Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 30 Nov '15 02:50
    It seems to me that pretty much everyone believes that the world is coming Which scenario to you fall under?

    1. Secular Humanist. Man is destroying the world via climate change. Our collective salvation depends upon governments around the world joining forces to take draconian measures to save us all.

    2. Islam. Prophesy speaks of an Islamic Caliphate forming to bring us our collective salvation.

    3. Christianity. Jesus returns and sets things right again. In fact, if he did not come, we would destroy ourselves.

    Did I leave any out? Does this account for pretty much everyone?
  2. Standard member RJHinds
    The Near Genius
    30 Nov '15 03:45
    Originally posted by whodey
    It seems to me that pretty much everyone believes that the world is coming Which scenario to you fall under?

    1. Secular Humanist. Man is destroying the world via climate change. Our collective salvation depends upon governments around the world joining forces to take draconian measures to save us all.

    2. Islam. Prophesy speaks of an Islamic Calip ...[text shortened]... we would destroy ourselves.

    Did I leave any out? Does this account for pretty much everyone?
    I put my faith in 3.
  3. Standard member bill718
    Enigma
    30 Nov '15 07:13
    Originally posted by whodey
    It seems to me that pretty much everyone believes that the world is coming Which scenario to you fall under?

    1. Secular Humanist. Man is destroying the world via climate change. Our collective salvation depends upon governments around the world joining forces to take draconian measures to save us all.

    2. Islam. Prophesy speaks of an Islamic Calip ...[text shortened]... we would destroy ourselves.

    Did I leave any out? Does this account for pretty much everyone?
    Jesus told his followers that even he did not know when this will happen, only his father in heaven knew, so...why are you concerned with it?
  4. 30 Nov '15 08:20 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    It seems to me that pretty much everyone believes that the world is coming
    As usually you are completely wrong. Other than a few people on this forum, I don't actually know anyone in real life that believes the world is coming to an end. I certainly don't.

    I also note that you appear to have totally ignored half the worlds population (China and India)
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    30 Nov '15 11:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    It seems to me that pretty much everyone believes that the world is coming Which scenario to you fall under?

    1. Secular Humanist. Man is destroying the world via climate change. Our collective salvation depends upon governments around the world joining forces to take draconian measures to save us all.

    2. Islam. Prophesy speaks of an Islamic Calip ...[text shortened]... we would destroy ourselves.

    Did I leave any out? Does this account for pretty much everyone?
    I was under the impression the world was already here. And it seems 100% certain EVERYONE believes the world is coming. But what is it coming TO?

    I think it's 50/50 if humanity is smart enough to correct its own mistakes as far as climate goes.

    One BIG problem is, in the USA at least, the majority of the republican party members in congress poo poo's the whole idea that mankind could EVER possibly be so strong together as to threaten the climate of the entire planet.

    And that would be because they think, in their uniquely stupid way, that GOD is the only huge power on Earth and if only we would go back to the good old days where you go to church every Sunday and such, our GOD will protect us from ourselves.

    As events of the 19th and 20th century has shown over and over again, this GOD, even assuming it really exists, does not help humans as the hundred million killed in century 19 and 20 already happened, statistically it seems just as certain if all 8 odd billion of us get offed in some awful catastrophe of natural or human causes, said deity will just raise its hypothetical hands and go, well, I'll design it better next time.

    But I don't think it inevitable we will off ourselves due to climate change.

    If climate change happens and we cannot or through lack of willpower or political will stop or reverse it, the human race will go on, not as prolifically as before, scientific gains will pretty much go to zero and we will be left with all the leftovers of the previous centuries and living in much more primitive conditions, no more trips to the moon, pretty much ever, maybe a thousand years hence but all that would be out the window including research on Aids, Cancer, auto immune diseases, genetic mutations, all that research will be out the window as well, due to people just trying to survive, thrust back into the 15th century.
  6. 30 Nov '15 12:12
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    As usually you are completely wrong. Other than a few people on this forum, I don't actually know anyone in real life that believes the world is coming to an end. I certainly don't.

    I also note that you appear to have totally ignored half the worlds population (China and India)
    So you don't believe that man made climate change is destroying the earth, or you simply don't think it is that urgent of a problem?

