Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1451448 16-Dec-2015 11:35
Send private message

Technofreak:
Linuxluver:  A trillion / year is nothing compared to dead seas, 50m+ of sea level rise in 200 years and a risk that the atmosphere could go anoxic.

People who want to save a few dollars today and condemn their great grandchildren to war, disease, poverty or death - or even possible extinction - can't be the full quid. There is something wrong in their head. 


50 metre sea level rise.  Really? Where does all this water come from. Don't tell me it's from ice flows. Ice displaces the equivalent amount of water by weight that it's floating in plus ice takes up more space than water.

I don't think anyone is saying don't spend money, we just need to spend it in the right areas. The costs imposed by agreements like the one in Paris are way out of balance with any benefits.  There are better ways to do this.


68 metres is all ice. Greenland which will melt easily is 7 metres. I expect 7 metres dissappears the 40% percent of people that live in coastal areas.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geophysics/question473.htm
 

1682 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 800


  Reply # 1451456 16-Dec-2015 11:43
One person supports this post
Send private message

MikeB4: The Earth has not yet reached a tipping point, but that is not far off and the window of opportunity is closing fast. ..


 

The earth will be fine.  The human race is just a blip on the lifecycle of the planet.  We will be extinct eventually, goodness knows when, could be a 100 years, 10,000, or a million years away.  Some time after that, goodness knows when, could be a 100,000 years , 10 million years,  50 million years, all trace of our existence will be gone and the place will be back to the clean, green state that we found it in…until the next intelligent species evolves and starts it all over again.




Most of the trouble in the world is caused by people wanting to be important. (T.S. Eliot)


11887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3854

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1451462 16-Dec-2015 11:47
Send private message

MikeB4:
Technofreak:
MikeB4: Unless the big industrial nations fully participate it will fail. Anything NZ does without their full commitment would be like fighting a forest fire with cups of water.

The time for procrastination and denial is past.


So are you saying climate change is man made? I don't agree with that.

Anything NZ does will be a hugely expensive waste of time.


There is a factor of natural climate swing however the evidence showing that climate change has been dramatically exacerbated and accelerated by man is extensive and compelling. On its own NZ can not do much but as part of a collective effort
we can be part of the solution, doing nothing will be vastly more costly.


The point is we have no real idea whether it will be costly or not. In all change there is opportunity: perhaps the climate warming will spur mankind to make the leap to the stars? To cure cancer? To produce a solution to feed the world?

Leaving aside the fundamental logic that there is no reason to care what happens to the planet in 500 years after your death, this whole massive expense is predicated on even more massive assumptions. We literally do not have a way to know whether what may have happened to the climate would have happened even if humans had never climbed out of the primordial ooze.





11887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3854

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1451467 16-Dec-2015 11:51
Send private message

floydbloke:
MikeB4: The Earth has not yet reached a tipping point, but that is not far off and the window of opportunity is closing fast. ..


The earth will be fine.  The human race is just a blip on the lifecycle of the planet.  We will be extinct eventually, goodness knows when, could be a 100 years, 10,000, or a million years away.  Some time after that, goodness knows when, could be a 100,000 years , 10 million years,  50 million years, all trace of our existence will be gone and the place will be back to the clean, green state that we found it in…until the next intelligent species evolves and starts it all over again.


We're all made of starstuff. Our parts are as immortal as you can get and will outlive humanity, that is for sure.





SJB

1165 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 276

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1451470 16-Dec-2015 11:56
One person supports this post
Send private message

tdgeek:
SJB: We can virtually guarantee the survival of our species if we get off this rock and colonise the solar system and then other star systems.

I know it's extremely difficult but if we don't achieve it I think we've had it. Just look at the state the world is in today and imagine it with say 50% more humans.

Unfortunately we are very much 'live for today', much like every other living thing on the planet, so I don't hold out much hope.


Its easier to renovate than it is to create. We are here, it works, we should fix what we broke, rather than trek to Mars and start over. Thats a 200 year project in itself

It doesn't work for millions of people.

