Solutions to climate change brings us:

I don't want electricity or transportation to be any more expensive for anyone in the lower classes in industrialized countries right now though

How much did the climate change alarmist organizations pay you to make this argument?
This is just like how the creationists keep trying new ways to argue their point until they're successful in getting Creationism taught in science class.
And in the end you get to crush the middle class and businesses with pointless regulations and taxes so that you can get your research funded.
all the while claiming ethical and moral superiority
that hypocrisy alone is enough to make you a disgusting human being.

it's the leftist/marxist's strategy that they just won't give up on, and it's a very poor one

the weaponized compassion and contempt for the "uneducated" (aka unindoctrinated) is just plain nauseating

back to (((pol))) with you

Is this pasta?

no, but you can use it if you like
I don't even believe that shit, I just like to play devils advocate from time to time

...

>In the end, even if it turns out to be false, we still get a lot of benefits from trying to solve it
This is wrong on two counts.
First if you admit being lied to is OK you are just going to empower liars and crooks.
Secondly, if you are not addressing the actual problem which is fossil fuel depletion and instead trying to fix a non existent problem such as stray CO2 molecules in an atmosphere of fear mongering you are squandering precious resources while in reality solving nothing. We are already seeing this with disgustingly expensive CO2 sequestration processes.

There are big changes coming down the pipe no question. Should you invent or discover some great alternative to fossil fuels you need neither the IPCC and their mothership the UN or a gang of liars and crooks.

The first step is to educate yourself on energy sources and energy sinks, viable workable alternatives to fossil fuels and not just minuscule supplemental systems, EROEI and perhaps most importantly history! Everyone wants to rule the world!

Too bad the side that is pro AGW climate change theory is the side that is backed by saudi arabia which wants a natural oil pipeline from syria to saudia arabia and qatar, undercutting russia, backed by US military forces.

Um, pebble bed reactor? Helium cooled reactor? Using fission isotopes like thorium? The entire point of nuclear reserch is to find ways to eliminate waste and dangerous materials while increasing energy output.

Honestly we should be moving towards clean energy sources regardless of climate change. It fucking sucks walking in a city, breathing in all these nasty fumes

NASA and other scientific agencies agree that it is a problem. At this point, people who don't recognize it are just as irrational as people who say vaccines cause autism and that GMOs are dangerous. For fossil fuel depletion, that could just as easily be solved with the same solutions to climate change as posted above.

>OK you are just going to empower liars and crooks.

crooks and liars that want cleaner air? fuck yes.

>, even if it turns out to be false, we still get a lot of benefits from trying to solve it.

Be glad you don't live in China.

Okay, who's gonna give all the infinite money necessary for this change?

who's going to give infinite money to purify the air after it becomes toxic?

You can bet your ass it won't be those who polluted it. Forcing them to pay BEFORE they cause the damage is the only way to make them be responsible for the damage they're going to cause/will cause.

A plastic mask only costs a buck, problem solved :-)

This.

You should be required to get a minor in economics if you're going to be a climatologists.

How do you know that it takes more money to purify air than it does to do all the things necessary to have clean energy ?

That's basic entropy.

You should be required to get a minor in physics if you're going to be a climatologists.

The things that purify air and the things that create clean energy are different

It requires different amounts of money for each

Not every clean energy source is equally efficient and equally expensive

Most physicists believe in climate change anyway. They're not stupid enough to deny something based on ideology.

Like how most modern scientists deny differences between races or else they get ostracized and shamed

That's based on your gut feeling than anything else.

based on reality

telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html

can bring many examples like this, like the guy who wrote a book about IQ

any time this issue is brought up filthy reality deniers get uncomfortable because the scariest thing in their life is to be accused of racism

Didn't you hear? 97% of scientists agree that we're the primary cause of Global Warming. Stop wasting time trying to attack "climate change deniers" and go pass whatever legislature you want -- we're a tiny minority so what is stopping you? Better hurry up though and do it before January.

