Sub's Alternative Energy Thread

[BOBB]

There are tons of graphs that correlate controlled burns to less overall burned acreage in the last 100 years.

Someone needs to start teaching science in California.

I am a liberal and human-caused climate change believer. Prescribed burns, logging, and not fighting every fire is a big key to fire mitigation. The spotted owl can go **** itself:)

Edit: that also means that people and communities that build in the forests are going to have to be told that they are on their own going forward. These homes will likely be uninsurable.

[Shockm]

I am a liberal and human-caused climate change believer. Prescribed burns, logging, and not fighting every fire is a big key to fire mitigation. The spotted owl can go **** itself:)

Edit: that also means that people and communities that build in the forests are going to have to be told that they are on their own going forward. These homes will likely be uninsurable.

I agree somewhat that there is a correlation to man and global warming. However, how did the last ice age happen prior to man or do you not believe in that?

[wufan]

I am a liberal and human-caused climate change believer. Prescribed burns, logging, and not fighting every fire is a big key to fire mitigation. The spotted owl can go **** itself:)

Edit: that also means that people and communities that build in the forests are going to have to be told that they are on their own going forward. These homes will likely be uninsurable.

I will ask this differently than Shockm. To what degree do you believe humans caused climate change? What should be done to prevent it? What evidence would convince you otherwise?

[BOBB]

Shockm and wufan

I would posit that most warming since the industrial revolution would be anthropogenic. Within a system that has seen the planet warm and cool over many cycles.

However, let's focus on where we agree. A system of logging, controlled burns and not fighting every fire would in the long term mitigate the fire threat. The current overgrowth is 100% anthropogenic as we've fought every fire and prevented logging.

Side note, the more things we make out of wood the more carbon we are storing. Provided we are replacing the trees this is a net loss of carbon. I look forward to my 100inch wood LCD console that weighs 375 pounds.

[BOBB]

I agree somewhat that there is a correlation to man and global warming. However, how did the last ice age happen prior to man or do you not believe in that?

Men were around for the last Ice Age. Not in populations or with technologies significant enough to modify the broader environment. My limited understanding is that ice ages/warming are brought about by variations in Earth's orbit, as well as volcanic activity and externalities such as the odd meteor.

[wufan]

Yes, anthropogenic climate change exists. Yes CO2 contributes. The climate is increasing at a rate of about 1 degree per century. That is not too much to overcome with simple, regional, technological solutions.

It is also better for human flourishing to be too hot than too cold. We are failing in the right direction. The alternative is to make the earth uninhabitable for a few billion people.

[Shockm]

Men were around for the last Ice Age. Not in populations or with technologies significant enough to modify the broader environment. My limited understanding is that ice ages/warming are brought about by variations in Earth's orbit, as well as volcanic activity and externalities such as the odd meteor.

Let’s go with what you said. I will add that Man has had very little to do with climate warming and cooling in the past. The Earth began warming prior to the 1890’s Industrialization so obviously man didn’t cause the warming during the past 200 or so years. They probably had a small bit part in it. The problem with your accepting the warming scenarios of Biden, AOC, V.P. Gore, Michael Moore, and most of the liberals is that they only require carbon restrictions and economic poisons that are enacted in the West, but never in the East (China, Russia, etc), and WE are already limiting OUR emissions more than China, India, Russia, etc. . You don’t pass the logic test.

[ShockerPrez]

I just have a hard time going along with the ruling class folks who never bear the burden of the results of their policies, (unless getting rich counts). Al Gore has already been proven wrong. Scientists predictions from 50, 30, even 20 years ago are already being proven wrong. Weather that lends credence to warming is told to be a sign of GW, but weather (or lack thereof) that goes against is just called "weather, not climate". It's such bullshit, and phony. People are just using the topic to get rich because, as usual, it's one of those topics where one cannot possibly be against the climate, or clean air and water, right? And telling people that they are gonna die on a burning fireball in 20 years will always stir up the sheep. Garnering votes, donations, and fake adoration from sheep.

