Jump to content
The Corroboree
Evil Genius

The Great Global Warming/Cooling Thread Part 2

Recommended Posts

Our bro on the other side. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I got banned so I have a new one now.

 

I'm aware some of the stuff I said was unacceptable, in all honesty I was living with pain levels at a 10 most days and receiving almost no reception for that.

Edited by manu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this really a thing on here? would expected more of yall tanned friends (not really but just saying it to sound nice)

 

Earth will fuck you up before you it lol, plants be deprived of co2 and be watching this whole argument like wtf u talking bout...

 

Always remember our major purpose is to pave way and facilitate for a low oxygen atmosphere with warm temperature and proper infrastucture of asphalt, cement and copper wire for our programmer overlords and keep calm, one love :insert heart emoticon:

Edited by DualWieldRake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad there are people doing that kind of fact checking, and thanks for the post, Change.

 

While the Mail article wasn't difficult to discredit on its own merits, I was frustrated in the days following its publication with my complete inability to find anything much other than bullshit on the topic. I tried multiple search engines with various search terms and boolean operators, but I turned up nothing other than tonnes of links to uninformed armchair "skeptics" blogging about the climate conspiracy. Usually I have no problems finding information around the internet, but this one was a tough nut to crack. It was as if the algorithm these engines provided me with were suddenly and specifically limited to misinformation. Anyone else ever felt locked out of information on political issues when using engines like google, yahoo, bing, etc.?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel locked out of information all the time, the information is still there but search engines have their filters in place to ensure approved information gets noticed first.

Edited by Sallubrious
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Is this really a thing on here? would expected more of yall

 

because open discussion of extremely complex & important issues is just ghastly behavior isn't it.  how could we think to do such a thing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha just kidding man i expected you to walk around with clubs and bash eachothers head in so this is pretty cool

 

global warming on the other hand is just not happening tho, despite of what scary graphs or animations that are photoshopped say

and i know this cause i went outside the other day and almost froze my nuts off

 

Edited by DualWieldRake
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

have you read any of this thread? i can't tell if you're being a sarcastic dick or just a dick.  but they say expectation is the mother of all disappointment

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's 20 pages long! i did watch a few graphs and animations but then i needed to join the debate!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

global warming on the other hand is just not happening tho, despite of what scary graphs or animations that are photoshopped say

and i know this cause i went outside the other day and almost froze my nuts off

 

 

Gravity isn't real coz the other day I was floating around in the ocean :P

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chime in late here... Couldn't read the whole thread! I am confused lately.. All what's on mainstream news is a lie. Half of the stuff on alternative news is written by government paid shills, people who simply invent something and the other half is maybe right. Who can tell weather or not all of this is propaganda?

But on the other hand side: coal is dirty, destroys our land, pollutes the air - isn't that enough reason?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like your post but the last bit about coal is a common sentiment and wrong.  Additionally, it would be damn near impossible to meet our energy needs without swapping fossil out for nuclear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same boat, haven't back tracked to read the whole thing. I agree coal is not a good way to derive energy - very inefficient at that. But I don't think it's the main pollution contributer. I was under the impression our farming of livestock and exploitation of our land was the greatest issue tied to the climate instability. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Coal is a good way to derive energy or we wouldnt be using so much of it.  Whether deriving energy this way ends up producing catastrophic results is another question.

 

Another good way to derive energy is nuclear and thats why we use so much of it.  Whether it ends uo producing catastrophic results?  (that question may have been answered already)

 

Yet another good way to derive energy is from sustainable sources and thats why a tiny tiny fraction of our energy needs are met with sustainable sources.  Oh hang on a sec...

 

 

Now, you cant just say "coal is polluting lets use something else, lets clean up our act whats the problem?"  there is no clean realistic energy source. All realistic sources have an environmental cost.  From the AGW point of view the cost of fossil fuels is more catastrophic even than, say, a multi reactor meltdown streaming into the pacific ocean.  In fact if the AGW perspective isnt factual, then converting to other (environmentally costly) sources may not be a win win.  

 

Its a matter of choosing the lesser evil but that choice will differ depending on which position is held to be more factual.

