Global Warming: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Global Warming » Global Warming

Global Warming

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Global Warming

nawitus
Transhumanist

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 27, 2006
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 228

Posted 02/13/07 - 05:48 AM:	#26
Global warming is not really anything serious. We can stop the effect easily with molecular manufactoring and other technologies. People are just too stupid to realise this. Even when you read this you are not going to find out what the real power of nanotechnology is.
"In a place like this, words fail. In the end, there can only be a dread silence, a silence which is a heartfelt cry to God -- Why, Lord, did you remain silent? How could you tolerate all this?" - Pope Benedict

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1077

Posted 02/13/07 - 06:33 AM:	#27
Global warming is a very interesting topic that actually goes much beyond the scientific framework. The fact that the earth is warming up is indeed a fact backed by much data, this is not to say that such a phenomena never occured before, but simply that it is now occuring. This fact is widely accepted except indeed by cranks and pseudo-scientists. The second question is that which poses a problem: (1)Are human activities directly responsible for it ? And this is where things start to get mixed up and reach areas much remote to sciences. Because this question is often believed to be logically linked to another one often kept implicit: (2)Should we do something about it ? Actually there is no logical link between the two. Whatever is the answer to question (1), self-preservation instinct (at a specie level) will tell us to do everything we can to limit global warming, so why is there any controversy: simply because another drive, a purely egoistic one overrides the former instinct, and aims at preserving a style of life that MAY jeopardize the existence of future generations. The ineptitude of such a position will be better demonstrated if we apply it to another matter: Medicine. Let's assume that a given disease is threatening the life of some people, the normal methodology of researchers is then to find out as soon as possible a way to cure that disease, even though they may not know the exact cause of the disease, they try to treat the patients, an obvious example is cancer, nobody will think that we should not treat cancer because we dont know the exact cause of it. It is however what many opponents to the anthropogenic causation of global warming are telling us to do in regard to this problem (not unlike tabacco companies with cancer a few years ago). To ensure that, they have built a sophistic apparatus to link the question (1) and (2) that blatantly goes against the widely accepted (in other disciplins) principle of precaution, it is to be noted that such a sophistic enterprise is importantly supported by economical interests (far less visible that the ones represented in Davos) and political corruption.
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

lucretius
epicurean

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 02/13/07 - 08:37 AM:	#28
Unfortunately the cure is so absolutely terrible, namely the desisting of use of carbon based fuels rather soon before it is irreversible, and rather totally or the remedy would be useless, plunging the world into a massive depression that would lead to extensive famine and wars, until our so-called alternative fuels came on line to replace the energy deficit some 50 years from now - or we could go nuclear, build 1000 power stations and have them ready in only 20 years, and maybe blow the world apart. That's 20 years of lights out, best case scenario! Now what political leader in his right mind, barring some token lip service, is going to risk his entire career on a speculation that may turn out to be false? What's such fun is the fascinating conundrums our God thinks up for us. Never a dull moment: "AS flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods: They kill us for their sport." (King Lear) Edited by lucretius on 02/13/07 - 08:52 AM

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1077

Posted 02/13/07 - 09:00 AM:	#29
lucretius wrote: Unfortunately the cure is so absolutely terrible, namely the desisting of use of carbon based fuels rather soon before it is irreversible, and rather totally or the remedy would be useless... Well, actually, this is not that certain. We don't know what will be the net effect of a diminution of carbon emission. Meteorology is governed by non-linear equations which are chaotic in nature, a very small change in the initial conditions can have huge impact on the results. Similarly, in medicine, before starting a treatment we don't know for sure what will be the impact, it is a process of trials and errors, and it's the best we have for now. The question is then: Do we wait to have absolute certainties about a problem before starting treating it ? Which in more honest terms is to say: Do we ignore this problem forever in the name of pride and egoism ? Or do we try to do the best we can in a reasonable measure, which simply amounts to change a lifestyle from consuming and wasting as much as we can in order to satisfy our ego, to findind pleasure and satisfaction other than in neurotic consumption.
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

lucretius
epicurean

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 02/13/07 - 09:15 AM:	#30
How do you apply "a reasonable measure" using "trial and error" for such a supposedly monstrous problem. It's like trying to kill a dragon with a toothpick! Our 'milder' experiments to see if moderate reductions would help may well be quite useless, and delay the proper treatment beyond the point of no return. Either we do it or we don't do it - these half measures would seem like nothing more than appeasing a growing coterie of fanatics that desperately need to believe in something, rather than a serious attempt to deal with the problem, which we don't even yet know is a problem, or at least a problem that we can realistically do anything about. That's the conundrum: we think it is a problem that we caused but we do not yet have evidence, but the measures we would have to take would be absolutely devastating, and if we take the measures and the theory turns out to be wrong, we hurl the world back into the dark ages for no reason.

