Global Warming

[FlFishOn]

Per unit of economic output, the 1st world is so very much cleaner that the rest of the world.

[PokerVicatin]

ha ha ha, mine probably won't bring much at auction. I will try and give an explaination of how they do this, however i will probably do a poor job. I first heard this from my macroeconomics professor at the University of Florida. Basicly you can find out how much value we put on a human life by looking at certain legislative proposals for safety features and regulations and such and we look at the cost of these measures and weather or not they were inacted. If project A was enacted and it was estimated to save an average of 100 lives a year and it costs $10 million annually then we value a human life at $100,000. Generally i think the actual figures are much lower. Where this type of analysis really becomes interesting is when a project is rejected because it is percieved as being too costly. This is a horribly oversimplified version of this method, but i hope it gets the point across. I know it an incredibly callous analysis of the value of human life but the point is that it can be done and quite accurately at that...

[FlFishOn]

"Until that is resolved, various proposed solutions are kinda retarded. How can you propose a solution when you don't really know what the problem is? "

Please spread some of this sanity around, OK?

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
What is at debate is what is causing the warming. Is is the various cycles the sun goes through, the so called "greenhouse effect", normal earth weather patterns, etc.

Until that is resolved, various proposed solutions are kinda retarded. How can you propose a solution when you don't really know what the problem is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sun solar cycle is 20 years long (as far as we know)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...cycle-data.png

compare that to CO2

[NoamChomsky]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no doubt that global warming is occuring. The earth is getting warmer and average temperatures are rising.

What is at debate is what is causing the warming. Is is the various cycles the sun goes through, the so called "greenhouse effect", normal earth weather patterns, etc.

Until that is resolved, various proposed solutions are kinda retarded. How can you propose a solution when you don't really know what the problem is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Source?

From what time period are you considering (that the earth is warming).

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
The poorest countries are the worst p[olluters.

[/ QUOTE ]


I take it as no small coincidence that those who so easily dismiss the prestigious John Feeney's sources also make up facts.

[NoamChomsky]

http://dieoff.org/page8.htm

"The full list includes a majority of the Nobel laureates in the sciences"

Just throwing this out there. I hate to appeal to knowledge based on authority (these guys must know what they're talking about) as it's something that could never possibly convince me.b

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]

Can you explain how human greenhouse emissions can be reduced, for example by one half (preferably by one order of magnitude), without crippling the world economically?

[/ QUOTE ]

I've posted links to all of this stuff before so I'm not going to dig them up again. I'd rather make a website so I don't have to repeat myself 20 times a month.

Scientists at berkeley are very close to coming out with an algae that can be used to fuel all of our cars while taking up only a very tiny amount of farm land to grow.

MIT has tons of battery technology coming out.

Algae factory scrubbers perform amazingly well cutting CO2 emissions to a fraction of what it originally was.

If ITER ever comes online (fusion power) that is zero emissions.

All of this is non-profit research btw.

OCES is zero emissions.

I'm becoming more and more confident that we not only can reduce our emissions but we can eventually become a zero emission country through technology. WIth phytoplankton seeding we should be able to become a negative emission country. The only major barrier IMO is developing a fuel cell catalyst. I strongly believe that all the other pieces can be solved with simply time and money. Even the fuel cell catalyst can be avoided if solid state batteries ever come to fruition.

The very economist you link to wants us to tax $1 a gallon and all of these programs would only cost 5 cents a gallon to fund. I really don't see why it isn't being done. Obviously the tax won't hurt the economy and the extra technology will only spur our economic development.

I'm not going to provide a ton of links because I've done them a dozen times before. I'm just going to create a website instead. Il mostro send me your e-mail cuz I know you are a great source of information despite being overly pessimistic IMO.


I'm 99% sure this is my last post for the day.

[NoamChomsky]

I just started reading this but it is an interesting debate on the subject.

http://edeldoug.blogs.com/thoughts_r...ole_globa.html

[FlFishOn]

I studied Industrial Engineering, I know all about it. It's nothing more than limited resources getting proper allocation. The same is done in pollution mitigation.