Global Warming/Climate Change Discussion Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZAGGIN
  • 3,647 comments
  • 267,021 views

Which of the following statements best reflects your views on Global Warming?


  • Total voters
    497
I'll make no hesitation here, I take the scientific community's assertion that we are in a state of global warming (or, for the weak of heart, "climate change") very seriously.

We kind of know what did it... pollution, industry, automobiles, energy.

Yet, as with everything else, I take a step back and look at how my actions contribute to the solution or to the problem. In short, I get a massive "hypocrite label" on the top of my forehead. And this is why...

I cannot gloss over the fact that my presence in this online community is based on a simple interest: cars. Fast cars. My dream is to get a gas guzzling V-8 sports car, take it around the track, and spend hours and money on shredding tires and pumping high octane gasoline onto my car's engine. Will this dream materialize into something real? Unlikely, cause I'm broke. But, if I had the chance, I would take it.

We are people with contradicting ideas. We want to do so much in this world, and we want to do it so fast, that we fail to notice that adherence to one ideal leads to the detraction of the other.

My question is simple... how do we, as members of GTPlanet, which I'm sure implies that many of us are impassioned for cars, reconciliate our commitment to environmental protection and our interests for excess [of engine] power? Can it be reconciled? If not, what ideal would you discard?

Well, I'm a strong advocate of less weight over more power, but that's only for performance reasons, not environmental.

I'd like to get a Viper some day. I won't feel any guilt over driving it every day (though I probably won't actually use it unless I was going racing). If conserving resources became such a huge issue that everyone needed to pitch in, I guess I'd put solar panels on my house or something. Car > house.
 
I'll make no hesitation here, I take the scientific community's assertion that we are in a state of global warming (or, for the weak of heart, "climate change") very seriously.

You must realize that: a) Scientist's haven't come to a consensus on the matter. b) It's not real science

We kind of know what did it... pollution, industry, automobiles, energy.

Really? I didn't know Co2 was a "pollutant". Anyway, if you have a follow up, I have only one thing to say to that.

Yet, as with everything else, I take a step back and look at how my actions contribute to the solution or to the problem. In short, I get a massive "hypocrite label" on the top of my forehead. And this is why...

I cannot gloss over the fact that my presence in this online community is based on a simple interest: cars. Fast cars. My dream is to get a gas guzzling V-8 sports car, take it around the track, and spend hours and money on shredding tires and pumping high octane gasoline onto my car's engine. Will this dream materialize into something real? Unlikely, cause I'm broke. But, if I had the chance, I would take it.

We are people with contradicting ideas. We want to do so much in this world, and we want to do it so fast, that we fail to notice that adherence to one ideal leads to the detraction of the other.

Let me help you with your guilt issue here. You are just one person, so therefore, you're impact on the climate is, well, zero. If you never get that gas guzzling V8 sports car, someone else will.

My question is simple... how do we, as members of GTPlanet, which I'm sure implies that many of us are impassioned for cars, reconciliate our commitment to environmental protection and our interests for excess [of engine] power? Can it be reconciled? If not, what ideal would you discard?

If you believe you can really save the environment, go right ahead. I can promise you that it's impossible, but go ahead.
 
Personally I think it is happening but it's a natural phase that we will go through and then head back to normal. I mean we've had Christmas before at 75 degrees in NY so anything is possible.
 
My question is simple... how do we, as members of GTPlanet, which I'm sure implies that many of us are impassioned for cars, reconciliate our commitment to environmental protection and our interests for excess [of engine] power? Can it be reconciled? If not, what ideal would you discard?

I find this a very valid question that we should all ask ourselves.

"I will not change the world" is an excuse that is not valid, every long journey is taken step by step. Issue starts already here though, we do know the exact impact of our steps.

Who states that by simulating on PS3 we do not contribute to driving less. Many evenings I go on PS3, if I did not: I would have taken the car to a forest or town for a walk or just taken the motorcycle for a drive.

You can say that I drive for pleasure and I do sometimes, but most of the time it is because I need to go to work, I had to find work far away from my family since it was the best way to guarantee my survival, I need to renovate a house for pension in a better climate at quite a distance, since the climate where I work you can not live ecologically, I have to drive to a gym since I can not afford a place where my own installation can fit in....
Other choices are possible, but you need to make choices on what you understand.

I try to be more ecological, but time and "supply and demand" constrains do not allow me to go to the level I want to be.
 