Do you honestly think we can 'renovate' the place when you look at the state humanity is in? Try living in the slums of any large city and you might change your mind.

Living in Godszone gives people a rose tinted view of life.

13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1451522 16-Dec-2015 12:35
Send private message

Geektastic:
MikeB4:
Technofreak:
MikeB4: Unless the big industrial nations fully participate it will fail. Anything NZ does without their full commitment would be like fighting a forest fire with cups of water.

The time for procrastination and denial is past.


So are you saying climate change is man made? I don't agree with that.

Anything NZ does will be a hugely expensive waste of time.


There is a factor of natural climate swing however the evidence showing that climate change has been dramatically exacerbated and accelerated by man is extensive and compelling. On its own NZ can not do much but as part of a collective effort
we can be part of the solution, doing nothing will be vastly more costly.


The point is we have no real idea whether it will be costly or not. In all change there is opportunity: perhaps the climate warming will spur mankind to make the leap to the stars? To cure cancer? To produce a solution to feed the world?

Leaving aside the fundamental logic that there is no reason to care what happens to the planet in 500 years after your death, this whole massive expense is predicated on even more massive assumptions. We literally do not have a way to know whether what may have happened to the climate would have happened even if humans had never climbed out of the primordial ooze.


The science is compelling.

13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1451526 16-Dec-2015 12:39
Send private message

SJB:
tdgeek:
SJB: We can virtually guarantee the survival of our species if we get off this rock and colonise the solar system and then other star systems.

I know it's extremely difficult but if we don't achieve it I think we've had it. Just look at the state the world is in today and imagine it with say 50% more humans.

Unfortunately we are very much 'live for today', much like every other living thing on the planet, so I don't hold out much hope.


Its easier to renovate than it is to create. We are here, it works, we should fix what we broke, rather than trek to Mars and start over. Thats a 200 year project in itself

It doesn't work for millions of people.

Do you honestly think we can 'renovate' the place when you look at the state humanity is in? Try living in the slums of any large city and you might change your mind.

Living in Godszone gives people a rose tinted view of life.


So, it will be easier to move to Mars given your comments on humanity? And what happens on Mars, same thing. better to solve the problem than move away from it, and carry it with you

11887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3854

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1451641 16-Dec-2015 15:07
Send private message

tdgeek:
Geektastic:
MikeB4:
Technofreak:
MikeB4: Unless the big industrial nations fully participate it will fail. Anything NZ does without their full commitment would be like fighting a forest fire with cups of water.

The time for procrastination and denial is past.


So are you saying climate change is man made? I don't agree with that.

Anything NZ does will be a hugely expensive waste of time.


There is a factor of natural climate swing however the evidence showing that climate change has been dramatically exacerbated and accelerated by man is extensive and compelling. On its own NZ can not do much but as part of a collective effort
we can be part of the solution, doing nothing will be vastly more costly.


The point is we have no real idea whether it will be costly or not. In all change there is opportunity: perhaps the climate warming will spur mankind to make the leap to the stars? To cure cancer? To produce a solution to feed the world?

Leaving aside the fundamental logic that there is no reason to care what happens to the planet in 500 years after your death, this whole massive expense is predicated on even more massive assumptions. We literally do not have a way to know whether what may have happened to the climate would have happened even if humans had never climbed out of the primordial ooze.


The science is compelling.


So it's the science that says it's not true.





11887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3854

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1451643 16-Dec-2015 15:09
Send private message

That should say is not it's.

Can't edit on iPhone as layout changes have made the right margin wrong and it runs off the side of the screen.





Mad Scientist
19005 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2469

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1451663 16-Dec-2015 15:17
Send private message

I love science!

13429 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2428

Trusted

  Reply # 1451768 16-Dec-2015 17:55
One person supports this post
Send private message

Geektastic:
tdgeek:
Geektastic:
MikeB4:
Technofreak:
MikeB4: Unless the big industrial nations fully participate it will fail. Anything NZ does without their full commitment would be like fighting a forest fire with cups of water.

The time for procrastination and denial is past.


So are you saying climate change is man made? I don't agree with that.

Anything NZ does will be a hugely expensive waste of time.