    Wut?
  7. 30 Nov '15 12:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by bill718
    Jesus told his followers that even he did not know when this will happen, only his father in heaven knew, so...why are you concerned with it?
    I guess this puts you in an uneasy position bill. I would peg you as supporting both 1 and 3.

    Am I wrong?

    I guess those folks in China and India need further indoctrination as to the evils of global warming.

    Can I hear a good Amen?
  8. Subscriber Suzianne
    Misfit Queen
    30 Nov '15 12:48
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    As usually you are completely wrong. Other than a few people on this forum, I don't actually know anyone in real life that believes the world is coming to an end. I certainly don't.

    I also note that you appear to have totally ignored half the worlds population (China and India)
    And because you don't, nobody does, right?
  9. 30 Nov '15 13:33 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    [b]I was under the impression the world was already here. And it seems 100% certain EVERYONE believes the world is coming. But what is it coming TO?

    I think it's 50/50 if humanity is smart enough to correct its own mistakes as far as climate goes.

    One BIG problem is, in the USA at least, the majority of the republican party members in congress poo poo' ...[text shortened]... t mankind could EVER possibly be so strong together as to threaten the climate of the entire planet.
    So you think that the righteous Dims can overcome the evil GOP and achieve or collective salvation by saving mother earth?

    Can we save the earth? It seems to me we can't even take care of ourselves.
  10. 30 Nov '15 13:33
    Originally posted by Suzianne
    And because you don't, nobody does, right?
    Suzy, glad you could make it.

    Shall we put you down for 1 and 3 as well?
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Nov '15 14:25 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    It seems to me that pretty much everyone believes that the world is coming Which scenario to you fall under?

    1. Secular Humanist. Man is destroying the world via climate change. Our collective salvation depends upon governments around the world joining forces to take draconian measures to save us all.

    2. Islam. Prophesy speaks of an Islamic Calip ...[text shortened]... we would destroy ourselves.

    Did I leave any out? Does this account for pretty much everyone?
    A false choice. The world won't come to an end if the human race does nothing about climate change though it will have unpleasant consequences for a lot of members of the human race. And the measures needed to reduce the effects of climate change are hardly "draconian".

    BTW, your ignorance of Islamic theology is on its usual full display; in fact, Muslims believe that Jesus will return to Earth as well:

    http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/363/return-of-jesus-part-1
  12. 30 Nov '15 15:02 / 2 edits
    Here is what the chicken littles say about climate change.

    https://www.yahoo.com/politics/saving-the-world-may-be-1310073531105334.html

    If I sound a little testy,” says David Hawkins, sounding testy, “it’s because I see 20 complaints a day about this idea, and I don’t think it’s very helpful at this point.” Hawkins, director of climate programs for the Natural Resources Defense Council, has been fighting a mostly uphill battle to get the American political system to deal seriously with global warming. Just in the past few months, he has seen signs of progress, including new power-plant regulations from the Environmental Protection Agency and a few cracks in the Republican Party’s monolithic opposition to action on climate change.

    Leading up to the long-awaited global climate summit in Paris, starting today, both China and India have said they would be cutting their projected emissions of carbon dioxide, a major step in itself that incidentally undercuts the argument made by Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., at the second presidential debate, a significant Republican talking point: that it’s pointless for America to regulate carbon emissions because the rest of the world won’t go along.

    So at this critical juncture, the last thing Hawkins wants is a bunch of noisy zealots proclaiming that saving the world requires a multitrillion-dollar project not just to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, but also to actually remove the carbon dioxide that’s already in the air. You read that right: to run some substantial fraction of the Earth’s atmosphere through a network of machines to extract carbon dioxide and put it back underground — in effect, putting the entire fossil-fuel industry, built up over a century and a half of furious industrial activity, into reverse. If so-called “net negative emissions” could be achieved easily, it would be the greatest thing that could happen to the environmental movement — and, for that matter, to the fossil-fuel industry, which would no longer be on the hook for causing global warming. But to Hawkins, the idea is at best a costly distraction from the more achievable and urgent goal of moving toward renewable, “net zero” energy sources. “We’ve got fully proven technologies that we know the costs of,” he says, “so our priority should be on making them attractive to private industry.”