^That is true. But also minor steps are steps. In German they say "small animals also ****"

I voted yes, and human is the cause.
To whatever degree.
Sure our planet has seen fluctuation in the climate, but one thing for sure is that we are destroying our planet
We are harvesting our planet like we would have a backup planet.

Radioactive materials: lets bury them, if i don't see them, they aren't there.
All the gases and chemicals we push in our atmosphere can not be good.
We have used gases and chemicals in the 60's that our now forbidden, yet the molecules are still in all the organisms, and harming generation after generation.

I also believe that the industy has most done most of the damage. ECo lights: way more dangerous than standard light bulbs. But it was pushed soo much instead of pushing the LED technology.
Exemples like that can be found

Whether or not you believe in it (which has been proven quite a lot), fact is we are destroying our planet and every little step from an individual will help securing a world for futur generation.
 
I also believe that the industy has most done most of the damage. ECo lights: way more dangerous than standard light bulbs. ...
Exemples like that can be found

Whether or not you believe in it (which has been proven quite a lot), fact is we are destroying our planet and every little step from an individual will help securing a world for futur generation.

The issue is indeed that you might have the impression to do a lot of effort for the improvement, but you are not since you are following a nonsense input from some pressure groups. When I get yet an other "green" offer, I generally let it pass by, I have lost faith.

As you state "You believe ..." and you act on your believe, that is all we can do for the moment, there is no magical solution. We do influence, I do believe that can be defended, but the relevance of our influence is still very unclear.
 
First off I'd like to say that I'm unsure on the matter. Chiefly due to conflicting opinions in the scientific community.

The Global Warming issue was a real eye opener to liberal bias around the Bay Area for me.

If you ask anyone around where I live if they believe in Global Warming, they'll invariably say "Yes, it's a matter of fact." Suggesting otherwise or bringing up a counter argument is most often met with strange looks.

Through all of this Global Warming is proven, Global Warming is disproven business, most people around here seem to stonewall any new evidence (which seems a bit hypocritical for an "enlightened" state.)
 
And how will we be able to tell if these "Steps" are working?

Also applies to a reply to Vince:

Do you want a certificate to know your Co2 footprint?
I don't think you need that.

If you use less plastic bags but instead tupperware for the fridge, or a reusable bag for groceries. If everyone would already do that, that would be millions of plastic bags less per day.
That's one exemple.

Now I know that there is a lot of BS that is sold as green, I work in construction and the whole passive, 0 energy houses are BS, they make people sick actually.

A lot (most) comes from the industries, and that's again where all the problem lies, as with so much modern problems, big fat companies are destroying everything out of greed.
Exemple:
The lightbulbs when first developped lasted 2500 hours. That was too much for the industry so they made a cartell and decided to lower the lightbulbs lifecycle to a 1000 hours.
So they messed around, took less good material,.... and in 1940 big ads garentueed 1000H lightbulbs.
That was long ago and it has gotten worse.
Now the lightbulbs are discontinued, which already pisses off alot of people, but they replace them with highly nocive ones instead of subventening LEd light bulbs, which are the future. Again Industry taken over the politics.
Apple products are design to break. First Ipod had a builtin deadline in the battery (there are court papers of it).
Nice to built a PC into the screen, but you throw away a perfectly fine screen when changing the PC.
In todays industy, it is easier to buy a new product rather than meant/ repair a broken good. Which again leads to pollution as we throw so much stuff just away (which is so complex or too complex too recycle).


Packaging of grocery food is an other thing, there are numberous possibilities for packaging ecological (like corn plastic, or wood plastic), but no the industry rather takes good old plastic that doesn't decomposite itself. And then they even wrap them twice or three times more then the packaging required.

On CO2, there are a lot more saving to do in the industry than in the consumer section.
Let's take a simple exemple: Servers. They are ridiculously cooled down. Studies have shown that letting them warm up slightly more (+2 - +5°c), which won't harm the hardware, alone in germany the energy saved would be enough to close down two nuclear reactors.
(And on the nuclear, I read in other threads that it is clean and some made fun or called it stupid of W&N because he was against it. So whole Germany is dumb to shut down every reactor? Is it clean that you have at the end of the process a material that is highly nocive, toxic for thousands of years? I am not wholly against nuclear power, but we need first to at least haverst it. What we are basicly doing is the same as taking fossils, burn them to cook water and then use the warm water to generate power. What a waste. Nuclear has huge energy (as seen in Fukushima), but we still can't haverst it. When we can solve the problem of really haversting the pure power of nuclear, then and only we can use that power, because now we are using a % of it's real power and then we let it rot away in a cavern)


So as you see above, there is only so little the consumer can achieve, but there are things he can do: buy products that are grown ecologically (food or other goods), don't throw away. Buy more responsible and with a bit of forsight. Use the power of the buyer!
Do we human really need a new cell phone every year, do we need to light the house when we are not there, or have the heater on and the windows open, do we need the 5 liter engine over the 3 liter one?
There are things the individual can do. Alone they are worth nothing, but multiply it by 3 billions and you have achieved something.