>crooks and liars that want cleaner air? fuck yes.
Look at what you just typed. Wew, you are a bit naive, good luck in life!

>relying less on dead organic material to fuel our cars
Pls no, let's do biofuel instead.

Industrial bioreactors for biofuels have potential to:
1. Provide byproducts useful in the chemical and pharmaceutical sectors
2. Clean air pollution as they absorb CO2 and other gasses
3. Provide a job market for tons of people
4. Lower our dependence on mining and other majorly polluting industries

Why would anyone be opposed to having an organic based energy sector?

>36 replies
>19 posters

ITT: one angry guy from /pol/ defends himself against all of Veeky Forums

Like I said. Gut feelings more than anything else.

>Slightly over half of all biological/physical anthropologists today believe in the traditional view that human races are biologically valid and real. Furthermore, they tend to see nothing wrong in defining and naming the different populations of Homo sapiens.

It seems more of a debate on whether or not it is useful to define humans by race, rather than by ethnicity or geography.

This is opposed to

>The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society (AMS). Of those who replied, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming is now occurring," 5% disagreed, and 12% didn't know.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists'_views_on_climate_change

>more investment in nuclear and fusion power
no, tax breaks for buying solar (expired)
>more efficient and viable electric cars, renewables
High gas prices and market demand are why hybrid and electric cars exist
>relying less on the middle east for oil
Saudi Arabia crashed the price of oil and USA has more known oil reserves than they could ever use
>relying less on dead organic material to fuel our cars
no
>cleaner air and water
Global warming politics do nothing to reduce non-CO2 or methane pollutants.

There are scientists who've spoken against climate change and they weren't ostracized. In fact, even after it was discovered he wastaking bribes from the energy sector to do fake studies on climate change, EVEN AFTER ALL THAT he wasn't ostracized and he still gets funding.

www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
>Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money.

I would love any and all of the things mentioned in the OP. I'm an environmentalist, currently working in an environmental chemistry lab as a chemist, and yet I would be labeled as a "climate change denier" because of my stance on the issue.

The problem with saying "let's just fix climate change and all of these things come true" is that this is not the vision our government has (had? now that Trump's coming in) for ameliorating the issue. Rather than aiding investigations/facilitating scientific advancement (something I think all Americans could agree on), we got a big fat carbon emissions tax -- which leading industries promptly formed a small economy around through trading carbon credits.

It's abundantly clear that this is no ordinary "science" debate. It's a debate that has been made highly emotional and is fueled too heavily by lobbying interest groups in the name of money. Not in the name of factual science. You know there are foul interests at play when a thread such as this can fill up with corroborated data proving the validity of either extreme stance on the issue. Obviously the Earth had only one true average temperature last year, and yet I can show you peer-reviewed data to legitimize whatever opinion I want simply by favoring certain detection methods that showed hotter or colder average temperatures.

My advice to all you youngsters that are considering careers in science: beware if "97% of scientists" in one field agree on something while it is currently under extensive research. That's a pretty good indication that the output results aren't impartial. The most rigid, inarguable science we've all come to know and love was strengthened over time by the countless attempts to disprove it.

>There are scientists who've spoken against climate change and they weren't ostracized.

He was ostracized, but not enough honestly. Fossil fuel shills need to fuck off.

>Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden.

Not so hidden now.

Hmm, what is the "marxist" goal then? You really want to keep burning coal as solar and wind keeps getting cheaper and cheaper? You really think you're not indoctrinated by the propaganda created by lobbyists for oil companies? Its not just the evil commies who are tricking ppl.

Geothermal doesn't last forever, when the rocks cool down locally you have to drill a new hole somewhere else. The heat of the planet as a whole is irrelevant because rocks don't conduct heat that well.