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1077

Posted 02/13/07 - 09:44 AM:	#31
lucretius wrote: How do you apply "a reasonable measure" using "trial and error" for such a supposedly monstrous problem. It's like trying to kill a dragon with a toothpick! Our 'milder' experiments to see if moderate reductions would help may well be quite useless, and delay the proper treatment beyond the point of no return. Maybe we can kill a dragon with a toothpick if we use it properly, I don't know, I am not very familiar with the biology of dragons Anyway, I don't see how moderate reductions will delay any possible proper treatment, scientists will still refine their measurements, and devise new methods to limit global warming, maybe more efficient since they will be able to see how moderate reductions modify the situation. And it's not "Either we do it or don't", there is only half-measures, we dont know how to control the climate, we can only try to maintain it, if we were to wait for full-measures before doing anything, about 100% of people with cancer would die from it. To wait for such perfect knowledge and control is not the way progress is made, it is what dark ages were made of. It does not matter whether we caused the problem or not (as I thought I clarified in my first post), the matter is whether we deal with the problem with our means, or whether we ignore it because we are not sure we can solve it fully, which is simply absurd since when you face a problem, it is very rare to know beforehand whether you can solve it or not, you have to try to solve it first.
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

lucretius
epicurean

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 02/13/07 - 10:09 AM:	#32
enkidu wrote: It does not matter whether we caused the problem or not (as I thought I clarified in my first post), the matter is whether we deal with the problem with our means, or whether we ignore it because we are not sure we can solve it fully, which is simply absurd since when you face a problem, it is very rare to know beforehand whether you can solve it or not, you have to try to solve it first. If we did not cause the problem, and it arose say through some natural process that we don't understand, or it is merely cyclical, what use would controlling carbon emissions be? Surely it would be much more absurd to try to solve a problem with draconian measures that we haven't even established is a problem, or if it is a problem it is not the same problem we think it is, and apply the wrong remedy completely.

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1077

Posted 02/13/07 - 10:30 AM:	#33
lucretius wrote: If we did not cause the problem, and it arose say through some natural process that we don't understand, or it is merely cyclical, what use would controlling carbon emissions be? Surely it would be much more absurd to try to solve a problem with draconian measures that we haven't even established is a problem, or if it is a problem it is not the same problem we think it is, and apply the wrong remedy completely. So you mean, that, let say we are going to live through a new ice age, we should just look at it and do nothing about it, because it is "natural". Mankind has the possibility to act and to alter its environment, are we to give up this possibility when it does not fit direct economical interests ? The nature of the problem is not decided by the things we do or not do about it, to determine this nature and refine solutions will not stop as soon as we are going to limit carbon emissions, it is just the most feasible step right now, and the most likely to have an influence on things, if we realise later that it is not the best one, we can still opt for a different course, but just to delay acting is to delay progress in the solving of this problem, whatever its nature is.
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1077

Posted 02/13/07 - 11:09 AM:	#34
And to go a bit against the idea of the all-nuclear alternative, here is an interesting information from http://www.solardev.com/SEIA-makingelec.php: "Utilizing only 1% of the earth's deserts to produce clean solar electric energy would provide more electricity than is currently being produced on the entire planet by fossil fuels" The Dark Ages theory dont fit very well in the reality of today's technology. To be sure though, a lot of people have a lot of interests in maintaining this kind of belief. The problems to get rid of fossil fuels are not social or even purely economical, they essentially are political.
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

jaminb
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 28, 2003
Location: London UK
Total Topics: 102
Total Posts: 359