But as you saw in my exemples, there is a bigger problem lying behind all this : Industries controlling everything (markets, politics, daily life). And that need to change. As cute as the occupy mouvement is, they will achieve nothing again big players as long as they don't begin to think. Yes there is a huge pervertism in our capitalist society, but that doesn't mean capitalism is bad. Capitalism is good and is the basic evolution of basic trade and money concept. So saying we need to abolish capitalism is not helping the problem nor them.
But at least it made people think about the problem lying ahead of us. And the Industry is trying to start the war now with things like SOPA or ACTA, which is a good thing as finally people will wake up and have a chance in abolishing the power of the big players. Because they don't want to evolve their arcaic business models into modern standards (internet), now they try to force us into their old business models again by criminalising the new medium. But people will not let the free internet go without a fight.
If we win that fight, we have a good chance in our futur at least to limit the power of industries, if we loose, industries will dictate even more our lives then now.

FreedomBraveheart.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't want to sound rude after such a lengthy reply, but that's not what I was asking. Sure, we can measure our steps we take, but what's the point in being green if I can't measure the effects of my steps in terms of the climate itself? The simple answer is, we can't. Therefore there's no way to tell whether our steps would really make a difference.
 
Therefore there's no way to tell whether our steps would really make a difference.

But the point IBO and I were making is the opposite.
You know that you can have less pollution, it might help, so do it, all the small bits will help somehow, even if you can not measure where it helps exactly.
If you pollute you know you are doing something wrong.

IBO I accept your point, there are things that are obvious, I also try to manage those correctly.
 
^you can mesure it:
Turn your lights and electronic devices off when leaving your home (off not stand-by, though stand by on new electronics consumation is near nil)
Turn you heater down a little bit.
Change your old lightsbulbs to newer ones.

Alone those 3 will give you at the end of the year an economy of a few hundreds euro dollars,... Help the nature and your wallet. Beeing green doesn't need to cost a dime

Take groceries: don't take the plastic bags you throw away later and count 2 plastic bags per grocery. At the end of the year that makes a pile of plastic less nature has to digest.
It's mesurable and quantable. Only your steps won't change the temperature outside in a year. It took year for the effects of our pollution to come through.
Experts say we only having the effects now of the 70's 80's. So the worse is yet to come
 
Turn your lights and electronic devices off when leaving your home (off not stand-by, though stand by on new electronics consumation is near nil)

That might save me a little money, but it won't change the climate. It's a massive misconception, that being, just because I turned my computer off doesn't mean the coal plant down the street is actually emitting less smoke.

Turn you heater down a little bit.

Depending on your form of head (I use natural gas), it may not make a difference. Since I use natural gas, the end result is no different than my coal plant example.

Change your old lightsbulbs to newer ones.

Wouldn't it be greener to leave the ones I already have in (Instead of buying a bunch of new ones?) Plus, the new "Energy efficient" ones become dangerously toxic when broken due to the fact that they are filled with mercury.

Take groceries: don't take the plastic bags you throw away later and count 2 plastic bags per grocery. At the end of the year that makes a pile of plastic less nature has to digest.

Nature doesn't care how much it must digest. It will eat anything you through at it.

It's mesurable and quantable. Only your steps won't change the temperature outside in a year. It took year for the effects of our pollution to come through.

Would you then consider Co2 a pollutant? As far as I'm concerned it's not. Scientists are still very divided on the issue of climate change. The reason they're so divided is because they cannot prove we have any impact on the climate via our Co2 contribution.
 
That might save me a little money, but it won't change the climate. It's a massive misconception, that being, just because I turned my computer off doesn't mean the coal plant down the street is actually emitting less smoke.

If your whole city does it, you can shut down one plant of 3. So yes if only one makes it, it doesn't do ****. If everyone participate we can change the outcome. Look above on my server coolant. Alone in Germany it could sent 3 plants in pension without trading something off

Depending on your form of head (I use natural gas), it may not make a difference. Since I use natural gas, the end result is no different than my coal plant example.

