Topic: Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. - page 174. (Read 636458 times)
I may be opposed to global warming scaremongering nonsense, but i still consider myself something of an environmentalist. There is definitely a case to be made for how humans are having a devastating impact on the environment through overconsumption due to tragedy of the commons problems created by government and the rampant externalization of the cost of pollution resulting from legislative interferences in market processes.
Study: Earth in the midst of sixth mass extinction
The loss and decline of animals around the world — caused by habitat loss and global climate disruption — mean we're in the midst of a sixth "mass extinction" of life on Earth, according to several studies out Thursday in the journal Science.
One study found that although human population has doubled in the past 35 years, the number of invertebrate animals – such as beetles, butterflies, spiders and worms – has decreased by 45% during that same period.
"We were shocked to find similar losses in invertebrates as with larger animals, as we previously thought invertebrates to be more resilient." said Ben Collen of the U.K.'s University College London, one of the study authors.
Although big, photogenic species, such as tigers, rhinos and pandas, get the bulk of the attention, researchers say it's clear that even the disappearance of the tiniest beetle can significantly change the various ecosystems on which humans depend.
"We tend to think about extinction as loss of a species from the face of Earth, and that's very important, but there's a loss of critical ecosystem functioning in which animals play a central role that we need to pay attention to as well," said lead author Rodolfo Dirzo of Stanford University.
"Habitat destruction will facilitate hunting and poaching, and species will have difficulty in finding refuge given land use change and climatic disruption," added Dirzo.
The study reported that around 322 species have gone extinct over the last five centuries.
Scientists have coined the phrase "anthropocene defaunation" — meaning human-caused animal decline — to describe this apparent mass extinction.
Five times in the history of the Earth, a huge percentage of the planet's life has been wiped out in what are called mass extinctions, typically from collisions with giant meteors.
About 66 million years ago, one well-known extinction killed off the dinosaurs, along with three out of four species on Earth. About 252 million years ago, the "Great Dying" snuffed out about 90% of the world's species.
What's new about this extinction is "that the underlying driving force for this is not a meteorite or a mega-volcanic eruption; it is one species - homo sapiens," said Dirzo.
Overall, scientists estimate that due to all of the past extinctions, about nine out of 10 of all life-forms that have existed on our planet are extinct.
Another article in this week's Science, led by Philip Seddon of the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand, details the way we can reduce this mass extinction by reintroducing animals to wild populations and recolonizing entire populations — such as giant tortoises — to areas in which they've gone extinct.
That study found that "some substantial progress in reversing defaunation is being achieved through the intentional movement of animals to restore populations."
A third report in the journal finds that animals such as gibbons, orangutans and various types of foxes, bears and rhinoceroses have been steadily disappearing from large, protected areas of land around the world.
The papers in this week's Science continue research into the mass extinction; a study this year in Science found that species of plants and animals are becoming extinct at least 1,000 times faster than they did before humans appeared.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/07/24/mass-extinction-study/13096445/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we are responsible for this sixth mass extinction, who was responsible for the first 5?
Five times in the history of the Earth, a huge percentage of the planet's life has been wiped out in what are called mass extinctions, typically from collisions with giant meteors.
So planet Earth got unlucky 5 times from giant rocks from space (no other scenarios should be available), until we came to be, from an act of God and... NATURE (Earth?), understanding the universe and everything amazing... just to conclude we should not exist and just let giant big rocks coming from space destroy all the cute baby seals... Interesting article
Airplanes are at around 80 MPG per seat.
Cars have the potential of 140 MPG (in highway travel with all the seats occupied)
Volvo buses are at 570 MPG (per passenger)
Hybrid cars have the potential of 240 MPG (assuming all seats are occupied).
Electric cars like Tesla? Forget about it. Trains?
Airplane trips are meant to be a factor of difference longer than car trips.
Green groups want to improve efficiency standards in every aspect of life. Where there is a coal plant, there can be a more efficient coal power plant.
Climate denier's education is either deficient or they have a profit motive to spew garbage. What good is it debating morons?
It's a good philosophical argument that you shouldn't allow idiotic ideas to go unchallenged. Simply stating the superior argument and just letting others build on top of it should be enough.
Provably, economies which go Green improve over economies that don't.
You need to read a couple of books, but if the prospect of reading for a couple dozen hours scares you, there's nothing I can do.
I must agree with the bolded above, therefore I stick with my 100mpg comment previously made and request comparables not be made between....Cars have the potential of 140 MPG (in highway travel with all the seats occupied)
Volvo buses are at 570 MPG (per passenger)
Hybrid cars have the potential of 240 MPG (assuming all seats are occupied).
