate research. The group’s members included senior scientists and engineers from not only Exxon, but also Amoco, Phillips, Mobil, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Sohio and Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil, the predecessors to Chevron. The documents show that as early as 1979, the task force knew carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was rising steadily. The task force even briefly considered researching how to introduce a new energy source into the global market, given the research about fossil fuels’ impact on global warming. But in 1983, the task force was disbanded, and by the late 1990s, the American Petroleum Institute had launched a campaign to oppose the Kyoto Protocol, which was adopted by many countries to cut fossil fuel emissions but was never ratified by the United States.

http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/24/headlines/report_all_major_oil_companies_knew_of_climate_change_by_1970s

And Carlin? Loved the guy, he was funny as hell and had it right on a lot of things, but on global warming he's just wrong.


KurtfromLaQuinta
My lug nuts take more torque than your import puts out
KurtfromLaQuinta Avatar

Location: Really deep in the heart of South California
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Horse


Posted: Apr 21, 2016 - 12:27pm



Well put Mr. Carlin.
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Dec 2, 2015 - 12:54pm

The links below, particularly the second link, provide a fascinating glimpse into how competent, effective journalism is practiced, or should be practiced. 

It also is a stellar example of ham-handed Public Relations folks at Exxon being pwned.

 Exxon Takes Aim at Columiba University Journalists over Climate Reports

Response from Steve Coll to Exxon Mobil

How Exxon Went From Leader to Skeptic on Climate Change Research

Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago



miamizsun

miamizsun Avatar

Location: (3261.3 Miles SE of RP)
Gender: Male


Posted: May 2, 2014 - 5:54am

solutions?

nice playlist here


kurtster
behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 30, 2014 - 8:06am

 aflanigan wrote:


A rather glib response from someone who acts upset that no one is taking his propaganda videos seriously.

 
Not really.  I was not the original poster of the vid.

I just watched it and commented on what it meant to me and how it encapsulated my views on this subject.

 
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Apr 30, 2014 - 7:53am

 kurtster wrote:

The dog ate it.

 

A rather glib response from someone who acts upset that no one is taking his propaganda videos seriously.
kurtster
behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 29, 2014 - 9:33am

 aflanigan wrote:

Lectures can be an appropriate way to make your case to the larger scientific community, if you have a transcript or corresponding paper with footnotes.

Where are your/Davidson's footnotes?

 
The dog ate it.
aflanigan
Be ashamed to die until you have won some victory for humanity
aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Aquarius
Chinese Yr: Rat


Posted: Apr 29, 2014 - 7:39am

 kurtster wrote:

I take it that you also do not watch any of the TED presentations.  This is no different from one of those as it is a recording of a live presentation in front of an audience.  Lectures are primitive and overrated I guess as a delivery method for facts and opinions in the 21st Century.  They should be banned at all institutions of higher learning.  

Like I said, the vid parallels my conclusions which I have offered up here over the years in bits and pieces.  

I saw it, liked it and said why.  The vid would serve a purpose for me if anyone asked my take on the subject.  I would tell them to watch it if they wanted to know.  Save me a lot of time and trouble splaining it.

Funny how ain't none of us going to be around to find out who is right and who isn't.  Although those who believe its all manmade are right because they are the only ones with real science on their side.

Ta ... 

 
Lectures can be an appropriate way to make your case to the larger scientific community, if you have a transcript or corresponding paper with footnotes.

Where are your/Davidson's footnotes?


kurtster
behind the kurtain
kurtster Avatar

Location: drifting
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Libra
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 29, 2014 - 6:19am

 sirdroseph wrote:


Actually Kurt, I don't think there are very many people that truly believe that climate change is 100% man made, moreso the industrial revolution and exponential increases in carbon emissions that come with it are excacerbating the natural cycle to the point where we are in serious trouble.  Regardless of what percentage is man made or natural and cyclical, the fact remains that it has been here for many years and is accelerating to the point of no return at an alarming rate and it is downright irresponsible for us not to take this very seriously, buckle down and do something about it on a global scale.  Having said that, this subject is not very pressing to me personally because I know that global cooperation is not forthcoming or possible at this stage of our spiritual evolution nor can we put the modern lifestyle and agricultural mass production systems that have allowed for unsustainable population levels back in the Genie's bottle therefore we are quite doomed............ 

 
I agree.

I do realize that in the general population, the view is not as widely held.  Here it is, or so it seems.  I am only addressing the views expressed here.

What bothers me the most is how we are distorting our entire economy to address this in money losing propositions.  We cannot overcome the foreign outputs of China and India and other nations whose priorities do match ours.  So in essence we are only chasing our tails and bankrupting ourselves financially and even morally in this futile endeavor.  The moral example is that it is now ok to kill eagles and other birds when wind farms are doing the killing.

That's not to say that we do nothing.  Just not what we are doing now.  We should direct our energy towards finding ways to cope and adapt rather than try and reverse it. 

Change is the only constant in life.  All this time, energy and money being spent to try and prevent change (or put the genie back in the bottle) is downright foolish and futile. Politicians and there masters only make money when something goes wrong.  They do not make any money when they fix things.
sirdroseph
Endeavor to Perservere
sirdroseph Avatar

Location: Yes
Gender: Male
Zodiac: Sagittarius
Chinese Yr: Dragon


Posted: Apr 29, 2014 - 4:06am

 kurtster wrote:

I take it that you also do not watch any of the TED presentations.  This is no different from one of those as it is a recording of a live presentation in front of an audience.  Lectures are primitive and overrated I guess as a delivery method for facts and opinions in the 21st Century.  They should be banned at all institutions of higher learning.  

Like I said, the vid parallels my conclusions which I have offered up here over the years in bits and pieces.  

I saw it, liked it and said why.  The vid would serve a purpose for me if anyone asked my take on the subject.  I would tell them to watch it if they wanted to know.  Save me a lot of time and trouble splaining it.

Funny how ain't none of us going to be around to find out who is right and who isn't.  Although those who believe its all manmade are right because they are the only ones with real science on their side.

Ta ... 

 

Actually Kurt, I don't think there are very many people that truly believe that climate change is 100% man made, moreso the industrial revolution and exponential increases in carbon emissions that come with it are excacerbating the natural cycle to the point where we are in serious trouble.  Regardless of what percentage is man made or natural and cyclical, the fact remains that it has been here for many years and is accelerating to the point of no return at an alarming rate and it is downright irresponsible for us not to take this very seriously, buckle down and do something about it on a global scale.  Having said that, this subject is not very pressing to me personally because I know that global cooperation is not forthcoming or possible at this stage of our spiritual evolution nor can we put the modern lifestyle and agricultural mass production systems that have allowed for unsustainable population levels back in the Genie's bottle therefore we are quite doomed............ 


Page: 1, 2, 3 ... 29, 30, 31  Next