Posted 02/13/07 - 11:25 AM:	#35
nice to see this is still going. I'm firmly sceptical about whether global warming is human-induced and whether the answer to it is actually carbon reductions. Eventually natural resources run out, talking about sustainability is simply delaying and completely offset by resource wars anyway. New technologies do appear to be the way to go and I'm optimistic. If we can put a man on the moon surely we can use the incredible power stored in the water and sun to provide loads of energy?
It's not "natural", "normal" or "kind", the flesh you so fancifully fry, the meat in your mouth, as you savour the flavour Of MURDER

Mr.PiGG
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 10, 2007
Location: Massachusetts
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 15

Posted 02/13/07 - 05:13 PM:	#36
Blah blah blah, global warming is the least of the worlds issues and if Al Gore really wanted to stop it why doesnt he stop driving his cars or flying in his jets. The goverment is also telling us that we are running out of space in America. We are "overpopulating". I think global warming if it is real is beacuase of the concetration of people on certain spots of the earth. If you take a look at google maps there is a lot of open land across the globe for people to live and settle in but sadly humans being such social beings tend to converge on the place where the most people are. but I doubt global warming is gona end us, I've been leaning more towards the reckoning.

lucretius
epicurean

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 02/14/07 - 01:09 AM:	#37
In fact, little or nothing is going to be done about it by government acting on its own, because it is always reactive and only takes action after the event. A gradual reduction of carbon based fuels will occur for the simple reason that oil is getting very expensive, and is only available in reasonable quantities for the next 40 years or so, and a very substantial increase in nuclear power is certain (China is constructing 40 nuclear power stations or more in the next 10 years and has plans for 150 over a longer period). Since uranium is fairly abundant and is found in countries friendly to the U.S., this would seem an essential option for the U.S. as well. The alternatives to nuclear power aren't very realistic. Covering the deserts in solar panels would be like jumping out of the frying pan into the fire as most of the world's deserts are in hostile nations. Wind power is not very efficient and covers the landscape with unsightly behemoths. Hydroelectric power is fine but most of the worlds' major rivers have already been exploited. And ethanol not very practical, unless produced from sugar, because you have to use almost the same amount of carbon based energy to make it as you produce in liquid ethanol, not to mention that this is causing the price of corn to rocket, leading to consternation amongst the poor in Mexico right now. You are left with one choice, which will eventually be foisted upon us by unfolding events. This will provide a limitless source of clean energy, effectively reducing carbon emissions over the ensuing years, and we can only hope and pray that there are no more Chernobyls. Of course if there are many countries using nuclear power in the future, something in fact that is highly likely, with their varying technical abilities and attentiveness to the proper standards of maintaining and running nuclear power stations, the chances of a severe cataclysmic event occurring are correspondingly increased.

swstephe
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Apr 20, 2006
Location: borneo island
Total Topics: 22
Total Posts: 1710

Posted 02/14/07 - 02:52 AM:	#38
I've already said something similar before, in another thread: global warming will get solved by "peak oil", then overpopulation will be our main concern, (again), since agriculture is very much supported by oil, (which a lot of fertilizer and pesticides directly depend on, as well as the energy to manufacture and distribute them). So the solution doesn't have as much to do with energy as with survival in the future. Ironically, the biggest oil consumers will get hurt the hardest, (imagine some family, living in the middle of the desert with their air conditioning, internet, tv, and constant supply of imported foods having to suddenly learn how to farm and survive in a such a rugged environment or emigrate to more hospitible lands, assuming those who currently own the land will let them live there. We have examples of this happening, in the past, with the Great Depression and the "dust bowls" of that era. The Ironic part is that the poorest countries, which were just barely surviving off of the land won't even notice. I don't think western governments can do anything, even if they wanted. Nobody wants to be the first to say that oil should be rationed with preference for farmers or to ban air travel and big vehicles -- especially as long as it is still possible for their friends to make money. If they try to ration now, it will drive up the prices and collapse their economy, leaving them out of power. I guess they are just going to keep partying until they are told to go home.
A software developer is someone who, when you tell them to "go to hell", they are more worried about the "goto".

