Bill Gates Recruiting Heads of States to Stir Action Against Climate Change

[ckp160 10]

I've never understood how climate change can be a partisan topic. We're all in this ****-show together. There's nothing wrong with trying to be better stewards of the earth. As a country we should do our part... no more and no less than the other industrialized nations.

 

But that's par for the course these days being a laughing stock.

 

Yet we're the STILL the strongest presence in the world. Last I checked, the EU wasn't exactly chugging along.

Edited November 3, 2018 by ckp160

[jessemoore97 1,280]

I love seeing efforts to change to solar and wind and geothermal energy. Those make sense. I hope they continue. By all countries.

 

Why not nuclear energy?

[Kelly Gruene 26]

Why not nuclear energy?

 

Nuclear too.

Bill Gates is really big into this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/10/02/bill-gates-forges-nuclear-deal-with-china/#5e8443852c12

 

The countries with the most nuclear plants:

1. US: 99

2. France: 58

3. Japan: 43

4. Russia: 34

5. China: 28

 

So, as is almost always the case, follow the money. The title of this thread implies that Bill Gates is doing a great thing for the world. And, it may turn out that he IS doing a great thing for the world. But...he clearly has a MAJOR financial interest in climate change policy. Major.

Edited November 4, 2018 by Kelly Gruene

[Phillydomer 0]

I love how people are content to take medications developed by scientists; to rely on technology in their everyday lives that was developed by scientists; and to generally take for granted scientific theories like evolution. But all of a sudden, there's this ONE issue where every Tom, Dick, and Harry with not a whit of scientific expertise want to question the scientists whom they trust in all other areas of their life.

 

What's more likely, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is wrong, or the amateurs are letting political ideology shape their viewpoint? These arguments are beyond stupid, because people who are questioning the evidence of climate change have no interest in actually weighing evidence.

[jessemoore97 1,280]

I love how people are content to take medications developed by scientists; to rely on technology in their everyday lives that was developed by scientists; and to generally take for granted scientific theories like evolution. But all of a sudden, there's this ONE issue where every Tom, Dick, and Harry with not a whit of scientific expertise want to question the scientists whom they trust in all other areas of their life.

 

What's more likely, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community is wrong, or the amateurs are letting political ideology shape their viewpoint? These arguments are beyond stupid, because people who are questioning the evidence of climate change have no interest in actually weighing evidence.

 

What's your definition of scientist, or rather how broadly or specific do you want to get with that title? Advancements in technology happen all the time, with big impacts on the world, by people with little to no formal education or titles in science. They are amateurs, they tinkered with something or had a unintended reaction to something they were working on that revolutionized a concept, a machine, a chemical, etc.

 

Regarding your second paragraph. Political ideology seeps into the mainstream sciences a lot. What's more is the big money that's involved in science, and how money and power will drive agendas for any side of an argument. If I (your words) have no interest of actually weighing the evidence, how can I also accept the evidence presented by the UN commission and scientists associated with the Paris Accord who state that if all the proposed efforts are made to address man made climate change, very little to no temperature change will occur before the end of the century?

 

In all seriousness the only way to resolve this issue is to actually reverse human progress by centuries or millennia. That is all those inventions and other wonders people have come to rely on disappear because they are unsustainable to keep producing. We have to devolve back to a Stone Age way of life. That's patently absurd of course. Who in Western developed society especially is willing to give up all the wonderful perks that make life so easy to live in today? No one.

[Phillydomer 0]

 

In all seriousness the only way to resolve this issue is to actually reverse human progress by centuries or millennia. That is all those inventions and other wonders people have come to rely on disappear because they are unsustainable to keep producing. We have to devolve back to a Stone Age way of life. That's patently absurd of course. Who in Western developed society especially is willing to give up all the wonderful perks that make life so easy to live in today? No one.

 

This is why these arguments are pointless. Because climate-science deniers believe absolute idiocy like this, i.e. we have to be cavemen to revert climate change.

 

The other point I'll make here, because this post illustrates it so well, is the following: Jessemoore97 begins by denying the science, but he concludes by shrugging his shoulders and saying that to change the climate back we would have to change our way of life too much. That is to say, Jesse simultaneously denies climate science, then acknowledges it's probably true but expresses his unwillingness to combat it. It's the latter point that reveals the crux of the matter.

