Why are repubs still hand waving around Global Warming?

[Max™]

We can move out into the solar system without thousands to millions of years of travel.

Yet we're not.

I'd rather have a trailer in the backyard if the mansion burned down, than be stuck inside.



Also: Planets are a horrible way to use mass, most of the usable material is locked up inside of it, leaving literally the smallest possible living surface, and the ONLY upside is the ease of attaching an atmosphere to it.

Which obviously isn't the best solution because apparently the damn thing is breaking down.

[Neosutra]

We can move out into the solar system without thousands to millions of years of travel.

Yet we're not.

I'd rather have a trailer in the backyard if the mansion burned down, than be stuck inside.



Also: Planets are a horrible way to use mass, most of the usable material is locked up inside of it, leaving literally the smallest possible living surface, and the ONLY upside is the ease of attaching an atmosphere to it.

Which obviously isn't the best solution because apparently the damn thing is breaking down.

We dont need the entire living surface lol. The "smallest usable material" supports trillions upon trillions of lifeforms. Carbon based life is small.

Ya, we can move outside our solarsystem in less than a million years. Then what? It is a 39900000000000 kms to our closest star system (that has no planets). At our current shuttle speed of ~24000KPH, thats ~190,000 years of travel.

Millions to billions of years of travel to any other place that may have other life.

Seriously, living on a smaller less cohesive biodome isnt any more impressive. Its just sci-fi splooge for people that dont like their current space ship. ITT: You wont find a space ship that can fly as fast, as far, and support as much life as earth, at least not in our lifetime.

There is NO reason to invest in interstellar travel (beyond colonizing mars) until we solve our relativity problems.

[Headspace]

This topic is far beyond dumb right now.

[Neosutra]

This topic is far beyond dumb right now.

It's about republicans, what do you expect?

Bill Maher had it right though, our country no longer has a left and a right party, we have a middle of the road party (dems), and a bat shit far right party(repubs). The dems are in control now and really too afraid to push any of the major change we need in this country, in what I can only imagine is an attempt to not piss too many people off for Obama's second election. I want the change I voted for, stop pacifying the repubs, they were obselete 10 years ago.

[ZarakiKujata]

This topic is far beyond dumb right now.

It's a political discussion on BG, since when have any of these not been dumb past page 1/after Egon/Leif/Bingbong posts?

[Serif]

Max the only problem with us populating another planet is that this same process will repeat.

Random dude: We are maybe killing this planet too!
Other random dude: Oh snap, we need to move to another one.

I tend to stay out of these discussions seeing how 99.9999% of this board is bat shit crazy.

[Lee]

It's pretty funny that the thread title is called 'Why are repubs still hand waving around Global Warming", then Leif comes in and posts a defense of anti-Global Warming stances and all of the sudden a bunch of you attack him while considering his post as pure garbage. What do you guys want to do in a thread like this? Trash talk those who don't believe in Global Warming and jack off furiously together on how "stupid" they are for not agreeing with you? When you create a thread title like that, it's supposed to entice rational debate, not scream "GARBAGE!!! I'm not gonna read it" when it comes knocking on the door.

On my own beliefs on the subject, I'm really not educated enough in the field to really know what really is going on with the climate. However, I do know that there is some compelling evidence to both sides of the argument. I heard for instance the Weather Channel founder (or owner?) as well as other scientists in the field do not believe in Global Warming for several reasons. I also have seen many of the videos and facts that are presented by the people who do believe in it.

I guess the answer to whether it's really happening or not will come in several years, which the [Global Warming] scientists predict will definitely show a clear indication of an increasingly rapid climate change if we continue our Carbon Dioxide emissions.

[Acturus]

It's pretty funny that the thread title is called 'Why are repubs still hand waving around Global Warming", then Leif comes in and posts a defense of anti-Global Warming stances and all of the sudden a bunch of you attack him while considering his post as pure garbage. What do you guys want to do in a thread like this? Trash talk those who don't believe in Global Warming and jack off furiously together on how "stupid" they are for not agreeing with you? When you create a thread title like that, it's supposed to entice rational debate, not scream "GARBAGE!!! I'm not gonna read it" when it comes knocking on the door.

Sounds like pretty much every pseudo-political thread that shows up on this board.

[Tristam]

On my own beliefs on the subject, I'm really not educated enough in the field to really know what really is going on with the climate. However, I do know that there is some compelling evidence to both sides of the argument. I heard for instance the Weather Channel founder (or owner?) as well as other scientists in the field do not believe in Global Warming for several reasons. I also have seen many of the videos and facts that are presented by the people who do believe in it.