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1077

Posted 02/14/07 - 07:35 AM:	#39
The problem of solar thermal energy is not that desert are in hostile nations. US deserts will be largely sufficient for US consumption, not to mention Australia that is not particularly hostile to USA. The issue is not here. It is that energy is a tool of power, if the entire world was to move to solar thermal systems, the geopolitical situation will be entirely changed, not to speak of the individual interests of those in power which will be shattered. Changes in energy policy are slow, not because of technical difficulties, but because people in power want to retain it, they want to profit from it, and a change in the statu quo about energy is a direct threat to this power. Such a change will take extreme political courage, a quality all current politicians (in USA and elsewhere) are totally devoid of, there is no other reason.
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

eleanna
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 12, 2005
Location: edinburgh/greece
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 112

Posted 02/14/07 - 01:13 PM:	#40
In the subject of global warming and whether or not it is a phenomenon which in our times has manifested itself as being man-made, there are two diametrically oppossed camps of thought for which it is almost impossible for someone to say exactly where the truth lies. There is an interesting observation to be made out of all this saga nevertheless. And that is the outmost persistant of common people to change their ways of living for the general good. I'm not going into the rigidity of governments to do something as all governments are hugely inflexible and slow reacting organisms. And that doesn't involve the politics and economics that are generally hidden from the masses. I'm talking about everyday people refusing point blank to change their ways for the good of the planet, the good of mankind and the good of future generations. Despite humans having having lived on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years, only very recently we started developing a 'green' consciousness. If we consider the cliché phrase 'where there is an action there is always a reaction' then the development of a human 'green' consciousness can be considered as a collective reaction to our actions on this planet. In that sense we can admit all of us that our actions do affect directly the life on earth. So what is wrong in deciding to take our car less, use a bike or walk or take the public transport for example? Car fumes for some may not cause global warming but next time you are in a car, driving on an avenue where there are trees, notice the tree branches next to the road, the ones exposed daily to car fumes directly and notice whether or not they look healthy. And what is wrong in recycling when this is our best option to economise in primary materials and recources? Man definetely has an impact and albeit a negative one on this planet without even touching the thorny subject of global warming. I agree that a lot of politicians have jumped on the 'green' bandwagon along with artists from all arts, in order to increase popularity for themselves but as everything is a mixture between good and bad then so be it. If Al Gore is shoved in our faces, preaching about the environment to our unwilling ears, if that succeeds in converting a population percentage worldwide to care a little bit more about our home, then it's great. We produced oil slicks tha have poisoned seas, killed marine life, created water desserts. This is man-made, isn't it? We produced smog and acide corrossive rain over our cities, breathing all kinds of chemicals just as we try to battle cancer. This is man made. We chased and killed species out of this planet, reducing the biodiversity on earth, the one thing that we simply cannot live without. Forget about global warming, if we didn't have this amazing gamut of life on this planet, our own life wouldn't be able to exist. Simple as that. And this is also man-made. We destroyed entire landscapes by extreme mining, destroying habitats that stood the test of time for thousands of years. We do have the power to change the face of earth. This is once more man-made. We produced chemicals and products completely alien to nature and we are suffocating the planet as these things won't simply biodegrate. Another man-made effect. De-forestation causing soil corrossion, depleting drinking water natural reservoirs and creating flash floods as the naked soil cannot hold water. Well, it can be tiring to hear but again no one can argue that this is not man-made. So I would suggest to forget arguing whether or not global warming is man made and do something positive instead, because changing our lifestyle won't just satisfy the 'global warming' supporters but also might save our only place in the universe.
When you set out on your journey to Ithaca, pray that the road is long...- Kavafis (Ithaca)

lucretius
epicurean

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 02/17/07 - 10:26 PM:	#41
These environmental effects that pollute the planet are certainly man made, but you do not offer a solution to global warning. You merely say "We must do something positive". One cannot deal with a problem unless it is first properly identified, which necessitates in this case clear proof that global warming is man made. Surely you would admit that to add to our woes by plunging the world economy into a major depression lasting decades, leading to mass starvation and inevitable war, would be fairly abusrd if it later turns out that global warming was caused by a natural cycle. Then, even if you successfully identify the problem, you must offer a coherent plan to subsitute the energy from carbon sources, that is one in addition to walking down to the shopping centre instead of driving. The 'green' measures suggested in previous posts simply won't work, and if they did, would take decades to put into effect. The one measure that would work to substantially substitute carbon based energy would be nuclear power, but this seems to be even more emotive, so the haggling will go in America whilst greatly increased building of nuclear power stations is happening right now in the emergent nations.

