General Poker Discussion Poker Forums

I think the sentiment that "it'll work itself out" misses the mark a little. We can see that ecosystems on planets are delicate. There's growing evidence to suggest that Mars and in particular Venus had a similar environment to Earth (water, atmosphere, etc) and whilst this gives no support to the idea that humans can inflict enough damage to cause this, it remains that planets are not in static or regressive states and imbalances can certainly fuck them up on grand scales.

but it's such great material for sci-fi movies!

i, for one, think those Martian folks messing up their planet wasn't so bad after all. otherwise, the world would have never known the cinematic masterpiece known as Total Recall. planets come and go, but art is eternal.

is hot air a renewable resource?

and we come full circle....
We could use Free Energy (that stuff they used to bring down the Twin Towers)

This could get us into a 'perpetual motion' set of threads. You are right hot air could save the world!

and we come full circle....
We could use Free Energy (that stuff they used to bring down the Twin Towers)

This could get us into a 'perpetual motion' set of threads. You are right hot air could save the world!

I wanna build a dyson sphere! Or a dyson ring, at least.

I wanna build a dyson sphere! Or a dyson ring, at least.

A recent peer reviewed study by a leading science and technology institution proves the Dyson Airblade™ hand dryer (ABS) is better for the environment than any other method of drying hands.

Yes we definitely need more Dyson stuff

Yes we definitely need more Dyson stuff

Well shit, that thing is called an Airblade but it's just a hand dryer. I've never been so let down in my life.

and we come full circle....
We could use Free Energy (that stuff they used to bring down the Twin Towers)

This could get us into a 'perpetual motion' set of threads. You are right hot air could save the world!

is free energy anything like pure energy? cause if it is... that's radical!

Mullanimal:
The switch to renewable energy will happen when its economically viable.

This is inaccurate. What mitch posted about how tied we are to oil is something I was talking about w/a coworker yesterday. Oil pervades every facet of our lives. Oil prices could derail our economic recovery. Everything gets more expensive when oil does. It is not simply only used because it's cheaper than alternatives.

Switching to renewable energy is not going to just happen. Nor is it a question of simple economics. Oil has no current competitor as an energy source. There is no 'not-oil' sitting out there waiting to become cheaper than oil. And while say, airlines, would be thrilled for someone to invent a renewable fuel source, they are tied to oil and must spend their money on acquiring it rather than funding research into making it useless.

Something is old therefore narrow minded and wrong, what a beautiful argument. Please tell me when subjective value, one of the pillars modern economics is built upon was superseded, or how the idea of subjective value is narrow minded?

old fashioned and narrow minded does not equal old fashioned and therefore narrow minded.
Your boy is describing imagination, not resources.


The idea that global warming needs to be true before we do something about the crap we put into the world is absurd. Who eats fish and says, 'mmmm, metallic-y'? I don't want to eat mercury and I don't care if fish full of mercury affects the climate or not. Someone mentioned in a post earlier that the increase of CO2 is only .01% or something. Well, it only takes a couple parts per billion for mercury to damage a child. Acid rain may not make the planet hotter or cause earthquakes, but I still don't want it eating the finish on my car.


And last, because I can't resist:

Sneakers:
I saw your other post about the diretor of the video. Not sure if that completely discredits it. IMO, the points needed to discredited.

Say that again, but this time about Michael Moore.

Say that again, but this time about Al Gore.

fyp

Waiting for the free market to make renewable energy economically viable without strong government intervention seems similar to me of thinking we should just wait around for a commercial expedition to go to Mars, which will happen eventually when it's economically viable.

This is inaccurate. What mitch posted about how tied we are to oil is something I was talking about w/a coworker yesterday. Oil pervades every facet of our lives. Oil prices could derail our economic recovery. Everything gets more expensive when oil does. It is not simply only used because it's cheaper than alternatives.

Its impossible for all prices to continually rise without increasing the money supply. Oil can rise relative to other goods.

Switching to renewable energy is not going to just happen. Nor is it a question of simple economics. Oil has no current competitor as an energy source. There is no 'not-oil' sitting out there waiting to become cheaper than oil. And while say, airlines, would be thrilled for someone to invent a renewable fuel source, they are tied to oil and must spend their money on acquiring it rather than funding research into making it useless.

I'm not saying its just going to happen, it will most likely be a case of gradual adoption, the gradual adoption will pick up pace when the 'not-oil' as you call it becomes cheaper than oil, or when oil becomes more expensive than 'not-oil' if you wish. I'm not saying we have a viable alternative to oil available to us now.

The idea that global warming needs to be true before we do something about the crap we put into the world is absurd. Who eats fish and says, 'mmmm, metallic-y'? I don't want to eat mercury and I don't care if fish full of mercury affects the climate or not. Someone mentioned in a post earlier that the increase of CO2 is only .01% or something. Well, it only takes a couple parts per billion for mercury to damage a child. Acid rain may not make the planet hotter or cause earthquakes, but I still don't want it eating the finish on my car.