Electric cars like Tesla? Forget about it. Trains?
Airplane trips are meant to be a factor of difference longer than car trips.
Green groups want to improve efficiency standards in every aspect of life. Where there is a coal plant, there can be a more efficient coal power plant.
Climate denier's education is either deficient or they have a profit motive to spew garbage. What good is it debating morons?
It's a good philosophical argument that you shouldn't allow idiotic ideas to go unchallenged. Simply stating the superior argument and just letting others build on top of it should be enough.
Provably, economies which go Green improve over economies that don't.
You need to read a couple of books, but if the prospect of reading for a couple dozen hours scares you, there's nothing I can do.
airplane as is today with partial seating vs FUTURISTIC BULLSHIT CAR WITH ALL SEATS LOADED
http://www.ford.com/cars/fiesta/specifications/engine/
43 mpg on the highway. With only the driver inside.
And that's not even the most efficient car available today.
Anyway, I had cars that got 48mpg back in the 1980s this is nothing new.
So should we expect an entire continent of economically disenfranchised people to wait for "green" energy to become economically feasible? How many will die between now and then of entirely preventable causes? How many lives are destroyed every single day that could be saved by a modernized infrastructure or modern food production methods?
Yeah, let's just concentrate on the big cities. Ignore the rural areas. Good plan. It's already economically feasible for rural areas.
Of course if you want aluminum production or other energy intensive things you need big power plants.
I wouldn't choose coal if there are other options.
But maybe we should ask the people first about what they really want, instead of making assumptions.
Do you think that might be just a small part of why it is easy to recruit people willing to die if they can take just a few of us with them?
I can't remember any suicide bombers from Africa.Where did I say anything about rural or urban areas?
What exactly is economically feasible currently on the menu of green energy options?
I am pretty sure poor starving people want food and economic growth.
Using straw men doesn't move a discussion forward.
You forget some people prefer freedom than fascism. If economy really need to "go green" there is the market for that, no need for a big government.
The market won't make the economy "go green". Because the free market either doesn't consider the situation in 30+ years from now or weighs it only very minimally.
A free market approach to ecology and limited resources is a prime example of a tragedy of the commons.
And what pray tell is the alternative that does? Surely you arn't going to tell me that the government or the state are any more concerned than entrepreneurs with the state of the environment 30 years in the future. If you were to take this position than you would be painting a giant red target on your forehead and set yourself up for being slaughtered in a debate. Please please do. Lets make this a blood bath.
Airplanes are at around 80 MPG per seat.
Cars have the potential of 140 MPG (in highway travel with all the seats occupied)
Volvo buses are at 570 MPG (per passenger)
Hybrid cars have the potential of 240 MPG (assuming all seats are occupied).
Electric cars like Tesla? Forget about it. Trains?
Airplane trips are meant to be a factor of difference longer than car trips.
Green groups want to improve efficiency standards in every aspect of life. Where there is a coal plant, there can be a more efficient coal power plant.
Climate denier's education is either deficient or they have a profit motive to spew garbage. What good is it debating morons?
It's a good philosophical argument that you shouldn't allow idiotic ideas to go unchallenged. Simply stating the superior argument and just letting others build on top of it should be enough.
Provably, economies which go Green improve over economies that don't.
You need to read a couple of books, but if the prospect of reading for a couple dozen hours scares you, there's nothing I can do.
I must agree with the bolded above, therefore I stick with my 100mpg comment previously made and request comparables not be made between....Cars have the potential of 140 MPG (in highway travel with all the seats occupied)
Volvo buses are at 570 MPG (per passenger)
Hybrid cars have the potential of 240 MPG (assuming all seats are occupied).
Electric cars like Tesla? Forget about it. Trains?
Airplane trips are meant to be a factor of difference longer than car trips.
Green groups want to improve efficiency standards in every aspect of life. Where there is a coal plant, there can be a more efficient coal power plant.
Climate denier's education is either deficient or they have a profit motive to spew garbage. What good is it debating morons?
It's a good philosophical argument that you shouldn't allow idiotic ideas to go unchallenged. Simply stating the superior argument and just letting others build on top of it should be enough.
Provably, economies which go Green improve over economies that don't.
You need to read a couple of books, but if the prospect of reading for a couple dozen hours scares you, there's nothing I can do.
airplane as is today with partial seating vs FUTURISTIC BULLSHIT CAR WITH ALL SEATS LOADED
http://www.ford.com/cars/fiesta/specifications/engine/
43 mpg on the highway. With only the driver inside.