I guess the answer to whether it's really happening or not will come in several years, which the [Global Warming] scientists predict will definitely show a clear indication of an increasingly rapid climate change if we continue our Carbon Dioxide emissions.

There isn't really compelling evidence on the denialist side of the argument, considering the laws of thermodynamics apply to earth. I've read the document by the founder of the weather channel, did you know he is not a climatologist? People like to throw out arguments from a meteorologist as if they were specialists in the field, when they are actually very very different disciplines. One deals with short term phenomena, while the other studies decades long timescales.

The indications are already pretty clear, the main computer models were published years ago, they're simply getting more refined as we collect more data.

[archibaldcrane]

There is NO reason to invest in interstellar travel (beyond colonizing mars) until we solve our relativity problems.

I'm pretty sure he's talking about colonizing Mars (or the moon or some other planet's moons I guess). He didn't say "leave the solar system" he said "move out into the solar system".

[Correction]

How did Vajira escape this black hole of stupid?

Leif comes in and posts a defense of anti-Global Warming stances and all of the sudden a bunch of you attack him while considering his post as pure garbage.

Lief asked a bunch of questions which he is entitled to, but then he also demanded answers to every single one of his questions before he found any legislation aimed at curbing America's greenhouse gas emissions worthy of consideration. When Tristam provided four very solid answers Lief turns around and pretends like nothing was answered. This is very typical of arguing with him.

Lief: The earth is cooling! The earth has only risen in temperatures by 1 degree
Tristam: It's getting warmer, and 1 degree shift is catastrophic for a lot of ecologies already on the brink.
Lief: Well which is it Mr. Smarty Pants? Is it cooling or heating up? I WANT ANSWERS AND PROOF IS NOT THE SKEPTIC'S BURDEN!

Lief doesn't want a discussion. He wants a soapbox.

[Tristam]

The only thing that I still don't understand, is why shifting from carbon based resources to other sources would be economically "catastrophic", to borrow a buzzword tossed at climate change "zealots". How would investing in energetically efficient buildings do nothing else but save money for the occupants of those buildings and provide a source of income for private R&D? Why should carbon based companies get money and renewable energy based companies not get it? We all know that the solution isn't shutting down all the products we use, what then would be the point of civilization and technology? But here we know that our usage is completely unsustainable for a variety of reasons and has detrimental effects. What is the relative cost to our infrastructure, which must be borne by taxpayers, of ignoring those effects? And how does that compare to the economic "catastrophe" of switching to efficient, renewable, low-emission energy sources?

The economics argument dosen't make sense to me, does the financial world really require that we use coal and oil exclusively? Is all currency backed by carbon alone?

[Baha]

"It'll cost money. Money that we don't have right now!"

Seriously, did anyone notice a price hike on fridges and hairspray when CFC's were banned? Incandescent bulbs are getting phased out for more efficient lamps like compact fluorescent and LED lamps, we get clear labelling of power efficiency on household electronics, etc. These kinds of measures are ones that governements need to implement. They're beneficial to do without hurting anyone, but a business has no interest to make those changes, as they don't benefit them. Governement = regulation = bad, what the hell man. Trusting governement to do what's good for everyone is naive, but not half as naive as thinking private corporations will do so unless it's guaranteed to make them cash.

I agree that the rhetoric used is sometimes too strong (phasing out nuclear power wut?), but it's a lot easier to change public perception than it is to try to push for big legislative changes.

[Max™]

We dont need the entire living surface lol. The "smallest usable material" supports trillions upon trillions of lifeforms. Carbon based life is small.

Ya, we can move outside our solarsystem in less than a million years. Then what? It is a 39900000000000 kms to our closest star system (that has no planets). At our current shuttle speed of ~24000KPH, thats ~190,000 years of travel.

Millions to billions of years of travel to any other place that may have other life.

Seriously, living on a smaller less cohesive biodome isnt any more impressive. Its just sci-fi splooge for people that dont like their current space ship. ITT: You wont find a space ship that can fly as fast, as far, and support as much life as earth, at least not in our lifetime.

There is NO reason to invest in interstellar travel (beyond colonizing mars) until we solve our relativity problems.

I actually meant colonizing the solar system, then we can worry about the rest as it comes.

We will take centuries to tap out the system resources, lots of breathing room.

[Neosutra]

Or we could take care of our current colony?

[Max™]

Can't we do both?


Remember when you were living at your parents house, fighting with your siblings?

Ever called up your mom to bitch about your brother touching your stuff after you moved out?

You had other things to worry about, your own house, your own stuff, bills, family, etc.