Here's an idea I'm currently pondering. I'll probably get around to calculating what scale exactly would be necessary to accomplish this but here's the basic idea, feel free to help brainstorm:

>Build electrochemical cells directly into the ocean on a massive scale that use carbonic acid/bicarbonate equilibrium in water to generate a voltage
>this will raise pH of the ocean thereby stopping/slowing ocean acidification

>Use energy generated from carbonic acid cells to (somehow) distribute iron into the ocean
>iron stimulates phytoplankton blooms on a massive scale wherever the cells are placed
>plankton remove CO2 from atmosphere

Also just to avoid a shit-storm since Veeky Forums is pretty hot to debate AGW: I'm not implying any strong belief one way or another about the exact role humans play in global climate -- this is simply a method of using CO2 in the atmosphere and derivatives in the ocean to do something productive.

>Geothermal doesn't last forever, when the rocks cool down locally you have to drill a new hole somewhere else. The heat of the planet as a whole is irrelevant because rocks don't conduct heat that well.

you didn't drill it deep enough if that is what your problem was.

To add: as far as what to do with the energy generated by the ocean batteries, I'm not really sure. The iron idea is just a starting point. I've also considered using the energy to pump IR-reflective molecules into the upper atmosphere or pull CO2 out of the atmosphere -- by selectively reacting CO2 in air with some carboxylation mechanism.

>race, ethnicity

nice semantics

You put more energy in than you get out. That's why fossil fuels are great, they have been steeping for a long time and are ready to go. The logical course is to use them up, let depopulation run its course and then rebuild a civilization that won't be, can't be reliant on fossil fuel. There will be no stopping the use of fossil fuels until the process costs more energy than you get out and at out current rate of use that will be sometime this century. Best just deal with that fact.

Just call a spade a spade for fucks sake. It's a literal political power grab. If there is one way to make life harder for the average ape on this planet just introduce an enormous bureaucracy built on lies.

This actually has some potential but like any alternative, they seem to require the copious use of the petrochemical infrastructure to launch and maintain. Take nuke plants for example. They are so expensive to build and maintain that they cannot even be budgeted in this day and age because we are already into the age of oil price instability. Then you factor in the refining of radioactive rocks and disposal of spent rods its expensive. Doesn't even address mass transportation of goods because 1 billion internal combustion engines along with that infrastructure will not be replaced with batteries, plastic electric cars and power outlets, not enough resources left sorry. Down the road $100/barrel oil will seem like a bargain and when the poverty and misery take hold in the first world there are going to be a lot of angry and regretful climate cultists.

There is nothing wrong with CO2 concentrations, it is not a pollutant and not a problem. the big lie is sending you down the road to babble.

>they (geothermal) seem to require the copious use of the petrochemical infrastructure to launch and maintain

to launch, hell yes, to get the infrastructure up and running would be huge. To maintain? No. see this

No. Climate change has always been happening on this planet. We don't live in a bubble. This planet is in constant flux over time and there is no indication that we have come to some kind of equilibrium that has only been changed due to our actions. For all we know, periodic ice ages is as natural as increasing temps due to large concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (Jurrasic was a hot time with lots of plant life, but we woudln't be able to breath back then because there was less O2 and tons of CO2).

There are many big holes on this crust that we created. No reason we can't toss the waste in there and bury it. Better on/in the ground than in the air. Air transport is way more "fluid" than solids under the ground, so long as you keep them away from ground water.

Depends on the specific properties of the location you plan to drill. Some places of larger amounts of heat capacity being delivered to the surrounding rocks, the rocks are different and have different heating properties, the material to drill through is always different, and the depth needed to drill to is always different.

Optimally, a short drill depth, with large amounts of heat capacity in the surrounding rocks is the best you can hope for. Iceland is a great spot for this because of the mid-Atlantic rift zone. The heat capacity is large and close to the surface, giving them bascially infinite amounts of geothermal energy.

But geothermal is never maitenance free, and maintenance is a costly problem, coming close to the initial installation costs due to the depth of pipes/pumps/etc that need to be replaced/fixed. Ground shifts, and in places like Iceland, it shifts alot.