    So-called “carbon removal” is a step further even than the not-yet-perfected technology for “carbon capture” — scrubbing CO2 directly from power-plant flue exhaust, where it is relatively concentrated. Even that is difficult to do today at a reasonable cost — but carbon dioxide in the ambient air is 300 times more dilute, making the problem even harder (although, for technical reasons, not 300 times harder). But that’s exactly what a growing number of climate scientists are urgently calling for. The view has been gathering support at least since 2009 when scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that “the climate change that is taking place because of increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop.

    Or, as Tim Kruger of Oxford University explained at a World Economic Forum conference last year, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, now around 400 parts per million and rising, will remain well above the safe level of 350 by the end of this century even “if everybody on the planet dies.”



    That realization has spawned a host of new university programs, such as the Oxford Geoengineering Programme, which Kruger heads; the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions at Arizona State University; and the Center for Carbon Removal at Berkeley. It has given impetus to a number of technology startups with names like Global Thermostat, Joule Unlimited and Infinitree LLC, many of which are competing for the $25 million Virgin Earth Challenge prize, established by entrepreneur Richard Branson for a workable system to remove greenhouse gases from the air. As the owner of an airline, Branson has an obvious interest in the issue: Jet planes are a significant source of carbon dioxide pollution, and a particularly intractable one since, unlike cars, they can’t run on batteries. Branson announced the prize in 2007, and although the entrants have been winnowed to 11 finalists, a winner is by no means imminent. “Hopefully we’re not on the same time scale as the Longitude Prize,” said David Addison, who coordinates the Earth Challenge for Virgin, referring to the 18th century competition to build a reliable shipboard timepiece, which lasted around half a century.

    In principle, there is nothing difficult about getting carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Trees do it naturally, by photosynthesis, locking up carbon in their wood and leaves, which is why reforestation is one weapon against climate change, except there’s not enough land for all the trees necessary, if people still want to eat. Klaus Lackner, director of the negative-carbon program at Arizona State, has designed what he calls a synthetic tree: It uses a chemical compound that soaks up carbon dioxide from the air, then releases it when treated with water. The CO2 can be collected at high concentrations and the chemical then reused. Most other processes work on some variation of this idea: Some use either solar-powered fans to suck air past a chemical bed or chemicals that recharge themselves with heat rather than water.



    Of course, the necessary scale is immense: Lackner estimates that to bring carbon dioxide levels back down to 350 parts per million would take on the order of 100 million of these machines scattered around the globe. But, he adds, although they are the size of a shipping container, they aren’t necessarily more complex or expensive than a car. The world builds 80 million cars and trucks a year.

    And someday they could even make money. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant, but it is also a commodity with a number of commercial uses — in chemical synthesis, for carbonating soda, filling fire extinguishers and making dry ice. The biggest use, by far, is for injecting it under pressure into oil wells to force more oil to the surface. Even as carbon dioxide is accumulating, catastrophically, in the atmosphere, companies still mine it from underground and sell it. Delivered in bulk by pipeline, it’s worth around $100 a ton. Or you can buy it in 50-pound tanks, for which one supplier quoted a price, delivered in New York City, of around $1 a pound. At that price, the average adult gives away around $15 in CO2 every week, just by exhaling.

    Since the cost of transportation accounts for a large part of carbon dioxide’s price, Global Thermostat, a startup co-founded by Columbia University physicist Peter Eisenberger and economist Graciela Chichilnisky, is developing a carbon-removal technology that can run off the waste heat of anything that burns fuel — a small generator, say, or a commercial bakery — and be located where there’s a use for CO2. Infinitree, based in New York but with a demonstration project under way in Sacramento, wants to sell CO2 to farmers. Carbon dioxide promotes plant growth. Growers already use it in greenhouses, and there’s research suggesting it can work on fruit and vegetable crops in the field. Given enough cheap energy, you can even turn carbon dioxide back into a liquid fuel that can be burned like gasoline.