amicus_curiae
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 349

Posted 02/18/07 - 01:46 AM:	#42
The problem with nuclear power is that the general public are stupid. They hear the word nuclear and their brain instantly links up Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki and they go around completely unaware of the fact no CO2 is released which of course is our biggest problem. But Nuclear power certainly does have its problems the obvious main problem being the radioactive waste with half-lives of many thousands of years.. for example I think it is Uranium, the element, takes something like 4.51*10^(9) years to half its activity. Now thats a problem and a half but unfortunately one that our current technology cannot deal with. I disagree with you that nuclear power is the one method which would have a massive effect on emissions. I do still firmly believe that our renewable energy sources which are still majorly untapped hold the key. Why do we have to try and create cold fusion or perfect fission when we can look up into the sky and watch millions of fusion reactions happening in one second and use the energy from that. For as long as we live and our children live and their children live et cetera our Sun will always be in the sky and will always burn powerfully and the same goes for wind power it's not as if one day air is going to stop moving around and those pissy green campaigners who worry about destroying the picturesque landscape seriously have their priorities wrong. How can they possibly measure the utility gained from looking at a nice landscape with that of the life of our dear planet and all of it's inhabitants. I honestly cannot understand people like that perhaps if we have a resident psychiatrist he can prescribe them something like 3kg of elephant tranquiliser. Finally and without descending into the dark realms of conspiracy theorists it is true that about 90% of our renewable energy companies are owned by non-renewable fuel companies i.e. the oil companies. Those are truly shrewd business tactics. It saddens me that some people are so greedy and lust after the green paper so much so as to actively participate in the destruction of the environment and it won't be until our planet is effectivly on her last legs that they will re-open the airway and breathe a futile breathe into her mouth. It sickens me, Derek.
Sapere Aude! 'Have the courage to use your own reason'

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 533

Posted 02/18/07 - 04:40 AM:	#43
It doesn't matter whether we caused the problem or not (as I thought I clarified in my first post), the matter is whether we deal with the problem with our means, or whether we ignore it because we are not sure we can solve it fully. I agree, ultimately what matters is, can we mitigate the effects of, or drastically slow climate change, whatever the reason since human culture and habitats are so fragile. However it’s also important to understand how the different forcing elements contribute so we can implement effective solutions. For example if we simply grow more trees in Boreal forests this could reduce the albedo of these areas, reflecting less light and making matters worse. There seems to be a complete misjudgement of priorities at the moment. The burning of peatlands and clearing of tropical rainforest for plantations in SE Asia alone are estimated to be releasing 15% of world carbon emissions. Coal burning in the developing world is another big factor. These (and other) plants should be designed to be at least capable of being retrofitted with sequestering technology and be placed near potential sequestering sites. With regards to potential solutions, the problem is that everyone has their pet idea, which is often based more on aesthetic appeal rather than practical or economic considerations. For example solar panels and hybrid cars seem like a great idea, but the cost effectiveness of these are astronomical in relation to many alternatives, such as roof insulation and teleconferencing. Aesthetic and ideological biases also have a tendency focus on one particular class of solution, such as nuclear power, energy conservation, or sequestration. In practice, all of these together with a fundamental change in economic priorities away from growth and to that of well being may be necessary. Edited by perseus on 02/18/07 - 04:52 AM
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 02/18/07 - 07:27 PM:	#44
Well Vincent Your assumption re comsumption is presumption. Gramm Edited by Gramm on 02/18/07 - 07:33 PM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

lucretius
epicurean

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 26, 2006
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 168

Posted 02/18/07 - 08:45 PM:	#45
Because of the public furore over this, the latest reaction by governments is to pretend to agree that "global warming is definitely a problem and probably caused by man" (and so it is now no longer politically correct to argue about the matter) and something must be done about it! In fact, nothing much will be done about it except a few token measures, any more than action will be taken against bird flu', or a host of other issues. Now consider it from the government's point of view. One thing they fear is the howling mob so they must be placatory, but at the same time desist from taking action that would cause a severe depression such as would occur from cutting back substantially on carbon emissions, for they would then receive the blame for that regardless of the fact that it was a direct consequence of what the public demanded.