There is a factor of natural climate swing however the evidence showing that climate change has been dramatically exacerbated and accelerated by man is extensive and compelling. On its own NZ can not do much but as part of a collective effort
we can be part of the solution, doing nothing will be vastly more costly.


The point is we have no real idea whether it will be costly or not. In all change there is opportunity: perhaps the climate warming will spur mankind to make the leap to the stars? To cure cancer? To produce a solution to feed the world?

Leaving aside the fundamental logic that there is no reason to care what happens to the planet in 500 years after your death, this whole massive expense is predicated on even more massive assumptions. We literally do not have a way to know whether what may have happened to the climate would have happened even if humans had never climbed out of the primordial ooze.


The science is compelling.


So it's the science that says it's not true.


I beg to differ. Prior to the Industrial revolution there are ice ages and warmer periods. Take major volcanism, thats a temporary situation. The pouring of greenhouse gases, and smoke has been continual, heating and insulating the atmosphere. 

JWR

738 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 236


  Reply # 1452770 18-Dec-2015 04:43

tdgeek:
Geektastic:
tdgeek:
Geektastic:
MikeB4:
Technofreak:
MikeB4: Unless the big industrial nations fully participate it will fail. Anything NZ does without their full commitment would be like fighting a forest fire with cups of water.

The time for procrastination and denial is past.


So are you saying climate change is man made? I don't agree with that.

Anything NZ does will be a hugely expensive waste of time.


There is a factor of natural climate swing however the evidence showing that climate change has been dramatically exacerbated and accelerated by man is extensive and compelling. On its own NZ can not do much but as part of a collective effort
we can be part of the solution, doing nothing will be vastly more costly.


The point is we have no real idea whether it will be costly or not. In all change there is opportunity: perhaps the climate warming will spur mankind to make the leap to the stars? To cure cancer? To produce a solution to feed the world?

Leaving aside the fundamental logic that there is no reason to care what happens to the planet in 500 years after your death, this whole massive expense is predicated on even more massive assumptions. We literally do not have a way to know whether what may have happened to the climate would have happened even if humans had never climbed out of the primordial ooze.


The science is compelling.


So it's the science that says it's not true.


I beg to differ. Prior to the Industrial revolution there are ice ages and warmer periods. Take major volcanism, thats a temporary situation. The pouring of greenhouse gases, and smoke has been continual, heating and insulating the atmosphere. 


Of course there have been many and significant climate changes in the past. That comes from Science - Science discovered that - not religion, economics or politics.

If you want to argue from a Scientific point of view, then you have to consider all the evidence. You can't ignore the rest you don't agree with.

Climate scientists have considered all the points made about earlier climate changes. The best evidence is that recent global warming is caused by us and is getting more intense. I'll try and argue scientific point by point if you want - or call on qualified.

I don't accept that any economy has to be destroyed by any changes to 'carbon free'.

Surely, any economist will tell you that the market will adapt to any change in costs. :) Oh Yeah!

But really, the Paris accord could be a disruptive change for us in NZ.

That means adapt, regardless of what you believe.





2515 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 541
Inactive user


  Reply # 1452784 18-Dec-2015 06:47
Send private message

MikeB4:
Technofreak: One of the age old problems is the Lies, Damn Lie and Statistics.

Unfortunately I think both sides of the story are using Statistics to tell "lies".

One real problem I have is whether or not global warming is worsened by human influence there seems to be plenty of evidence to show the efforts being agreed to at meetings like the one in Paris will have virtually no effect but have significant cost. In the short term the money would be better spent on mitigating the effects rather than trying to stop the change. Money also needs to be spent on developing new technology

Another question needs to be asked.  Is it actually possible to reduce the emissions enough to achieve the temperature reduction goals? Right now I'd say No, without the whole world returning to pre steam boat days style of living. Is that likely to happen? New technology may change this.


Your questions are best directed at climate scientists.


Until they stop making so much money with their opinion they can't be trusted.

This is where the lies come in, and it happens on both sides of the coin.