A vital part of doing something about global warming involves restricting 3rd world countries ability to industrialize. Taking your acid rain example to emphasize the catch 22, it is the chemical emissions of industry that cause acid rain, but without the development of industry you most likely would not have a car to worry about it rusting in the first place. When it comes to the third world, do they remain in poverty to breathe clean air, or do they industrialize and deal with the pollution as best possible. Its a no-brainer from their point of view. Although I disagree with him, maybe Jeff Rubin might be your cup of tea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYuLjGQQ-jg

Say that again, but this time about Pope Gore.

fyp

fyfyp

I'm not saying its just going to happen, it will most likely be a case of gradual adoption, the gradual adoption will pick up pace when the 'not-oil' as you call it becomes cheaper than oil, or when oil becomes more expensive than 'not-oil' if you wish. I'm not saying we have a viable alternative to oil available to us now.

The point I'm making about not oil not existing now is that the impetus to create it is hampered by the existence of oil.

A vital part of doing something about global warming involves restricting 3rd world countries ability to industrialize. Taking your acid rain example to emphasize the catch 22, it is the chemical emissions of industry that cause acid rain, but without the development of industry you most likely would not have a car to worry about it rusting in the first place. When it comes to the third world, do they remain in poverty to breathe clean air, or do they industrialize and deal with the pollution as best possible. Its a no-brainer from their point of view. Although I disagree with him, maybe Jeff Rubin might be your cup of tea:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYuLjGQQ-jg

Can't watch that now, but will when I get the chance.

Industrializing countries are pollutors, and we have already gone through that and caused most of the problem today. However, though industrializing countries are polluting, no country pollutes like the US. Not to mention, industrializing countries are taking steps which the industrialized world did not when they were in process. So, a sliding scale in which the countries who have historically polluted the most and continue to do so, should reduce much more than industrializing countries who should still reduce some as well, makes absolute sense. The 3rd world isn't overly penalized and the 1st world starts to actually do something about the shit they are responsible for. It is the height of absurdity when someone says the US shouldn't stop unless India does too. They are unequal perpetrators, and the whole idea that I don't have to do it because Billy doesn't have to should've vanished from people minds by age 12.

fyfyp

wpfmfyp

This has been a tremendous campaign on the part of Fox News et al. Fox News is very careful never to present source data. Everything they say is about why something is wrong, not why someone might rationally believe man has caused climate change.

During and just after college, I helped collect some of the data used to show that rises in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, over tens of thousands of years, has correlated closely with rise in Earth surface temperatures in the decades to couple centuries afterwards. There is no direct way to measure the Earth's average temperature 10,000 years ago, so proxies must be used. Nevertheless, the correlations were quite impressive. CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, so the correlation is plausably causal. Man over the past 80 years has roughly doubled the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. This is one of many sets of data that argue in favor of man-caused climate change. These data sets are so fundamental to the argument that anyone discussing the issue (like the entire Rupert Murdoch media) who does not discuss this source data is lying by exclusion. The sophistry is much like what creationists do: they keep listing reasons why they are right and studiously avoid discussing evidence that weakens their position.

Do we know for sure man is causing global warming? No. Should we take it seriously? On ice melting alone, absolutely.

I think the more interesting question is who decided to launch the disinformation campaign. Who decided it was so important to fight the idea of man-caused climate change? Other than the oil and coal industries, no one has the motivation. Public opinion is just a proxy for this campaign.

.....
A vital part of doing something about global warming involves restricting 3rd world countries ability to industrialize. Taking your acid rain example to emphasize the catch 22, it is the chemical emissions of industry that cause acid rain, but without the development of industry you most likely would not have a car to worry about it rusting in the first place. When it comes to the third world, do they remain in poverty to breathe clean air, or do they industrialize and deal with the pollution as best possible. Its a no-brainer from their point of view.....

+1
** This was discussed in the OP video. Basically GW agenda shuts down undeveloped countries.
** China and India (and others) are also saying WTF. You have to be joking.
** Same thing happens when ethanol is pushed. Poor countries lose -- rise in price of staple foods.
** Many other examples -- of unintended consequences of do-gooder economics....beyond GW

This thread is kind of proving my point about GW.
1. If you question the level/future of GW, anger and sarcasm prevail as the answer.
2. the agenda is deeper then GW. (i.e. Centralized Econ/resource control. Forced lifestyles)
3. State of Fear -- If Global Warming was proven wrong, the next things on the environmentalist/socialist list would be presented. There is a bias/prejudice that GW be real.


I give credit to those who show some kind of rational argument. I do not look to agree with everything. I actually find it difficult to believe that anyone can agree on everything in this topic. If there must be agreement on everything, then there is even more reason to question it.

Some people talk about how much they dislike Bible-Thumpers (religion).
............My dislike is for the GW-evangelist standing on the corner -- and trying to convince me that the end of the world is coming. That is why I call GW a cult/religion. End of the world? We must give up everything for their belief. I am skeptical......because I believe the agenda is deeper.




-----
@Tecmo. You were once a moderator on this site. Please try setting an example of mature intelligent posts. (5000+ posts, right?)
. .. .. .. Currently your few posts seem to just want to piss on the fire.....and piss someone off. I think people are trying to maintain a level-head. We do not need you or anyone else pissing in this thread.....2+2 style.
I have already asked you to please stop. If you are bored, go piss on someone else's thread.Thanks.
.......EDIT: I always enjoyed your poker posts. helpful and thoughtful.