Edited by ThunderIdeal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point. Though while I see your view as to 'why' so much of our power is fossil fuel, then nuclear, then least renewable, I think it warranted to add in the fact fossil fuel derived energy has been around longer and therefore more developed, tried and tested. Defiantly nuclear can be bad (or so we're told) but it's also not as developed etc. even more so for renewable.

I thought a few euro countries were now over 50% renewable up to 100%.

ive got a feeling tesla (the real tesla not the branded tesla) may have had much technology to derive, amplify and use energy in other ways that could have been better used by man. But I guess we won't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Australia solar and wind would be the way to go. Germany has much more solar installed than Australia but half the sun! Our energy needs cannot be met, we need to consume less. For example all new houses built in Australia made by developpers need AC, only because they are built in the wrong way. There are entire buildings without natural light. They build a new library here and the whole complex is air conditioned (no one needs that in our climate) and on the top of it you cannort turn off rooms which are not used. We could easily cut our energy consumption in half without suffering and further with a little bit of constraint. No one in Sydney would suffer if there would be a functional public transport and people would not have to use cars, but our gov. builds new motorways.

Of course solar is not without pollution either.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree our society is being capsulated into air conditioned prison cells. So people can watch their TV and order their delivered food without knowledge of the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what's so unreal about having food delivered? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

In Australia solar and wind would be the way to go. Germany has much more solar installed than Australia but half the sun! Our energy needs cannot be met, we need to consume less. For example all new houses built in Australia made by developpers need AC, only because they are built in the wrong way. There are entire buildings without natural light. They build a new library here and the whole complex is air conditioned (no one needs that in our climate) and on the top of it you cannort turn off rooms which are not used. We could easily cut our energy consumption in half without suffering and further with a little bit of constraint. No one in Sydney would suffer if there would be a functional public transport and people would not have to use cars, but our gov. builds new motorways.

Of course solar is not without pollution either.

 

How about this thing called law of conservation of energy?

Edited by DualWieldRake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

what's so unreal about having food delivered? 

 

where i'm from it's the food beeing delivered!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Coal is a good way to derive energy or we wouldnt be using so much of it.  Whether deriving energy this way ends up producing catastrophic results is another question.

 

theres a difference between 'good' & easy to exploit.  coal is just a tangible, easy to exploit resource.  it's unrealistic to think that this resource won't be exploited as long as it exists but even if coal was perfectly problem free which not many sane people would argue..  it would be unrealistic not to invest heavily in alternatives to a finite resource.  All thats required is appropriate investment.  So far its just an issue of how to make just as much or more money from that investment than coal. 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey @Alice

 

If you wouldn't mind jumping into this conversation, Id be interested in your opinions on what you think a realistic timescale to transitioning from coal to renewable energy would be?

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/09/new-wind-turbines-could-power-japan-for-50-years-after-a-single-typhoon/

 

 

New Wind Turbines Could Power Japan For 50 Years After A Single Typhoon

 

j1xbpxidpewnc6zedjm6.jpg

 

New Wind Turbines Could Power Japan For 50 Years After A Single Typhoon

 

Typhoons are generally associated with mass destruction, but a Japanese engineer has developed a wind turbine that can harness the tremendous power of these storms and turn it into useful energy. If he's right, a single typhoon could power Japan for 50 years.

 

Atsushi Shimizu is the inventor of the world's first typhoon turbine — an extremely durable, eggbeater-shaped device that can not only withstand the awesome forces generated by a typhoon, it can convert all that power into useable energy. Shimizu's calculations show that a sufficiently large array of his turbines could capture enough energy from a single typhoon to power Japan for 50 years.

 

Given that Japan is currently dealing with an energy shortage — a problem incited by the 2011 Fukushima disaster — this comes as a very welcome solution. As Shimizu told CNN, "Japan actually has a lot more wind power than it does solar power, it's just not utilised."

Shimizu is not wrong. Japan has already seen six typhoons this year. Shimizu, the founder of green tech firm Challenergy, believes that Japan has the potential to become "a superpower of wind".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Halcyon Daze
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×