And that's not even the most efficient car available today.
Airplanes are at around 80 MPG per seat.
Cars have the potential of 140 MPG (in highway travel with all the seats occupied)
Volvo buses are at 570 MPG (per passenger)
Hybrid cars have the potential of 240 MPG (assuming all seats are occupied).
Electric cars like Tesla? Forget about it. Trains?
Airplane trips are meant to be a factor of difference longer than car trips.
Green groups want to improve efficiency standards in every aspect of life. Where there is a coal plant, there can be a more efficient coal power plant.
Climate denier's education is either deficient or they have a profit motive to spew garbage. What good is it debating morons?
It's a good philosophical argument that you shouldn't allow idiotic ideas to go unchallenged. Simply stating the superior argument and just letting others build on top of it should be enough.
Provably, economies which go Green improve over economies that don't.
You need to read a couple of books, but if the prospect of reading for a couple dozen hours scares you, there's nothing I can do.
I must agree with the bolded above, therefore I stick with my 100mpg comment previously made and request comparables not be made between....Cars have the potential of 140 MPG (in highway travel with all the seats occupied)
Volvo buses are at 570 MPG (per passenger)
Hybrid cars have the potential of 240 MPG (assuming all seats are occupied).
Electric cars like Tesla? Forget about it. Trains?
Airplane trips are meant to be a factor of difference longer than car trips.
Green groups want to improve efficiency standards in every aspect of life. Where there is a coal plant, there can be a more efficient coal power plant.
Climate denier's education is either deficient or they have a profit motive to spew garbage. What good is it debating morons?
It's a good philosophical argument that you shouldn't allow idiotic ideas to go unchallenged. Simply stating the superior argument and just letting others build on top of it should be enough.
Provably, economies which go Green improve over economies that don't.
You need to read a couple of books, but if the prospect of reading for a couple dozen hours scares you, there's nothing I can do.
airplane as is today with partial seating vs FUTURISTIC BULLSHIT CAR WITH ALL SEATS LOADED
you too.
1.You do know that the resources on our planet are limited right? They're going to run out at some point. And if we don't want a major economic crisis when that happens, we should start adjusting our economy now.
2.But the fact is that most companies look on a relatively short timescale, from 1 to 5 years primarily. An investment now that will pay off in 30, 50 or 100 years is not going to go over well with the shareholders and will therefore not be done. The number of companies that have concrete plans on a 10+ year timeline is very low. Because there are too many unknowns to invest for that timescale.
3.Maybe you should look up what the tragedy of the commons is. It is the effect of individual parties acting rationally, but in their own self-interest (exactly what a free market promotes, mind you) and as a consequence negatively affecting the entire group. For example by depleting the available resources faster. The reasoning being that if company A decides to increase their resource-use, it directly benefits them fully while the costs of this action (global resources being depleted more rapidly) are shared by the entire population. Therefore: net benefit to do this. And the same reasoning holds for company B, C, etc...
2.But the fact is that most companies look on a relatively short timescale, from 1 to 5 years primarily. An investment now that will pay off in 30, 50 or 100 years is not going to go over well with the shareholders and will therefore not be done. The number of companies that have concrete plans on a 10+ year timeline is very low. Because there are too many unknowns to invest for that timescale.
3.Maybe you should look up what the tragedy of the commons is. It is the effect of individual parties acting rationally, but in their own self-interest (exactly what a free market promotes, mind you) and as a consequence negatively affecting the entire group. For example by depleting the available resources faster. The reasoning being that if company A decides to increase their resource-use, it directly benefits them fully while the costs of this action (global resources being depleted more rapidly) are shared by the entire population. Therefore: net benefit to do this. And the same reasoning holds for company B, C, etc...
1.You know why we don't build house with gold ? Cause supply and demand adjust the price. If the price of a resource go up new exploitation will come and people will use it more carefully.
2.Build a mine is very capital intensive, resource company look at more than 10 year. And more the company have a stable fiscal and regulatory environment more they will look deep in future.
3.Sorry i though you talked about common as in communism, but your theory of tragedy of common is socialist bullshit.
Anyway even if you would be economically right you can't morally justify fascism.
arf such valuable arguments, you clearly dont have a clue at what you are talking about here too.
1.You do know that the resources on our planet are limited right? They're going to run out at some point. And if we don't want a major economic crisis when that happens, we should start adjusting our economy now.