[jbrown_9999 1,020]

In 2017 the US lead the world in decreasing carbon emissions, while Canada, Spain, the EU, China, and India (all signatories of the Paris Accord) all increased carbon emissions.

 

If this is true, then why are people so against the US pulling out of the Paris Accord?

 

Also, side question, Is Spain part of the EU? (I ask since they were listed separately by Kelly Gruene)

[Kelly Gruene 26]

If this is true, then why are people so against the US pulling out of the Paris Accord?

 

Also, side question, Is Spain part of the EU? (I ask since they were listed separately by Kelly Gruene)

 

It is true: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2017/10/24/yes-the-u-s-leads-all-countries-in-reducing-carbon-emissions/#769eecdc3535.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/climate-change-carbon-emissions-rising-environment/

https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/fossil-fuels/gas-and-oil/in-2017-the-u-s-had-the-largest-reduction-in-carbon-dioxide-emissions-in-the-world/

There are nuances to it, but it is true.

You will have to answer the question about why people are so against the US pulling out. Lots of answers to that question.

 

And, you're right. Spain is part of the EU. Sorry about listing Spain separately.

Here's a list of EU member countries by population: http://www.worldometers.info/population/countries-in-the-eu-by-population/.

I'm always intrigued by populations and comparisons. For instance, the Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area has 7.4 million people. That's more people than 13 of the 28 members of the EU.

Edited November 8, 2018 by Kelly Gruene

[jessemoore97 1,280]

This is why these arguments are pointless. Because climate-science deniers believe absolute idiocy like this, i.e. we have to be cavemen to revert climate change.

 

The other point I'll make here, because this post illustrates it so well, is the following: Jessemoore97 begins by denying the science, but he concludes by shrugging his shoulders and saying that to change the climate back we would have to change our way of life too much. That is to say, Jesse simultaneously denies climate science, then acknowledges it's probably true but expresses his unwillingness to combat it. It's the latter point that reveals the crux of the matter.

 

Re-read what I said. In no way am I advocating reverting human progress to stave off "man made climate change", I even said it's patently absurd. I don't believe all the science answers or can account for all the things that impact climate, let alone specify that a majority of it positive or negative is caused by human activity. That is my stance, uneducated, ignorant, or whatever you wish to label me.

 

Sorry I didn't frame it as well as I wanted before. Like I said when the science claims X is going to happen unless we do something, and the Paris accord, UN, etc say that

the proposed counter measures to X will actually do very little to nothing to alter what's happening before the end of the century. We've heard all sorts of science based doomsday predictions that were supposed to have come true by now that were predicted over the past few decades. Nothing's happened. So for "deniers" like me healthy doses of scepticism and questioning of the science and motives that go into this matter is certainly well within my ignorant and uneducated ability to do so. I dare compare it to the people who follow things like the Mayan Clander, Nostradamus, or religious cults in predicting the end of the world which so far seem to be hitting about the same average for accuracy. When their predictions don't bear out, they trot out any number of excuses for the error, re-adjust and set up a new doomsday date. Sound familiar?

 

I guarantee there are radicals out there who have suggested a reversion of human progress in the name of staving off global doom. My tongue and cheek didn't come off very well, sorry. I'm personally content with human progress as it stands currently, though I have concerns in other science fields that are wholly different subjects altogether.

[jessemoore97 1,280]

Nuclear too.

Bill Gates is really big into this:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2015/10/02/bill-gates-forges-nuclear-deal-with-china/#5e8443852c12

 

The countries with the most nuclear plants:

1. US: 99

2. France: 58

3. Japan: 43

4. Russia: 34

5. China: 28

 

So, as is almost always the case, follow the money. The title of this thread implies that Bill Gates is doing a great thing for the world. And, it may turn out that he IS doing a great thing for the world. But...he clearly has a MAJOR financial interest in climate change policy. Major.