Focus on pollution, clean air, clean water, sure. But the world is not going to end. Look out your window. Does it look like a horrible place? Maybe it does in LA, Chicago, NY and such. But outside the cities, it's a gorgeous place (even Western KS). And it will be for a long long time.

The world changes, man adapts. Keep your money, do more to help your community, it has a bigger impact.

[Kung Wu]

Yes, anthropogenic climate change exists.

True. And peeing in the ocean causes the sea level to rise. Also true!

[Kung Wu]

You guys mind if I change this thread title to "Anthropogenic Global Warming"? It'd be better for search purposes and more accurately describe the discussion.

[SubGod22]

I just have a hard time going along with the ruling class folks who never bear the burden of the results of their policies, (unless getting rich counts). Al Gore has already been proven wrong. Scientists predictions from 50, 30, even 20 years ago are already being proven wrong. Weather that lends credence to warming is told to be a sign of GW, but weather (or lack thereof) that goes against is just called "weather, not climate". It's such bullshit, and phony. People are just using the topic to get rich because, as usual, it's one of those topics where one cannot possibly be against the climate, or clean air and water, right? And telling people that they are gonna die on a burning fireball in 20 years will always stir up the sheep. Garnering votes, donations, and fake adoration from sheep.

Focus on pollution, clean air, clean water, sure. But the world is not going to end. Look out your window. Does it look like a horrible place? Maybe it does in LA, Chicago, NY and such. But outside the cities, it's a gorgeous place (even Western KS). And it will be for a long long time.

The world changes, man adapts. Keep your money, do more to help your community, it has a bigger impact.

That's pretty much my philosophy on this. Whatever man is or isn't doing to impact the climate is minimal and we shouldn't take draconian actions that harm the majority to "save" us all. Especially since they've been fearmongering for at least 70 years about the coming ice age or total ice melt and been wrong every step of the way.

But you're right in that we can as a whole want to limit pollution and other aspects to clean up what we have but we can do it in an economically beneficial way that doesn't negatively impact 95% of the population. Those biggest alarmist are getting rich and still using more of the evil energy techs in a year than most will in a lifetime. Maybe a slight exaggeration, but I do remember reading years ago how Al Gore consumed more energy in a year than a small city would. Don't recall the size of the city. I also remember in that same article how former president George W Bush had a much more green home than Gore.

As I've said before, I'm all for improving tech to make things cleaner. I'm very opposed to forcing it upon the masses when it costs exponentially more to them and becomes at overall negative and then kills the economy.

Much of this could be remedied if we just got out of the way of nuclear, which is much needed in some areas. Also, it doesn't have to be an all or nothing approach with any of them. Use what works in different areas. Improve tech to make it better. Make it to where people actually want to use certain things because it's better and cheaper (or at least in the ballpark of other options). Make it make sense for the average Joe.

I really should be working.

[ShockTalk]

Make it make sense for the average Joe.

156-1566748_joe-biden-math-meme-hd-png-download.jpg

[BOBB]

It is also better for human flourishing to be too hot than too cold. We are failing in the right direction. The alternative is to make the earth uninhabitable for a few billion people.

If we were nomadic, you bet. We would just follow the warming north to Canada and start farming the tundra. However, we have massive investments in cities that will have to take significant and costly mitigation actions and/or be abandoned by many.

Interesting article a while back describes the warming of Siberia and how quickly that land is becoming arable. Both Russia and China demographically are not going to have the people to farm it and will have to have immigration into what has been a fairly closed society.

Likewise imagine Californians, Floridians, Arizonans and Central Americans as a new millennium's "Okies" headed north to Canada start farmsteads. The former Rust Belt cities becoming boomtowns again while the Mountain West hollows out.

This is likely to happen over the next 100 years and we can stipulate that none of it is human caused, but the effects on world societies will be massive.

[BOBB]

Much of this could be remedied if we just got out of the way of nuclear.

Nuclear should be something everyone can support, but somehow neither side supports.

[Kung Wu]

Side note, the more things we make out of wood the more carbon we are storing. Provided we are replacing the trees this is a net loss of carbon.

Say whaaat?