Geothermal has great potential, but we are still lacking some innovation to solve some of the problems. A self maintaining system that is flexible and durable would be a perfect system. But that might require some sort of bio/nano-material-tech that we are still no where near.

>In the end, even if it turns out to be false, we still get a lot of benefits from trying to solve it.

"No"

if the scientists are right, we could cool the planet by injecting chemicals into the atmosphere (we figured this out in the 90's). if the scientists are right, we could harness nuclear/solar/wind/whatever non-carbon based energy source to create a global carbon control infrastructure (aka a weather machine).

so yeah, lets just go do these radical things because 97% agree. lets ignore the fact that if they are wrong, we could legit initiate an extinction event. oh, by the way, who gets the keys to the weather machine?

>con-artists and Cultural Marxists are trying to make the world a better place

>There is nothing wrong with CO2 concentrations, it is not a pollutant and not a problem.
>If I assert things they are true.

>No. Climate change has always been happening on this planet.
>periodic ice ages is as natural as increasing temps due to large concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere
Jesus fucking Christ, is there every moron out on Veeky Forums today?
Yes, climate is always changing. That doesn't mean that all changes are on the same scale, or occur at the same rate. The current warming is highly unusual, and occurring much faster than the normal glacial-interglacial pattern.
In addition, you'd assuming that natural climate changes weren't an issue for the life alive then - they often were.

>This planet is in constant flux over time and there is no indication that we have come to some kind of equilibrium that has only been changed due to our actions.
The planet was more-or less at equilibrium on human time-scales. It differently wasn't at equilibrium on geological timescales.

Cucks like you are the reasong climate is changing

There were much less cucks in humanity at any time in the past as there are now after WW2

So climate started rising to burn all the cucks

Correlation = causation

>geothermal
We really don't want to be siphoning heat out of the earth's core any quicker than it's already dissipating bruh. Global warming might be an issue but not having a global magnetic shield is gonna be a whole lot worse.

>USA has more known oil reserves than they could ever use
Wew, lad. Sounds like a challenge to me.

>if the scientists are right, we could cool the planet by injecting chemicals into the atmosphere

if we figured that out that's be awesome!! We'd have the 2 tools necessary to teraform any terrestrial planet. I mean we know how to heat up a planet, if we knew how to cool it down that'd be perfect.

>send rocket to mars with terraforing chemicals
>rapidly heat up planet to livable temperatures and melt all ice deposites
>use chemicals to cool the planet or slow down warming process once it reaches optimum temperature

I think he is talking about Silver Nitrate being used to seed rain clouds. If that's what he's talking about it doesn't work the way he thinks it does.

>We really don't want to be siphoning heat out of the earth's core any quicker than it's already dissipating bruh. Global warming might be an issue but not having a global magnetic shield is gonna be a whole lot worse.

you could run all the needs of humanity until the sun went super nova and never make a meaningful dent in the temperature of the planets molten core.

You could significantly reduce our waste and improve the material conditions of citizens through land reform and urban planning but we can't because
>muh high tech solutions for a high tech economy

The Cold War doomed us to this fate. Sometimes I think the olds were disappointed when we didn't all die in a nuclear inferno so they have devised new ways to ensure that Cold War 2.0 is guaranteed to result in catastrophe.

I watched a show on that setup and it was impressive but yeah, only certain places are optimal geothermal sites. There is also hot spring water that can be tapped but like drilling for anything, exploration can be expensive. You could just build homes underground near the heat but then you get the Radon gas in the lungs and die of lung cancer.

Well yeah the climate cultists would have a heyday with that anyway, start moaning about extra heat being dumped into the atmosphere or whatever which really brings us straight to the point of the AGW meme. To turn the lights out, force energy poverty unto the first world or what's left of it, and usher in the new age dark ages where the despots of the world will thrive once again. This is also why AGW has all the markers of any religion or cult, same people behind it and now bastardizing the entire field of science in the process killing tow birds with one stone in a way.