Same as above

Wouldn't it be greener to leave the ones I already have in (Instead of buying a bunch of new ones?) Plus, the new "Energy efficient" ones become dangerously toxic when broken due to the fact that they are filled with mercury.

Look on my lengthy post about light bulbs. You right with that. But you will pay 20-60% less in lightning than with the old bulbs. And since the old bulbs are not nocive you still not polluting. But I give you that. But read my post above.

Nature doesn't care how much it must digest. It will eat anything you through at it.

No it will not, it takes 1 second to throw a can or bottle in the trash, it takes nature hunderts of years. All the plastic we throw away, we eat it again later due to the food chain. Look at what is all in a fish (mercury, plastic,...)

Would you then consider Co2 a pollutant? As far as I'm concerned it's not. Scientists are still very divided on the issue of climate change. The reason they're so divided is because they cannot prove we have any impact on the climate via our Co2 contribution.

Take a bonsai tree, but it under a cheese cloak and put Co2 in it. You will see that very few % up will kill the tree.

Honestly, I don't fear for our planet, I fear for humanity, because the planet will shake itself if we continue like this and half of humanity will be gone (whether it is via a virus, natural disaster,...). It happend before in microenviroments and all the agravating catastrophes should shakes us at least up.
 
If your whole city does it, you can shut down one plant of 3. So yes if only one makes it, it doesn't do ****. If everyone participate we can change the outcome. Look above on my server coolant. Alone in Germany it could sent 3 plants in pension without trading something off

So in other words, if we resort to stone age technology, we're covered. Great.

Look on my lengthy post about light bulbs. You right with that. But you will pay 20-60% less in lightning than with the old bulbs. And since the old bulbs are not nocive you still not polluting. But I give you that. But read my post above

That's all good and well, but honestly, I'd rather pay more to be safer. (but that's just my opinion)

No it will not, it takes 1 second to throw a can or bottle in the trash, it takes nature hunderts of years. All the plastic we throw away, we eat it again later due to the food chain. Look at what is all in a fish (mercury, plastic,...)

Not if they're properly disposed of in land fills and recycle plants.

Take a bonsai tree, but it under a cheese cloak and put Co2 in it. You will see that very few % up will kill the tree.

Not only did that sentence make no sense at all, but I'm not sure I even understand what you're saying (Assuming I correct what I think I'm reading)

Could you put it a bit more clearly?
 
And yet, as you point out, apt:



It's a position so impossibly far away that it's not possible for me to change your mind and not worth either of our efforts to do the discussion of it.



Where do you think wealth comes from?

Earning money (or tangible equivalent) = income tax
Saving money (or tangible equivalent) = capital gains tax
Inheriting money (or tangible equivalent) = estate/inheritance tax

However you acquire the wealth, it's taxed on the way in. However you dispose of the wealth (short of burning it), it's taxed on the way out - either through purchase tax or commodity duties (or both) or through an estate tax. In the UK we're even taxed annually for owning a home (after we pay our taxed utility bills, buy our taxed groceries, pay for insurance (tax), VED (tax) and petrol (tax * tax) in our cars out of our taxed income, we then pay about £1,200 tax just for owning a house). Oh, and we paid Stamp Duty (tax) for the privilege of buying it and whomever buys it from us will also pay it. How's that[/]i for a tax on wealth?


Involuntary taxes - taxes you incur just for existing - are fundamentally immoral. This includes income tax (money in) and estate tax (money out). Voluntary taxes - taxes you pay through choosing things (purchases) - are fundamentally moral, but can be grossly skewed to the point of immorality. Like a sales tax on top of fuel duty such that a 1p increase in fuel duty results in 1.2p rise in tax burden.


If I was paid £250 every time the word "tax" was mentioned in that one post alone, I'd have well over £7,000.
 
But then you'd be subject to Capital Gains Tax.

You know more about taxes then I will ever do. I feel for you :indiff: .

How much you think Capital Gains Tax would take off that 7 grand?
 
It's massively complex - could be nothing, could be 30%, depending on your tax code and earnings. If you classed it as gambling, maybe nothing at all.

This is a weird segue considering that post is 5 months old...
 
Just read that one the other day. Had to chuckle.

It's less of blaming the dinos than trying to understand how GHGs tie into climate modelling.

The time of the dinosaurs was undoubtedly very, very warm... and bio-methane production may have helped keep it that way.
 
The scientific maverick James Lovelock says climate catastrophe is not so certain as he previously suggested.