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1077

Posted 02/19/07 - 07:44 AM:	#46
lucretius wrote: ...a severe depression such as would occur from cutting back substantially on carbon emissions I already argued against this idea and nobody answered the argument I put forth. I can therefore assume that the existence of a causal link between a substantial cut of carbon emissions and a severe depression is false, so is the way a debate should be working as far as I know. To repeat again and again the same counter-truth in ignorance of others'argument is however not a very constructive approach.
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

Lord Drivel
rambler

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 200

Posted 02/19/07 - 09:45 AM:	#47
What you are overlooking here, even if were possible which I doubt, is the time factor. The so-called man made global warming phenomenon is now so far advanced and so serious, at least according to the experts who expound it,that even if we acted now with full scale reductions of carbon emissions ( and that's where the depression would come in, actually from reductions of even 10%, which would be virtually useless) it is already probably too late to avoid cataclysmic effects, blah blah blah. What I want to ask you, if you are serious about your proposa, how we are going to build all these solar panels in remote deserts and lay down the infra structure to carry it thousands of miles to major centres, across deserts, oceans, mountain ranges, jungles etc etc all within a few years, if a depression is to be avoided? I think not!

amicus_curiae
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 349

Posted 02/19/07 - 11:48 AM:	#48
Lord Drivel wrote: What I want to ask you, if you are serious about your proposa, how we are going to build all these solar panels in remote deserts and lay down the infra structure to carry it thousands of miles to major centres, across deserts, oceans, mountain ranges, jungles etc etc all within a few years, if a depression is to be avoided? You obviously have no understanding of the human race. They can achieve anything when they really need to. Do you really think it would take all that long if the planet as a whole were dealing with the problem and sending their best engineers and other scientific minds to these lands to assist 100% with the construction process and of course the deconstruction process involved with the removal of those old fossil fuel plants but of course we are only speaking of our wonderful Philosophy Forums Utopia. No one would ever pay attention to our equally great minds. Derek.
Sapere Aude! 'Have the courage to use your own reason'

enkidu
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 27, 2006
Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 1077

Posted 02/19/07 - 12:29 PM:	#49
This proposal is not mine, and indeed I have very little chance to be heard on this, and I dont even aim at that, I am only here to provide an information. But this proposal was made in a debate during the World Economic Forum at Davos this year, a few weeks ago really, and this debate was shown live on BBC World, it was Vinod Khosla who proposed this idea of solar thermal energy, but it obviously is just an idea, that has to be combined with many others to develop a sensible policy. I said that this means alone could provide as much energy as we now need, it does not mean that it has to be the only means to produce energy. Simply it proves that this idea of a global recession if we attempt to do anything against global warming is a myth, and it was also the sense of Khosla intervention (which in this case was arguing against the idea that nuclear was the only possible alternative). If you want more details, Vinod Khosla's blog is here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/vinod-khosla/
"The difficulty in philosophy is to say no more than we know." L. Wittgenstein - The Blue Book "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" - you know who

Gramm
Olde Worlde Skeptic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 28, 2003
Location: Seeking the seven poles of Being
Total Topics: 45
Total Posts: 4921

Posted 02/19/07 - 04:10 PM:	#50
Lord Drivel wrote: What you are overlooking here, even if were possible which I doubt, is the time factor. The so-called man made global warming phenomenon is now so far advanced and so serious, at least according to the experts who expound it,that even if we acted now with full scale reductions of carbon emissions ( and that's where the depression would come in, actually from reductions of even 10%, which would be virtually useless) it is already probably too late to avoid cataclysmic effects, blah blah blah. Exactly. The whole dubious business of 'manufacturing consensus' over Global Warming, is a classic example of Ideocratic despotism. Many of these so called Global Warming experts are falling over themselves in pronouncing doom and gloom scenarios. They use hysteria and bullying to force governments into signing profoundly damaging economic treaties that will effect societies for generations to come. But what is the point of carrying out such measures and changes, if according to their own hysterical claims....it is all too late and we're all "gonna die"...? Edited by Gramm on 02/19/07 - 04:17 PM
Light is not diminished by being shared. Desiderata

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.