 

Tying into your post to jbrown, and your links. A concern I have with relying more on wind and solar is shortfalls that can occur from it. Germany has reduced its nuclear power and gone to more solar and wind power but I've read that they've had power shortages as a result of dismantling the more reliable nuclear plants. Per one of your links Germany has increased coal output and I suspect natural gas too imported from Russia, to make up for the shortfalls. France on the other hand embraced more nuclear output and seems to be better for it in their energy usage and efficiency near as I can tell.

 

To me the better bang for your buck in the clean energy game seems to be nuclear over wind and solar. We have nuke plant close to where I live and they announced just a few months ago that it will be phased out in the next few years. The state has seen a large increase in the last decade with wind energy too replacing coal plants.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Tying into your post to jbrown, and your links. A concern I have with relying more on wind and solar is shortfalls that can occur from it. Germany has reduced its nuclear power and gone to more solar and wind power but I've read that they've had power shortages as a result of dismantling the more reliable nuclear plants. Per one of your links Germany has increased coal output and I suspect natural gas too imported from Russia, to make up for the shortfalls. France on the other hand embraced more nuclear output and seems to be better for it in their energy usage and efficiency near as I can tell.

 

To me the better bang for your buck in the clean energy game seems to be nuclear over wind and solar. We have nuke plant close to where I live and they announced just a few months ago that it will be phased out in the next few years. The state has seen a large increase in the last decade with wind energy too replacing coal plants.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties

 

No thanks. Always thinking money, you will die one day. It doesn’t have to be from **** like this. Plus, these resources run out coal, uranium etc. we should be moving more sustainable everyday. World could have limited water and you would say it is okay for private companies to charge $300 a gallon and kill all the poor. As long as you have your govt funded healthcare and pension.

[jessemoore97 1,280]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster_casualties

 

No thanks. Always thinking money, you will die one day. It doesn’t have to be from **** like this. Plus, these resources run out coal, uranium etc. we should be moving more sustainable everyday. World could have limited water and you would say it is okay for private companies to charge $300 a gallon and kill all the poor. As long as you have your govt funded healthcare and pension.

 

You understand that more people have been pulled out of poverty, and the starvation, disease and death that comes with it, by way of fossil fuel consumption right?

 

Fukushima is certainly an outlier as far as nuclear goes. When was the last major US nuclear power incident? Three Mile Island? The industry has come a long ways since then. While I am not intricately familiar with all things nuclear, we have regular training given our close proximity to a plant. Needless to say it's surprising what classifies as an event for them. It doesn't take much, and that level of awareness and reaction gives me more faith in the nuclear industry here in the US at the very least.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

You understand that more people have been pulled out of poverty, and the starvation, disease and death that comes with it, by way of fossil fuel consumption right?

 

Fukushima is certainly an outlier as far as nuclear goes. When was the last major US nuclear power incident? Three Mile Island? The industry has come a long ways since then. While I am not intricately familiar with all things nuclear, we have regular training given our close proximity to a plant. Needless to say it's surprising what classifies as an event for them. It doesn't take much, and that level of awareness and reaction gives me more faith in the nuclear industry here in the US at the very least.

 

I don’t deny your first paragraph. But there is still **** coming in to California, wa, and Oregon coast from that nuclear disaster, not to mention 573 lives lost. I am just thinking forward, why not invest of more innovative ideas? Why fight it? You also may not know how long it takes to tear down a nuke plant, 7-10 years and over a billion dollars.

 

Trumps government report https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/climate-change-report-bn/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

 

Case closed

Edited November 24, 2018 by Jim2Dokes

[Kelly Gruene 26]

I am just thinking forward, why not invest of more innovative ideas? Why fight it? ...

 

Case closed

 

Innovative ideas may be great. But, they do cost a lot, and often don't work.

 

Let's see what the NY Times has to say about the biofuel debacle:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/magazine/palm-oil-borneo-climate-catastrophe.html

[coltssb 1,044]

At some point our resources are going to become limited-over population/droughts etc. Global warming or not, we are going to have to figure this out. The Earth getting hotter is just going to exasperate things.

[jessemoore97 1,280]

I don’t deny your first paragraph. But there is still **** coming in to California, wa, and Oregon coast from that nuclear disaster, not to mention 573 lives lost. I am just thinking forward, why not invest of more innovative ideas? Why fight it? You also may not know how long it takes to tear down a nuke plant, 7-10 years and over a billion dollars.