2.But the fact is that most companies look on a relatively short timescale, from 1 to 5 years primarily. An investment now that will pay off in 30, 50 or 100 years is not going to go over well with the shareholders and will therefore not be done. The number of companies that have concrete plans on a 10+ year timeline is very low. Because there are too many unknowns to invest for that timescale.
3.Maybe you should look up what the tragedy of the commons is. It is the effect of individual parties acting rationally, but in their own self-interest (exactly what a free market promotes, mind you) and as a consequence negatively affecting the entire group. For example by depleting the available resources faster. The reasoning being that if company A decides to increase their resource-use, it directly benefits them fully while the costs of this action (global resources being depleted more rapidly) are shared by the entire population. Therefore: net benefit to do this. And the same reasoning holds for company B, C, etc...
2.But the fact is that most companies look on a relatively short timescale, from 1 to 5 years primarily. An investment now that will pay off in 30, 50 or 100 years is not going to go over well with the shareholders and will therefore not be done. The number of companies that have concrete plans on a 10+ year timeline is very low. Because there are too many unknowns to invest for that timescale.
3.Maybe you should look up what the tragedy of the commons is. It is the effect of individual parties acting rationally, but in their own self-interest (exactly what a free market promotes, mind you) and as a consequence negatively affecting the entire group. For example by depleting the available resources faster. The reasoning being that if company A decides to increase their resource-use, it directly benefits them fully while the costs of this action (global resources being depleted more rapidly) are shared by the entire population. Therefore: net benefit to do this. And the same reasoning holds for company B, C, etc...
1.You know why we don't build house with gold ? Cause supply and demand adjust the price. If the price of a resource go up new exploitation will come and people will use it more carefully.
2.Build a mine is very capital intensive, resource company look at more than 10 year. And more the company have a stable fiscal and regulatory environment more they will look deep in future.
3.Sorry i though you talked about common as in communism, but your theory of tragedy of common is socialist bullshit.
Anyway even if you would be economically right you can't morally justify fascism.
1.The market won't make the economy "go green".
2.Because the free market either doesn't consider the situation in 30+ years from now or weighs it only very minimally.
3.A free market approach to ecology and limited resources is a prime example of a tragedy of the commons.
2.Because the free market either doesn't consider the situation in 30+ years from now or weighs it only very minimally.
3.A free market approach to ecology and limited resources is a prime example of a tragedy of the commons.
1.Maybe the economy don't need, or not by the mean you imagine.
Quote
2.WTF ? supply and demand ? what about all the project with a few decades time frame ?
Not sure what supply and demand have to do with it. But the fact is that most companies look on a relatively short timescale, from 1 to 5 years primarily. An investment now that will pay off in 30, 50 or 100 years is not going to go over well with the shareholders and will therefore not be done. The number of companies that have concrete plans on a 10+ year timeline is very low. Because there are too many unknowns to invest for that timescale.Quote
3.Free market prevent tragedy of common, trillion dollar in subside for PV and wind turbine is a true TOC.
Maybe you should look up what the tragedy of the commons is. It is the effect of individual parties acting rationally, but in their own self-interest (exactly what a free market promotes, mind you) and as a consequence negatively affecting the entire group. For example by depleting the available resources faster. The reasoning being that if company A decides to increase their resource-use, it directly benefits them fully while the costs of this action (global resources being depleted more rapidly) are shared by the entire population. Therefore: net benefit to do this. And the same reasoning holds for company B, C, etc...The tragedy of the commons is a direct effect of an unregulated, uncoordinated free market with rational for-profit actors.
1.The market won't make the economy "go green".
2.Because the free market either doesn't consider the situation in 30+ years from now or weighs it only very minimally.
3.A free market approach to ecology and limited resources is a prime example of a tragedy of the commons.
2.Because the free market either doesn't consider the situation in 30+ years from now or weighs it only very minimally.
3.A free market approach to ecology and limited resources is a prime example of a tragedy of the commons.
1.Maybe the economy don't need, or not by the mean you imagine.
2.WTF ? supply and demand ? what about all the project with a few decades time frame ?
3.Free market prevent tragedy of common, trillion dollar in subside for PV and wind turbine is a true TOC.
You forget some people prefer freedom than fascism. If economy really need to "go green" there is the market for that, no need for a big government.
The market won't make the economy "go green". Because the free market either doesn't consider the situation in 30+ years from now or weighs it only very minimally.
A free market approach to ecology and limited resources is a prime example of a tragedy of the commons.
Airplanes are at around 80 MPG per seat.
Cars have the potential of 140 MPG (in highway travel with all the seats occupied)
Volvo buses are at 570 MPG (per passenger)
Hybrid cars have the potential of 240 MPG (assuming all seats are occupied).
