Should the UK bother pursuing the Green Obsession?

[Guy Threepwood]

Well any addition of CO2 to a constant mixture of gasses increases temperature.
But the fallacy is to point out that this is because of humans--when, actually, most of it is a natural processes. In addition to that, one can't claim that the Earth's atmosphere has always been a constant mixture.

I think we are adding to CO2 to some extent, but not that this is a bad thing. CO2 levels fell from >7000 to 275ppm pre-industrial- being depleted by plants down to a near starvation level, opening up vast deserts that used to be lush.

We are recycling a tiny part of that vital natural nutrient, -re greening the planet. As a tree hugger, I'm doing my part!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But it's still a SCARCE resource--what has been available in the last 100 years has been the same whether we're looking in the 20th or 21st centuries. It's just the technological and engineering advances have allowed us to discover more of what was already there.



Will it be sustainable when we run out of fossil fuels?
And in terms of hydroelectricity, when do the waters stop flowing

I forget who said it- but the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone, even though it was technically a finite commodity. We are still discovering oil/gas faster than we can use it, I don't see any reason for this to change in hundreds of years at least..

Just out of interest, the abiotic oil theory is interesting also, not sure I subscribe to it, but a possibility.

On hydro- entirely practical for select locations I'd agree, but when does that ever become an energy source for the entire planet?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

whatever you prefer to call it, belief is most common among those with high school education or less, skepticism generally grows with higher education-

You got it backwards. Those with higher education are more likely to accept global warming.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

On hydro- entirely practical for select locations I'd agree, but when does that ever become an energy source for the entire planet?

With renewable energy, it's all about location. Hydro is only good where there is enough water flowing to have turbines generating energy. You have to have plenty of sunlight for solar. Like wise, you need a good source of heat for geothermal and plenty of wind from windmills. There really is no "one size fits all" approach as you have to use what nature provides in your local area.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You got it backwards. Those with higher education are more likely to accept global warming.

it's a political issue obviously but among independents;

% that think GW is exaggerated (Gallup)

high school or less 39
College grads 46

and numbers continue higher with age and experience

you have to use what nature provides in your local area.

If you lived in the middle ages yes, you were at the mercy of nature to decide when and where you could be productive

The industrial revolution progressed us past this a long time ago with sustainable energy production, production that can be sustained anywhere, after dark, and when the wind stops. Bringing the original 'green revolution' in agriculture and vastly raising standards of living

 

[Shadow Wolf]

it's a political issue obviously but among independents;

% that think GW is exaggerated (Gallup)

high school or less 39
College grads 46

I found that poll, and you are severely misrepresenting the data. What you posted in the number of those who identify as politically independent, not the general public, who believe global warming is "generally over-exagerated," and what you gave is only a small part, because when you look at the independent group for "generally correct," you see high school and college having the same percentage, and with republicans the more education the less accepting of global warming, but with democrats the more education the more accepting.
Trying to skew the data in such a way makes you look really, really bad.

The industrial revolution progressed us past this a long time ago with sustainable energy production, production that can be sustained anywhere, after dark, and when the wind stops. Bringing the original 'green revolution' in agriculture and vastly raising standards of living

Fossil fuels are not sustainable. It is inevitable that we will ultimately run out. It's not a question of if, but when. And the next question is, do want to pass the burden of creating sustainable energy on to future generations or do our part and do it now?
And, FYI, we are still at the mercy of nature.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I found that poll, and you are severely misrepresenting the data. What you posted in the number of those who identify as politically independent, not the general public, who believe global warming is "generally over-exagerated," and what you gave is only a small part, because when you look at the independent group for "generally correct," you see high school and college having the same percentage, and with republicans the more education the less accepting of global warming, but with democrats the more education the more accepting.
Trying to skew the data in such a way makes you look really, really bad.

Fossil fuels are not sustainable. It is inevitable that we will ultimately run out. It's not a question of if, but when. And the next question is, do want to pass the burden of creating sustainable energy on to future generations or do our part and do it now?
And, FYI, we are still at the mercy of nature.

As I said, it's obviously a political issue, so those who identify one side or the other obviously poll along party lines.

So independents are clearly the closest to general population here- in which skepticism clearly increases with education- 'exaggerated' increases the 'generally correct' is flat. and 'underestimated' falls, yes? The more they learn, the less they're buying it



I don't think it means much either way, more of a reflection of where/when GW is taught to people. Few high school kids question what their teachers tell them at the time.
I never questioned global cooling when I was in HS either. But certainly it is not accurate to say more educated = less skeptical

We could have abandoned fossil fuels 100 years ago by the exact same rationale, and missed out on a century of unprecedented wealth creation and rise in standards of living that we take for granted
that's what I'd like to pass on to future generations,

 

[dust1n]

Well there's no doubt that the Earth warms and cools intermittently--that's what the data says.
Fossil fuels certainly are a scarce resource and at some point we will need to rely on free resources instead.
BUT I believe we need to take a massive step back and scrap every renewable energy subsidy until absolutely vital.
But under the watchful eye of leftists and hippies the world over, this would be a "catastrophic", " ridiculous" and "science-denying" stance of course!

Wait, so you propose for Britain to wait, until it's absolutely necessary to do something about it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

So independents are clearly the closest to general population here- in which skepticism clearly increases with education- 'exaggerated' increases the 'generally correct' is flat. and 'underestimated' falls, yes? The more they learn, the less they're buying it

Where do you get your position is supported from? I stated that the poll states that among moderates those who believe it's generally accurate have the same rate between high school graduates and college graduates. The "underestimated" category is itself a catagory that accepts global warming as true, but one that questions the severity of it.
And, of course, this poll is not mentioning the plethora of scientists, those who are very well educated, who largely and mostly accept global warming as a fact (about kinda like how scientists largely and mostly accept evolution). And there is also other polls that suggest the more education you have, the more likely you are to vote democrat.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/
Differences in partisan identification across educational categories have remained fairly stable in recent years, with one exception: Highly-educated people increasingly identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party.
And with the Gallup poll, democrats are more accepting of global warming with more education.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Where do you get your position is supported from? I stated that the poll states that among moderates those who believe it's generally accurate have the same rate between high school graduates and college graduates. The "underestimated" category is itself a catagory that accepts global warming as true, but one that questions the severity of it.
And, of course, this poll is not mentioning the plethora of scientists, those who are very well educated, who largely and mostly accept global warming as a fact (about kinda like how scientists largely and mostly accept evolution). And there is also other polls that suggest the more education you have, the more likely you are to vote democrat.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/
Differences in partisan identification across educational categories have remained fairly stable in recent years, with one exception: Highly-educated people increasingly identify with or lean toward the Democratic Party.
And with the Gallup poll, democrats are more accepting of global warming with more education.

right, so take political bias out of the picture on BOTH sides

and people become more likely to think global warming is exaggerated and less likely to think it's underestimated the more educated they are. that's pretty cut and dry.

the 'generally true' stays the same so that group is a wash

If the opposite were true; if 'exaggerated' shrank and 'underestimated' grew with education- Of course that would support your position, but this is not the case.


Your selective interpretation here parallels the 'evidence' for global warming, record cold, record Antarctic ice, record global snow cover is either an irrelevant anomaly or part of global warming. The exact opposite observation? global warming.

Can you name a single observation of climate that you feel would refute climate change?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Your selective interpretation here parallels the 'evidence' for global warming, record cold, record Antarctic ice, record global snow cover is either an irrelevant anomaly or part of global warming. The exact opposite observation? global warming.

I'm not the one who presented only a small part of the data. And, really, "exaggerated" doesn't mean they necessarily think global warming is false. It's actually not worded very well if those are the words they asked people. Such as, although I do believe some genetically modified food sources to be more thoroughly tested, I also believe the issue of "genetically modified food" is over exaggerated because you can do some impressive things with simply modifications without chemicals and labs.
And we do know people with a higher education are more likely to vote democrat (where the data in the gallup poll did show an increase in those who believe global warming is generally accurate), and the number of people accepting global warming is on the rise.
And there is no "exact opposite" observation as you present it. Global warming did predict such things, but people became hung up on the warming part (a name given because of the overall increase in average temperatures), and insisting that of course it must not be real because some places are getting cold and having harsh winters, despite the fact that such things were predicted.

 

[Ultimatum]

You got it backwards. Those with higher education are more likely to accept global warming.

Hah, "global warming".
I thought we'd be over that one by now.

Wait, so you propose for Britain to wait, until it's absolutely necessary to do something about it?

Until we run out of a large enough fossil fuel and natural gas sources capable of powering the country, then yes.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Until we run out of a large enough fossil fuel and natural gas sources capable of powering the country, then yes.

So, in other words, wait until there is a scarcity, prices shoot way up, problems in society become to run rampant because of our over-dependency on oil which sends the prices of everything sky high, and then do something?
It seems rather foolish to put off such a thing until it becomes an issue, especially when you know that it will ultimately become an issue. Do we want history to remember us as a bunch of jackasses who squandered the Earth's resources and leaving little resources for future generations but leaving a bunch of pollution and destruction from harvesting dinosaur juice, or do we want to be remembered as those who made a difference and pushed energy to the next level?

 

[Politesse]

Hah, "global warming".
I thought we'd be over that one by now.



Until we run out of a large enough fossil fuel and natural gas sources capable of powering the country, then yes.

We already did. They're ripping up my countryside permanently to get at the last dregs, and pretending it's a "boom", but its a delusional grab for power of both kinds, not a real surplus (or they wouldn't have to be pulling eminent domain and stupid pretend riders to justify their movement onto the last remaining acres of unspoiled territory). Your entire nation would fit inside the some of the regions you're stripping in order to power it. Every gas tank you fill, you fill with blood.

But karma always comes back to roost. Natives gonna laugh when you all finally run out of things to steal and freeze to death. Then they'll sell you a blanket, cause they nice that way.

 

[columbus]

But renewable energy is currently uneconomical and doesn't compete with the fossil-fuel alternative.

That's because most of the cost of fossil fuels are not captured in the selling price.
A) The permanent depletion of the resources
B) The costs of extraction, processing, and profit
C) The costs of waste disposal

Only B) gets captured. If consumers had to compensate the human family for reducing the supply and also pay enough to remove and sequester the exhaust, fossil fuels would become extremely expensive and stop appearing to be the economical choice.
Instead, the entire human race is indirectly subsidising the heaviest consumers of coal, gas, and petroleum.
Tom

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I'm not the one who presented only a small part of the data. And, really, "exaggerated" doesn't mean they necessarily think global warming is false. It's actually not worded very well if those are the words they asked people. Such as, although I do believe some genetically modified food sources to be more thoroughly tested, I also believe the issue of "genetically modified food" is over exaggerated because you can do some impressive things with simply modifications without chemicals and labs.
And we do know people with a higher education are more likely to vote democrat (where the data in the gallup poll did show an increase in those who believe global warming is generally accurate), and the number of people accepting global warming is on the rise.
And there is no "exact opposite" observation as you present it. Global warming did predict such things, but people became hung up on the warming part (a name given because of the overall increase in average temperatures), and insisting that of course it must not be real because some places are getting cold and having harsh winters, despite the fact that such things were predicted.

Democrats generally spend more time on college campuses and republicans spend more time working in the real world

We could debate which leads to a better practical real world understanding - but personally I'd rather be in a challenging practical situation with a farmer or a mechanic, than an art history, music major any day.

Generations of farmers know CO2 to be a powerful aid for green healthy plants , climastrologers consider it anti-green 'pollution'

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We could debate which leads to a better practical real world understanding - but personally I'd rather be in a challenging practical situation with a farmer or a mechanic, than an art history, music major any day.

Then what of sciences, engineering, and other "hard" areas? Your farmers and mechanics have much to owe to the field of academia.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then what of sciences, engineering, and other "hard" areas? Your farmers and mechanics have much to owe to the field of academia.

I'd make a huge distinction between science the method we all know and love, and science the political/academic institution

Russian farmers fed much of Europe with the method; repeatable experiments, accurate direct observations and measurements. Nobody called it science, it was just farming.

academic 'science' was introduced into farming by Stalin, as part of a vision for a superior 'scientific' society. Farmers were forced to adopt these 'scientific' methods. Millions starved to death in the following years.

Anecdotal perhaps, but arguably, more died here under 'academic science', in a few short years, than in every religious war in history combined.


Nothing corrupts science more than politics, and nothing is more political in nature than climate change

 

[Politesse]

Democrats generally spend more time on college campuses and republicans spend more time working in the real world

We could debate which leads to a better practical real world understanding - but personally I'd rather be in a challenging practical situation with a farmer or a mechanic, than an art history, music major any day.

Generations of farmers know CO2 to be a powerful aid for green healthy plants , climastrologers consider it anti-green 'pollution'

Funny thing is, most farmers I ever knew weren't stupid, or ignorant of art and culture. Do you actually know any farmers or mechanics? I guess you get bad apples in every community, but I grew up in agricultural community and it did not stop us from having a college with strong programs in the sciences and the arts, a civic orchestra, an opera house, and multiple museums and galleries. Republicans and Democrats go to all of the above, with regularity. So I don't buy that practical experience and higher learning are at odds. A farmer who likes Verdi is no less a farmer than one who does not.

And a farmer who thinks climate disruptions are good for their crops because there's "more CO2" is a pretty stupid farmer who's going to go out of business right soon. Not because of that, but because they obviously never took the time to learn what their plants actually want and need.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Funny thing is, most farmers I ever knew weren't stupid, or ignorant of art and culture. Do you actually know any farmers or mechanics? I guess you get bad apples in every community, but I grew up in agricultural community and it did not stop us from having a college with strong programs in the sciences and the arts, a civic orchestra, an opera house, and multiple museums and galleries. Republicans and Democrats go to all of the above, with regularity. So I don't buy that practical experience and higher learning are at odds. A farmer who likes Verdi is no less a farmer than one who does not.

And a farmer who thinks weather disruptions are good for their crops because there's "more CO2" is a pretty stupid farmer who's going to go out of business right soon. Not because of that, but because they obviously never took the time to learn what their plants actually want and need.

well we agree, less educated does not mean more ignorant.

more CO2 would mean less weather extremes, less storms in general, as well as more plant food, longer growing seasons, greater extent of arable land, slightly more precip overall.

It takes a very clever computer sim to spin all that into being somehow bad for agriculture. The exact opposite might be a concern

Ironically the record low hurricane and tornado activity in the US is the one observation that actually supports anthropogenic climate change