    But all of this technology combined accounts so far for only a fraction of the world’s emissions of CO2. And even if it could be perfected — if, say, every gallon of gasoline or ton of coal burned could be replaced by an equivalent amount of fuel synthesized from atmospheric CO2, using renewable energy from windmills and solar cells — it wouldn’t necessarily remove carbon dioxide permanently from the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide removed from the air to make fuel goes right back out when the fuel is burned, obviously. That’s better than burning fossil fuel (which adds carbon dioxide to the atmosphere), but at best it can achieve net-zero emissions — not the net-negative emissions some climate scientists think is necessary. Negative emissions require extracting carbon dioxide and getting rid of it forever. There are only a few ways to do this — by burying it underground or binding it chemically in a form that does not break down — and the technology to do that affordably on the necessary scale is still in the future.

    Which explains why the issue is so sensitive for the big environmental groups and government agencies. The EPA website’s climate-change page discusses carbon capture from flue gas as one approach, but doesn’t mention ambient-air carbon removal. Most of the mainstream environmental organizations avoid discussing it. “We’re happy to see research on these approaches,” Hawkins says, “but they’re not the first order of business, which is to deploy the techniques we have today to reduce and eliminate emissions.” Lackner, for his part, considers that a head-in-the-sand position: “This is a disruptive technology in many ways,” he says, “so it’s hard to gain traction. Many in the environmental community are not aiming at solving the climate change problem as such, but stopping fossil fuels. They see any discussion about getting carbon out as a distraction from those goals. They hate the oil companies, so they don’t want carbon-neutral gasoline.” They want bicycles.

    Hawkins acknowledges that part of his problem with the carbon-capture industry is the risk that people will say, “We’ve got this miracle solution, so we don’t have to do anything now, just wait 20 years for it to come to fruition.” That’s the “moral hazard” argument, referring to the temptation to take risks knowing that someone else will pick up the tab. There is also, though, what Oxford’s Kruger calls the “morale hazard”: the danger that the idea of pulling CO2 from the atmosphere, billions of tons of it, almost literally molecule by molecu...
  13. 30 Nov '15 15:08 / 4 edits
    "The view has been gathering support at least since 2009 when scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration concluded that “the climate change that is taking place because of increases in carbon dioxide concentration is largely irreversible for 1,000 years after emissions stop."

    This frees up climate alarmists from every having to point to decreasing carbon emissions with any policies they impliment to "fix" increased levels of carbon in the atmosphere. They will never have to prove anything to us in regard to their policies working in any capacity. This means over a 1000 years of nagging people to stop producing so much carbon. Your car and house will never be small enough. Population levels will never be small enough. The economy will never shrink enough etc.

    C. S. Lewis said it best.

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
  14. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    30 Nov '15 15:08
    Originally posted by whodey
    Here is what the chicken littles say about climate change.

    https://www.yahoo.com/politics/saving-the-world-may-be-1310073531105334.html

    If I sound a little testy,” says David Hawkins, sounding testy, “it’s because I see 20 complaints a day about this idea, and I don’t think it’s very helpful at this point.” Hawkins, director of climate programs for the ...[text shortened]... pulling CO2 from the atmosphere, billions of tons of it, almost literally molecule by molecu...
    You calling someone else a "Chicken Little" must be the most ironic thing ever posted on this Forum.

    In point of fact, nothing in that article disputes the claims in my post.
  15. 30 Nov '15 15:13 / 1 edit
    "Which explains why the issue is so sensitive for the big environmental groups and government agencies. The EPA website’s climate-change page discusses carbon capture from flue gas as one approach, but doesn’t mention ambient-air carbon removal. Most of the mainstream environmental organizations avoid discussing it. “We’re happy to see research on these approaches,” Hawkins says, “but they’re not the first order of business, which is to deploy the techniques we have today to reduce and eliminate emissions.” Lackner, for his part, considers that a head-in-the-sand position: “This is a disruptive technology in many ways,” he says, “so it’s hard to gain traction. Many in the environmental community are not aiming at solving the climate change problem as such, but stopping fossil fuels. They see any discussion about getting carbon out as a distraction from those goals. They hate the oil companies, so they don’t want carbon-neutral gasoline.” They want bicycles."

    They want bicycles? Hilarious!


    This pretty much says it all. Environmentalists are out to destroy the oil companines. Translated, the oil companies will pass down the higher costs to the consumer. These are degrowth fanatics who are not really interested in pursuing technology to "fix" their supposide problem. Instead, they just want to pursue degrowth policies in order to better control population levels.