Electric cars like Tesla? Forget about it. Trains?
Airplane trips are meant to be a factor of difference longer than car trips.
Green groups want to improve efficiency standards in every aspect of life. Where there is a coal plant, there can be a more efficient coal power plant.
Climate denier's education is either deficient or they have a profit motive to spew garbage. What good is it debating morons?
It's a good philosophical argument that you shouldn't allow idiotic ideas to go unchallenged. Simply stating the superior argument and just letting others build on top of it should be enough.
Provably, economies which go Green improve over economies that don't.
You need to read a couple of books, but if the prospect of reading for a couple dozen hours scares you, there's nothing I can do.
Cars have the potential of 140 MPG (in highway travel with all the seats occupied)
Volvo buses are at 570 MPG (per passenger)
Hybrid cars have the potential of 240 MPG (assuming all seats are occupied).
Electric cars like Tesla? Forget about it. Trains?
Airplane trips are meant to be a factor of difference longer than car trips.
Green groups want to improve efficiency standards in every aspect of life. Where there is a coal plant, there can be a more efficient coal power plant.
Climate denier's education is either deficient or they have a profit motive to spew garbage. What good is it debating morons?
It's a good philosophical argument that you shouldn't allow idiotic ideas to go unchallenged. Simply stating the superior argument and just letting others build on top of it should be enough.
Provably, economies which go Green improve over economies that don't.
You need to read a couple of books, but if the prospect of reading for a couple dozen hours scares you, there's nothing I can do.
All of those numbers and figures are irrelevant we are not going into global warming that is a myth.
You forget some people prefer freedom than fascism. If economy really need to "go green" there is the market for that, no need for a big government.
Airplanes are at around 80 MPG per seat.
Cars have the potential of 140 MPG (in highway travel with all the seats occupied)
Volvo buses are at 570 MPG (per passenger)
Hybrid cars have the potential of 240 MPG (assuming all seats are occupied).
Electric cars like Tesla? Forget about it. Trains?
Airplane trips are meant to be a factor of difference longer than car trips.
Green groups want to improve efficiency standards in every aspect of life. Where there is a coal plant, there can be a more efficient coal power plant.
Climate denier's education is either deficient or they have a profit motive to spew garbage. What good is it debating morons?
It's a good philosophical argument that you shouldn't allow idiotic ideas to go unchallenged. Simply stating the superior argument and just letting others build on top of it should be enough.
Provably, economies which go Green improve over economies that don't.
You need to read a couple of books, but if the prospect of reading for a couple dozen hours scares you, there's nothing I can do.
Cars have the potential of 140 MPG (in highway travel with all the seats occupied)
Volvo buses are at 570 MPG (per passenger)
Hybrid cars have the potential of 240 MPG (assuming all seats are occupied).
Electric cars like Tesla? Forget about it. Trains?
Airplane trips are meant to be a factor of difference longer than car trips.
Green groups want to improve efficiency standards in every aspect of life. Where there is a coal plant, there can be a more efficient coal power plant.
Climate denier's education is either deficient or they have a profit motive to spew garbage. What good is it debating morons?
It's a good philosophical argument that you shouldn't allow idiotic ideas to go unchallenged. Simply stating the superior argument and just letting others build on top of it should be enough.
Provably, economies which go Green improve over economies that don't.
You need to read a couple of books, but if the prospect of reading for a couple dozen hours scares you, there's nothing I can do.
Seems to me that are too many planes flying period. Why doesnt anyone ever talk about that. Do you know how much fuel a plane goes through in one flight and how much pollution that is. I use mostly 1, but sometimes 2 tanks of gas a month in my car. Ive flown once in my life and dont care if I ever do it again.
there is demand for the flights and airlines can fly them profitably so why shouldn't they fly?Seems to me that are too many planes flying period. Why doesnt anyone ever talk about that. Do you know how much fuel a plane goes through in one flight and how much pollution that is. I use mostly 1, but sometimes 2 tanks of gas a month in my car. Ive flown once in my life and dont care if I ever do it again.
there is demand for the flights and airlines can fly them profitably so why shouldn't they fly?Seems to me that are too many planes flying period. Why doesnt anyone ever talk about that. Do you know how much fuel a plane goes through in one flight and how much pollution that is. I use mostly 1, but sometimes 2 tanks of gas a month in my car. Ive flown once in my life and dont care if I ever do it again.
there is demand for the flights and airlines can fly them profitably so why shouldn't they fly?
I think banning them was an overreaction.
Jump to: