Quote: (08-20-2014 03:45 PM)Aurini Wrote:
Quote: (12-17-2013 01:46 PM)Kid Strangelove Wrote:
If global warming turns out to be a sham, then what do we have to show for it? Oh I know, a better environment that we try to take care of
Not to sound all Dwight Shrute, but...
False. If Anthropic Global Warming caused by CO2 emissions turns out to be a chimera, then we will have spent billions of dollars doing precisely nothing. Meanwhile, very real environmental threats such as excess plastics in the oceans, birth control in the water supply (screwing up the mating rituals of tons of species, not just our own), the increase of rare-earth-metals and mining, possible over-use of industrial fertilizers, irresponsible GMO development, nuclear fallout, and oil spills will fall by the wayside. Our planet will be more messed up because we followed the apocalyptic visions of the IPCC.
I'm agnostic on AGW, leaning towards suspicious - the science never acknowledges the roles of the sun or cosmic radiation in cloud formation, and the process for funding the research seems innately biased. It's the academic equivalent of asking "How often do you beat your wife?" The structure is such that OF COURSE it winds up proving the privileged hypothesis correct.
Far more worrying, however, is that the proposed 'solutions' to Global Warming are obviously ineffectual to anybody who's studied basic economics. Like most socialist/SJW solutions, they actually harm what they're proposing to help, while providing a tidy income for a tiny number of elites who are in charge of the whole thing.
Ergo, I'm left with the political conclusion that - even if the IPCC is right about AGW (and even if they are, that's more attributable to blind luck than intelligence), I must take a stand against the Green movement, because the Green movement is ultimately responsible for destroying the environment.
In other words, to save the planet, we must first destroy the Green movement.
Not to mention that it's precisely those few, precious areas that have escaped human activity that are being defaced with solar panels and wind turbines. "Renewable energy" doesn't even put a dent into global energy demand, but it's all too effective at destroying what little pristine nature there is left. People don't realize just how much sheer surface areas is required to generate electricity using solar or wind power. I once read it's something on the order of covering the entire state of New Jersey in solar panels to generate as much electricity as one nuclear power plant-that is, one building. It's a total farce.