We will NEVER stop fighting over this stupid shitty little ball of dirt until we start leaving the nest, and hopefully, though it may be just a naive dream, we would mature as a species in the process.

Edit: PLUS, if we do get established in space with Colonies... we're that much closer to Gundam.

Don't YOU want a RX-79 of your own?

[Neosutra]

Can't we do both?


Remember when you were living at your parents house, fighting with your siblings?

Ever called up your mom to bitch about your brother touching your stuff after you moved out?

You had other things to worry about, your own house, your own stuff, bills, family, etc.


We will NEVER stop fighting over this stupid shitty little ball of dirt until we start leaving the nest, and hopefully, though it may be just a naive dream, we would mature as a species in the process.

Edit: PLUS, if we do get established in space with Colonies... we're that much closer to Gundam.

Don't YOU want a RX-79 of your own?

Or we could learn to play nice here.

Seriously, what is to gain by spending billions inhabiting lifeless planets when there is work to be done to keep our current LIFE sustaining planet capable of supporting us?

[Leif]

Lief asked a bunch of questions which he is entitled to, but then he also demanded answers to every single one of his questions before he found any legislation aimed at curbing America's greenhouse gas emissions worthy of consideration. When Tristam provided four very solid answers Lief turns around and pretends like nothing was answered. This is very typical of arguing with him.

Lief: The earth is cooling! The earth has only risen in temperatures by 1 degree
Tristam: It's getting warmer, and 1 degree shift is catastrophic for a lot of ecologies already on the brink.
Lief: Well which is it Mr. Smarty Pants? Is it cooling or heating up? I WANT ANSWERS AND PROOF IS NOT THE SKEPTIC'S BURDEN!

Lief doesn't want a discussion. He wants a soapbox.

What kind of moron are you?

1. You've never taken enough of a history lesson to spell my name right.

2. I've made it quite clear that I am open to hearing evidence about global warming. I am not willing, however, to go along with the mainstream "the world will end if we don't" mentality, which is not based on anything substantive.

So far, the best anyone can do seems to be "the laws of thermodynamics" and "countless scientific studies". You can't regulate something if you don't know how much to regulate. You don't know how much to regulate if you don't know how much of this "problem" is man made. You don't know how much to regulate if you don't know the consequences of leaving the problem alone. You don't know how much to regulate if you have not decided how much we are willing to sacrifice. You don't know how much to regulate if you have no idea if other countries will follow suit. Those are all questions that have to be answered before you can even begin to seriously consider emission legislation.

3. Tristam just said I was "wrong", again providing no evidence besides the "laws of thermodynamics". He was not able to answer the important questions. Is it good? Is it bad? How much? Who decides? Can we make a difference? Do we need to make a difference? How much of a difference do we need to make?

4.

Tristam: It's getting warmer, and 1 degree shift is catastrophic for a lot of ecologies already on the brink.

Lief: Well which is it Mr. Smarty Pants? Is it cooling or heating up? I WANT ANSWERS AND PROOF IS NOT THE SKEPTIC'S BURDEN!

By this theory, the natural shifts in the global temperature have to the potential for catastrophe. If 1 degree is all that it takes why are we not all running inland?

If there's honest debate to whether it's getting hotter or colder and who is responsible, we have certainly not answered any of those key questions that need to be addressed. And proof is on the burden of the guy who wants to expand government, raise energy prices, tax Americans, kill jobs, and weaken the economy... all based on some guesswork.

And seriously, people need to be willing to do more than simply proclaim I'm not worth listening to. It feels almost like academia, except here everyone plays video games all day instead of preaching that gender roles are socially constructed.

[Khamsin]

Or we could learn to play nice here.

Seriously, what is to gain by spending billions inhabiting lifeless planets when there is work to be done to keep our current LIFE sustaining planet capable of supporting us?

You're acting as if it's a choice between one or the other. Just do both. Society here can work on improving life on Earth and solving problems at home, while simultaneously some other group of humans can form their own society with their own problems to deal with on Mars.

Afraid we don't have enough resources, and that worrying about two planets instead of one will spread us too thin? Then just have people pop out more babies so we'll still have the same manpower here, and have plenty to spare to send off to other planets.

The mental and physical effort, the worrying, the planning, and all that can be handled exclusively by the people going to the new colony, and people here on Earth can continue to work on our own problems without the distraction of worrying about Mars because they're taking care of themselves. We'll have just as much resources and effort going to our problems at home with or without a Mars colony.

[Neosutra]

Im more worried about the trillion dollars of our current budget it would take to get these colonist there in the first place.