Likely there is natural and man made factors to global warming, but which is having the biggest effect has yet to be proven and agreed upon.

What scares me is the pollution/ carbon becoming a currency, who administers the Bank of Carbon? Do they skim off the top and become rich?

As above people become rich off this so the statistics become twisted to ones own truth.

JWR

738 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 236


  Reply # 1452788 18-Dec-2015 07:11

dickytim:
MikeB4:
Technofreak: One of the age old problems is the Lies, Damn Lie and Statistics.

Unfortunately I think both sides of the story are using Statistics to tell "lies".

One real problem I have is whether or not global warming is worsened by human influence there seems to be plenty of evidence to show the efforts being agreed to at meetings like the one in Paris will have virtually no effect but have significant cost. In the short term the money would be better spent on mitigating the effects rather than trying to stop the change. Money also needs to be spent on developing new technology

Another question needs to be asked.  Is it actually possible to reduce the emissions enough to achieve the temperature reduction goals? Right now I'd say No, without the whole world returning to pre steam boat days style of living. Is that likely to happen? New technology may change this.


Your questions are best directed at climate scientists.


Until they stop making so much money with their opinion they can't be trusted.

This is where the lies come in, and it happens on both sides of the coin.

Likely there is natural and man made factors to global warming, but which is having the biggest effect has yet to be proven and agreed upon.

What scares me is the pollution/ carbon becoming a currency, who administers the Bank of Carbon? Do they skim off the top and become rich?

As above people become rich off this so the statistics become twisted to ones own truth.


"Until they stop making so much money with their opinion they can't be trusted."

That is insane.

The top 4 oil/gas companies have revenues around 2 Trillion dollars a year. The top 100 revenue companies are dominated by gas/oil companies.

Scientists aren't paid by their opinion. They would have been bought long ago, if that was the case.

Science is challenged by peer review. That means if you have a stupid idea that can't be supported, then it will be picked apart by other scientists.

Evidence is what counts... not opinion.

11887 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3854

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1452919 18-Dec-2015 11:52
Send private message

JWR:
dickytim:
MikeB4:
Technofreak: One of the age old problems is the Lies, Damn Lie and Statistics.

Unfortunately I think both sides of the story are using Statistics to tell "lies".

One real problem I have is whether or not global warming is worsened by human influence there seems to be plenty of evidence to show the efforts being agreed to at meetings like the one in Paris will have virtually no effect but have significant cost. In the short term the money would be better spent on mitigating the effects rather than trying to stop the change. Money also needs to be spent on developing new technology

Another question needs to be asked.  Is it actually possible to reduce the emissions enough to achieve the temperature reduction goals? Right now I'd say No, without the whole world returning to pre steam boat days style of living. Is that likely to happen? New technology may change this.


Your questions are best directed at climate scientists.


Until they stop making so much money with their opinion they can't be trusted.

This is where the lies come in, and it happens on both sides of the coin.

Likely there is natural and man made factors to global warming, but which is having the biggest effect has yet to be proven and agreed upon.

What scares me is the pollution/ carbon becoming a currency, who administers the Bank of Carbon? Do they skim off the top and become rich?

As above people become rich off this so the statistics become twisted to ones own truth.


"Until they stop making so much money with their opinion they can't be trusted."

That is insane.

The top 4 oil/gas companies have revenues around 2 Trillion dollars a year. The top 100 revenue companies are dominated by gas/oil companies.

Scientists aren't paid by their opinion. They would have been bought long ago, if that was the case.

Science is challenged by peer review. That means if you have a stupid idea that can't be supported, then it will be picked apart by other scientists.

Evidence is what counts... not opinion.


The problem is that science is also run like a democracy. Not every scientist believes in global warming being caused by humans. However because a majority do, it must be so.

There's no actual reason to assume the majority are correct and not the minority. Both sets are educated scientists with their own interpretations of the 'evidence'.

At the end of the day, I don't see any benefit to me in increasing my costs so that some  people on an island somewhere can carry on living there. Personally it matters not a jot to me if the planet survives beyond my visit. Why would it? I just don't buy into the obsession or need I am afraid.





1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.