 

Trumps government report https://www-m.cnn.com/2018/11/23/health/climate-change-report-bn/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F

 

Case closed

 

You mean radiation right? Otherwise debris and the like from Japan was because of the earth quake and tsunami disaster, and was washed out to the sea. Also all those deaths or a vast number of them were caused by the tsunami and not Fukushima directly.

 

Yep it takes awhile to decommission a nuke plant, we are just beginning that for our local plant. I'd argue the cost because it depends on the plant and how big it is, ours is relatively small and isn't approaching that amount. In the meantime I believe we are replacing it with a coal plant but I may be wrong. I prefer nuclear though because our plant has been working very well and was good for our needs, not to mention was very safe.

 

I'm all for innovation, it's one of the greatest hallmarks of capitalism. If people want to invest their money into new ideas and the people who create new things then awesome. I don't want my tax dollars going into it and the government picking what should be invested in, they don't have a very good track record of it and scheduling/timelines for completion isn't any better. If someone comes up with a viable, working, affordable, and long term solution to energy production I'm all for it.

[corysold 0]

At some point our resources are going to become limited-over population/droughts etc. Global warming or not, we are going to have to figure this out. The Earth getting hotter is just going to exasperate things.

 

Really though? Wind power is unlimited. Solar power is unlimited. Tidal forces are unlimited. Sure, fossil fuels have limits, but even those seem to be pretty far off, but don't you think humans will just engineer solutions?

 

At this point, 20-25% of the worlds' electricity comes from renewable sources and there really hasn't even been any pressure to do that. I'd imagine humans can get that very near 100% very quickly if it was shown to be needed to be done.

[Franco 0]

You understand that more people have been pulled out of poverty, and the starvation, disease and death that comes with it, by way of fossil fuel consumption right?

 

Oh boy...not this one

 

No one has said that fossil fuel didn't pull people out of poverty and didn't provide some good

 

The point people are trying to make is that ever since we started using fossil fuels, scientists have also discovered its negative effects and we need to switch to renewable resources

[Franco 0]

What's your definition of scientist, or rather how broadly or specific do you want to get with that title? Advancements in technology happen all the time, with big impacts on the world, by people with little to no formal education or titles in science. They are amateurs, they tinkered with something or had a unintended reaction to something they were working on that revolutionized a concept, a machine, a chemical, etc.

 

I'm actually genuinely curious, what advancements in technology and science came from people without formal education or "titles in science"? I know I'm setting myself up here because I'm sure there's a handful of people out there that innovated something interesting, but we're talking about big scientific discoveries that has lead to advancements in our lives. Such things as:

 

My point is that any example you list would be exceptions that prove the rule that scientists need formal education

 

I'm seriously getting weary from all this mistrust in scientists when our everyday lives depends on the research, and mathematical laws that they've discovered

 

Our phones use satellite technology that depends on Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

Computers you're currently typing on to try and rebut this comment depend on Ohm's Law and Kirchoff's Law

Your car's engine was engineered applying the the laws of Thermodynamics

 

I'll wait till you make a list of innovations from people without any formal education. I'm sure there are some, but my point is that those innovations would not be possible without scientific laws that were discovered by scientists with formal education and with actual scientific backgrounds

Edited December 6, 2018 by Franco

[Franco 0]

Tying into your post to jbrown, and your links. A concern I have with relying more on wind and solar is shortfalls that can occur from it. Germany has reduced its nuclear power and gone to more solar and wind power but I've read that they've had power shortages as a result of dismantling the more reliable nuclear plants. Per one of your links Germany has increased coal output and I suspect natural gas too imported from Russia, to make up for the shortfalls. France on the other hand embraced more nuclear output and seems to be better for it in their energy usage and efficiency near as I can tell.

 

To me the better bang for your buck in the clean energy game seems to be nuclear over wind and solar. We have nuke plant close to where I live and they announced just a few months ago that it will be phased out in the next few years. The state has seen a large increase in the last decade with wind energy too replacing coal plants.

 

Can you provide a link to where you read that Germany is at risk of power shortages because I can't find it anywhere

 

As a disclaimer, I'm not necessarily against Nuclear Fission power plants =)