The main sentence it seems to be based on is this:
"There's a lot of climate change deniers who are not just paid servants of the oil industry as they're demonised as being - they're sensible scientists," he said.

However he seems still to believe that we did unrepairable (in the expected survival of human kind) damage to the atmosphere already, while admitting not to have convincing proof for that statement.
 
The scientific maverick James Lovelock says climate catastrophe is not so certain as he previously suggested.

I remember organizations like the New York Times, The Guardian, and Daily Mail quoting Lovelock in their articles on how man-made global warming was going to end humanity. Now they're all reporting that even though Lovelock has altered his views, he wasn't remotely credible to begin with as other scientists mocked his ideas.
 
Some pretty reputable sources indicating that not only is Climate Change real (we all pretty much know this) but its caused by us.

I'm not the most scientifically minded person so I'll throw it over to you guys.
Is this stuff credible? true?

Climate Change is Real

State of the Climate in 2012

Ive always been of the opinion that we still simply don't know exactly. For sure we effect it but how and why and by how much?

The main thing is clear though, attempting to change and "fix" things without first understanding the problem is silly, especially when entire taxes and revenue generating concepts are based upon it.
 
Last edited:
Some pretty reputable sources indicating that not only is Climate Change real (we all pretty much know this) but its caused by us.

Is this stuff credible? true?

The first issue is that the article has no sources. The second issue is that it's also a government run site. And given that they profit from global warming, I can't see why they wouldn't want one to think that it wasn't their fault.

Ive always been of the opinion that we still simply don't know exactly. For sure we effect it but how and why and by how much?

The main thing is clear though, attempting to change and "fix" things without first understanding the problem is silly, especially when entire taxes and revenue generating concepts are based upon it.


Exactly. The problem with global warming is that the science was politically hijacked when governments decided it was a "problem" that could be "solved". Hence, we got taxed more. Do the claim that we've now solved the problem? Of course not. I think you get the picture.
 
The first issue is that the article has no sources. The second issue is that it's also a government run site. And given that they profit from global warming, I can't see why they wouldn't want one to think that it wasn't their fault.

Exactly. The problem with global warming is that the science was politically hijacked when governments decided it was a "problem" that could be "solved". Hence, we got taxed more. Do the claim that we've now solved the problem? Of course not. I think you get the picture.

Whether or not governments are using climate change as a means to profit or not does not alter the scientific case one iota.

I agree with Fryz that it doesn't appear to make much sense to wish to 'fix' things when the problem isn't fully understood, but it depends on what you mean by 'fix'... just as an alcoholic can be recommended to cut down his alcohol consumption rather than getting his liver replaced, there are things that can (and arguably should) be done to address the known issues before things go beyond a point where more drastic (and vastly more expensive) 'fixes' might be considered. But, the very fact that the climate cannot be 'fixed' is all the more reason to be extremely cautious about perturbing it in the first place... one may argue that it is not possible for us to exist without perturbing the climate system (and that is arguably the case), but this being the case, it is not wrong to expect that we take reasonable steps to minimise or to mitigate against the ill effects of our collective behaviour... I agree, however, that government is probably the least of all possible solutions that is likely to work, but as yet, nobody has come up with any better ideas - but one reason why governments or international organisations continue to have such a prominent role in addressing the issue is because individuals are mostly divorced from the consequences of their own consumption, and there are too many powerful people and organisations with no interest in moving away from the status quo.
 
Last edited:
Just ease up on sulfur dioxide and particulate emissions restrictions and we'll be fine. :D Let's blot out the sun and let the good times roll. :dopey:
 
one may argue that it is not possible for us to exist without perturbing the climate system (and that is arguably the case), but this being the case, it is not wrong to expect that we take reasonable steps to minimise or to mitigate against the ill effects of our collective behaviour...

That's my take on it, and I also agree it's more a "people" thing than it is a "legislation" thing. Not only is a people thing likely to make more difference collectively, but when an individual's free will comes into it, it's also more pleasant than being forced into doing something by the government.

Unfortunately, a few too many individuals' free will operates on the "someone else's problem" basis. Not just with regards to climate change, but life in general.

Personally, I subscribe to the theory that it's better to try and mitigate our impact on the basis that it's better trying to do something to find out it's not as big a problem as we expected it to be, rather than doing nothing to find out it's much worse than we expected it to be.

That, and I prefer living in a society that strives to find solutions to future challenges than one that sits back and thinks we've already reached a pinnacle.
 
Back