Quote: Original post by Momoko_Fan

Quote: http://www.skepticalscience.com/

The fact that this kind of site even exists implies to me that global warming is currently in a hot debate with no conclusive facts.

Errr.... not such a "hot" debate.



Here's a global warming factoid for you.
You can check all 75+ national organizations of science around the globe which have a stance on global warming, and ZERO of them side with the denialists.


Zero.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: the event had some of the scientists involved scrambling to explain their emails and skeptics believing they had found a smoking gun.

Two words: CIA PROPAGANDA

You were warned BY THEM a few years ago that you'd be propagandized towards their interests.

British. Do they decide anything at all since WW2?

Screw them*.

* The decision makers, not the soccer fans.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
I still don't get this supposed "liberal politicization."

The Democrats stand to gain .... what exactly that would compromise their objectivity?? Are we supposed to believe that the super-powerful scientist lobby is outclassing ExxonMobil and the rest of the energy industry? Where exactly is the compromising upside for politicians who support an issue that doesn't exactly fire up masses of voters and doesn't make the deep-pocketed lobbyists happy?

^^Did any of the denialists come up with an answer for this one...?

It hardly needs answering The political incentive is crystal clear. It provides a reason for an increase in government power. Politicians arnt exactly averse to that.

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by LessBread
What new government powers? Governments already have the power to levy taxes and regulate pollution.

Shades of grey, dear less. But for a qualitative difference; I bet the international aspect of it has its appeals.

So, you want us to believe that politicians have compromised their objectivity all for the sake of some nebulous "need for power (to do things they can already do)," and the need is so strong that these politicians don't mind pissing off voters and lobbyists. Yeah. Thanks for clearing that up for us.

You lost me at 'politicians have compromised their objectivity'. That phrase just didnt parse.

If you look at the governmental entities the most eager on AGW, such as the european union or the UN, im not sure what your arguments concerning voters and lobbyists have to do with anything. These entities are not democracies. Nothing even resembling democracies.

That said, the feigned outrage of the developing world at being promised only tens of billions is a nice bit of cynical realism too.

Quote: Original post by Kaze
Technically everything in the atmosphere is a green house gas. If the earth had no insulation it would be a frozen desert like mars. Since the difference between 0% and 100% of current greenhouse gas is the difference between a frozen rock and what we have now 1% is a fairly large variable.

Funny that you use Mars as an example. 95% of mars atmosphere is CO2 and Mars has roughly 1% of the atmosphere of earth. A quick google search failed me but the NASA study of terraforming Mars concluded that CO2 would be inconsequential to any serious effort to generate a Martian atmosphere.

If I recall correctly the conclusion was tons upon tons of methane or CFC's to over come the attrition of atmosphere.

As always, it proves nothing, just something fun to look at.

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
That's a rather ironic coming from someone who advances anarcho-capitalist theories here...

Given the following two political approaches:
A) Analyze the problems and failures within the current scenario, and how dozens of various interventions could alter the situation for better and worse. Tally up the financial and social costs, and debate the worthiness; versus,
B) The answer is always "No" to government intervention, regardless of the situation. We propose you should ALWAYS let the market figure it out.

Which one could possibly be the "one size fits all" mentality?


Quite unlike anarcho-capitalism, the consideration of government intervention doesn't come with a pre-determined "solution."

Or put another way.

Your way: We need a government body to pass a law and kill people who don't follow it if they resist too fervently. But it's ok because were killing them for their own good.

Alternative: Find a way to monetize the pollution issue and see if we can sort it out without gunplay.

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by Kaze
Technically everything in the atmosphere is a green house gas. If the earth had no insulation it would be a frozen desert like mars. Since the difference between 0% and 100% of current greenhouse gas is the difference between a frozen rock and what we have now 1% is a fairly large variable.

Funny that you use Mars as an example. 95% of mars atmosphere is CO2 and Mars has roughly 1% of the atmosphere of earth. A quick google search failed me but the NASA study of terraforming Mars concluded that CO2 would be inconsequential to any serious effort to generate a Martian atmosphere.

If I recall correctly the conclusion was tons upon tons of methane or CFC's to over come the attrition of atmosphere.

As always, it proves nothing, just something fun to look at.

The fundamental problem with mars is that its lost its magnetic field, most likely the planets core has cooled to the point the iron in it is no longer liquid enough to circulate and generate electricity. Without this field the solar wind blows most of its atmosphere away into space so even if you evaporate the dry ice in the polar regions mars will never have enough atmosphere to become earth like on its own. Theoretical you could manufacture gases from local materials to beef up the atmosphere but it would almost certainly require self replicating machines or bio-engineered life forms to accomplish.

