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

[Franco 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.

 

I'm with phillydomer

 

How would solving climate change reverse human progress?

Edited December 6, 2018 by Franco

[irishwavend 571]

We whine about climate change but think we can colonize Mars....

[Franco 0]

We whine about climate change but think we can colonize Mars....

 

What does that have to do with anything?

 

People talking about colonization are mostly pundits. But scientists are definitely planning manned missions to Mars for research

Edited December 6, 2018 by Franco

[jessemoore97 1,280]

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

 

I don't understand how the use of fossil fuels has done some good. Without them there is no world as we know it, I'd say thats a significant amount of good. You absolutely cannot refute the enormous impact for the overall good and advancement of our species. Are there negative effects, sure, and there have been many discoveries that have been created to help mitigate those effects over the years as well.

 

Again I'm not against innovation and other energy. Its the forced conversion.

[Franco 0]

I don't understand how the use of fossil fuels has done some good. Without them there is no world as we know it, I'd say thats a significant amount of good. You absolutely cannot refute the enormous impact for the overall good and advancement of our species. Are there negative effects, sure, and there have been many discoveries that have been created to help mitigate those effects over the years as well.

 

Again I'm not against innovation and other energy. Its the forced conversion.

 

Now you're just getting caught up on semantics. I did use the word "some," but yes, I meant "significant." sheesh...

 

I'll say it again, NO ONE IS REFUTING THE ENORMOUS IMPACT OF FOSSIL FUELS ON SOCIETY

 

What we are saying is that since discovering the connection between carbon dioxide and temperature, we are advocating that we switch to something that doesn't have those negative effects.

 

Yes, it was fossil fuels brought us into the 20th century. But it will be renewable energy that brings us into the future

[jessemoore97 1,280]

Now you're just getting caught up on semantics. I did use the word "some," but yes, I meant "significant." sheesh...

 

I'll say it again, NO ONE IS REFUTING THE ENORMOUS IMPACT OF FOSSIL FUELS ON SOCIETY

 

What we are saying is that since discovering the connection between carbon dioxide and temperature, we are advocating that we switch to something that doesn't have those negative effects.

 

Yes, it was fossil fuels brought us into the 20th century. But it will be renewable energy that brings us into the future

 

And I have no problem with new energy. I have a big problem with forced coercion by governments the world over dropping the reliable and cheap fossil fuels which most everything runs on, and converting to other resources that are not as reliable, inexpensive, and currently plentiful for use.

 

Every form of energy currently has drawbacks for the environment in some way. Everyone wants to have this new green energy wave and are pushing for it....until you put it in their back yard or how it might impact some species of animal. This is a big problem.

 

How much earth has to be moved and environments destroyed to get access to the various minerals and material to make batteries for electric cars, cell phones, the parts for solar panel cells, etc? Is there enough to go around the world over and is it renewable?

 

Again, is CO2 in the atmosphere a negative? Have images of the Earth from NASA satellites indicated the planet is getting greener, meaning more plant growth? CO2 is the most basic food source on the planet.

[jessemoore97 1,280]

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

 

There were lots of innovators, inventors, or flat out geniuses who had very little to no formal education. Quick searches online can yield some results. Or if you really consider historically how human progress has been made through advancement in technology. I mean going to the bare basics of the ramp, wheel, fulcrum, etc were created by someone who wasn't formally educated in anything because there were no schools.

 

I guess we also need to define education etc. Someone like Nikola Tesla never completed his college studies and never earned a degree. Gregory Mendel was an uneducated monk who brought about genetic research. The Wright Brothers never had degrees in anything. The Indian mathmetician (sorry for lack of name) who was dirt poor and uneducated and came up with entirely new theorems in mathematics that were utterly brilliant yet unrecognized. The pages of history are filled with many examples of tinkerers, inventors, thinkers, etc who came up with new and better ideas of how to do something that revolutionized the world. More often their names are lost to antiquity, but they existed nonetheless.

[Franco 0]

There were lots of innovators, inventors, or flat out geniuses who had very little to no formal education. Quick searches online can yield some results. Or if you really consider historically how human progress has been made through advancement in technology. I mean going to the bare basics of the ramp, wheel, fulcrum, etc were created by someone who wasn't formally educated in anything because there were no schools.

 

I guess we also need to define education etc. Someone like Nikola Tesla never completed his college studies and never earned a degree. Gregory Mendel was an uneducated monk who brought about genetic research. The Wright Brothers never had degrees in anything. The Indian mathmetician (sorry for lack of name) who was dirt poor and uneducated and came up with entirely new theorems in mathematics that were utterly brilliant yet unrecognized. The pages of history are filled with many examples of tinkerers, inventors, thinkers, etc who came up with new and better ideas of how to do something that revolutionized the world. More often their names are lost to antiquity, but they existed nonetheless.

 

 

Your point of bringing up innovators that never had a science degree or formal education was a rebuttal to statement that people take scientists' discoveries for granted every day. And that's the thing, Nikola Tesla and any other person who didn't have a formal scientific background but contributed to science...Again, those are exceptions to the rule and while Nikola Tesla was brilliant, my point is he bases his innovations on previous scientific discoveries from other scientists. So he at least accepted established science

[Franco 0]

And I have no problem with new energy. I have a big problem with forced coercion by governments the world over dropping the reliable and cheap fossil fuels which most everything runs on, and converting to other resources that are not as reliable, inexpensive, and currently plentiful for use.

1) Wind and solar are about to become less expensive than energy derived from fossil fuels (I believe it's expected by 2020), and continues to become less expensive as more innovations happen

2) Governments subsidize new technologies all the time. That's how it works. Governments will prop up technologies that will benefit them in the future because they understand the market just isn't there yet. And then in time, those technologies will become cheaper through economies of scale, just as reliable, and plentiful

 

Every form of energy currently has drawbacks for the environment in some way. Everyone wants to have this new green energy wave and are pushing for it....until you put it in their back yard or how it might impact some species of animal. This is a big problem.

 

That's why governments require an environmental impact report

 

How much earth has to be moved and environments destroyed to get access to the various minerals and material to make batteries for electric cars, cell phones, the parts for solar panel cells, etc? Is there enough to go around the world over and is it renewable?

 

It's funny that you ask that when the same exact questions can be asked about fossil fuels. But fine, I'll answer. With new innovations that are leading to aluminum-ion batteries, batteries will be able to last significantly longer than lithium batteries. By all accounts, aluminum-ion batteries will replace lithium-ion batteries in the near future. And t here's plenty of aluminum, it being one of the most abundant elements on earth. It's also recyclable, which fossil fuels aren't.

 

And yes, mining for nickel, lithium, is bad for the environment. But 1) they've been cleaning up operations and imposing regulations to minimize those effects, and 2) the overall ability to reuse and recharge batteries more than make up for the effect on the environment. Something you can't say about fossil fuels.

 

And like I stated earlier, recent innovations will allow batteries to last longer and be reused more and more, and be more reliable

 

Just because it's not where it needs to be now, doesn't mean it will never be

 

Again, is CO2 in the atmosphere a negative? Have images of the Earth from NASA satellites indicated the planet is getting greener, meaning more plant growth? CO2 is the most basic food source on the planet.

 

I've addressed this in a previous post so I'll just repost it here:

No one said that CO2 isn't a bonus for vegetation and farmland, but what the study below IS saying is that drought, flooding, and heat stress due to climate change will more than offset the benefits derived from higher concentrations of CO2 for plant growth

 

"Effects of climate change on global food production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios" -- Parry et al, Global Environmental Change 2004

 

https://www.preventionweb.net/files/...production.pdf

Edited December 10, 2018 by Franco