Quote: Original post by Kaze
The fundamental problem with mars is that its lost its magnetic field, most likely the planets core has cooled to the point the iron in it is no longer liquid enough to circulate and generate electricity. Without this field the solar wind blows most of its atmosphere away into space so even if you evaporate the dry ice in the polar regions mars will never have enough atmosphere to become earth like on its own. Theoretical you could manufacture gases from local materials to beef up the atmosphere but it would almost certainly require self replicating machines or bio-engineered life forms to accomplish.

Yeah, it's a very interesting subject. I've seen studies that claim we could eventually effective a permanent atmosphere but the big issue is liquid water. The whole evaporation cycle doesn't work without a strong magnetic field. Something to the effect that water vapor gets broken into it's elements and the hydrogen is light enought to escape the atmosphere because the radiation input gives it enough energy to do so.

So how does one go about restarting a techtonic plate system? :)

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by HostileExpanse
That's a rather ironic coming from someone who advances anarcho-capitalist theories here...

Given the following two political approaches:
A) Analyze the problems and failures within the current scenario, and how dozens of various interventions could alter the situation for better and worse. Tally up the financial and social costs, and debate the worthiness; versus,
B) The answer is always "No" to government intervention, regardless of the situation. We propose you should ALWAYS let the market figure it out.

Which one could possibly be the "one size fits all" mentality?


Quite unlike anarcho-capitalism, the consideration of government intervention doesn't come with a pre-determined "solution."

Or put another way.

Your way: We need a government body to pass a law and kill people who don't follow it if they resist too fervently. But it's ok because were killing them for their own good.

Alternative: Find a way to monetize the pollution issue and see if we can sort it out without gunplay.

Your obligatory (and silly) "gunplay" rhetoric aside, even when put that way, to "pass a law" entails ALL of the research/analysis/debate that I already mentioned. Your "find a way" is likely more accurately written as "wait indefinitely for some brilliant capitalist to find a way"*.... which we all are smart enough to recognize as really boiling down to "do nothing, sit and wait."

Those who know a bit about an-cap types also recognize that the "sit and wait" approach is the suggestion they make regardless of the problem, pretty much the definition of "one size fits all." As contrasted to an approach whose solutions must be tailored to the specific issue at hand.









* a profit-driven approach to air pollution is an especially farcical idea since anarcho-capitalists require strong property rights and it's almost certain that no one in our modern age can enforce private claims of ownership on the air/atmosphere effectively.

[Edited by - HostileExpanse on December 13, 2009 3:12:33 AM]

Quote: Original post by Dreddnafious Maelstrom

Quote: Original post by Kaze
The fundamental problem with mars is that its lost its magnetic field, most likely the planets core has cooled to the point the iron in it is no longer liquid enough to circulate and generate electricity. Without this field the solar wind blows most of its atmosphere away into space so even if you evaporate the dry ice in the polar regions mars will never have enough atmosphere to become earth like on its own. Theoretical you could manufacture gases from local materials to beef up the atmosphere but it would almost certainly require self replicating machines or bio-engineered life forms to accomplish.

Yeah, it's a very interesting subject. I've seen studies that claim we could eventually effective a permanent atmosphere but the big issue is liquid water. The whole evaporation cycle doesn't work without a strong magnetic field. Something to the effect that water vapor gets broken into it's elements and the hydrogen is light enought to escape the atmosphere because the radiation input gives it enough energy to do so.

So how does one go about restarting a techtonic plate system? :)

The closest thing to a practical answer I can think of is to use high temperature superconductors to build a mag sail on a few asteroids. The mag sails have the advantage of being able to operate indefinitely without needing any refuelling or maintenance aside from micro meteor damage. Smash half the asteroid belt into mars until its a ball of magma, then send a few comets to cool down the surface and add water.

Quote: a profit-driven approach to air pollution is an especially farcical idea since anarcho-capitalists require strong property rights and it's almost certain that no one in our modern age can enforce private claims of ownership on the air/atmosphere effectively.

You mean there are things in the universe which humans cannot arbitrarily claim?

Are you saying that I cannot morally or physically discriminate on who gets air based on the capital they give me?

Are you saying that blind belief in a magical fairy which makes everything alright is counter-productive?

Are you saying that sometimes we actually have to "work together" to solve problems which affect all of us, or to protect property which belongs to all of us?

Wow! Tell me more of your strange customs.

[Edited by - WazzatMan on December 13, 2009 9:22:51 AM]