Then why isn't every American company doing everything they can to reduce pollution? Why are there still coal and oil power plants? Why do American car companies still produce non-hybrid cars, trucks, and SUVs?
DShiznit wrote:
Then why isn't every American company doing everything they can to reduce pollution? Why are there still coal and oil power plants? Why do American car companies still produce non-hybrid cars, trucks, and SUVs?
Companies need to also make money and while most aren't going out of their way to destroy the environment they also cannot afford to spend extreme amounts of money to make their product 1% more environmentally friendly.
Coal power plants are still one of the most cost effective and efficient ways to generate electricity, if you have some brilliant new tech that is cheaper and yet generates more power be my guest to inform us all of what it is. Maybe tell the power companies while your at it.
Because hybrids aren't perfect and some people actually need vehicles that can move things. Also on less aerodynamic vehicles like trucks and SUVs hybrid engines make even less of an impact. Not to mention hybrid engines cost more to build and maintain.
"Always code as if the person who will maintain your code is a maniac serial killer that knows where you live" -Unknown
"If you've done something right no one will know that you've done anything at all" -Futurama
"Have a nice day, or not, the choice is yours." Tom Steiner
<Michael_V> or create a Borg collective and call it The 83+
<Michael_V> Lower your slide cases and prepare to be silent linked. Memory clears are futile.
DShiznit: because you're imposing a false dichotomy by assuming that a transition to sustainable practices is an instantaneous process that doesn't require education or research.
elfprince13 wrote:
DShiznit: because you're imposing a false dichotomy by assuming that a transition to sustainable practices is an instantaneous process that doesn't require education or research.
Companies are willing to do all kinds of research if it makes them more money(look at the big oil companies funding research on how 'wind farms hurt low-flying birds'), but as TheStorm pointed out, reducing pollution doesn't make them money (yet), so they aren't going to do it of their own accord.
I like the idea of using reasonable proposals to transition companies into slowly reducing pollution over time, I'm just not sure it will be effective in the real world, but by all means, good luck.
None of this changes the fact though that large sheets of ice *are* melting, and habitats *are* disappearing as a result. I shouldn't have to explain to you the permanent repercussions of these events on the global ecosystem.
DShiznit wrote:
I shouldn't have to explain to you the permanent repercussions of these events on the global ecosystem.
Yes you do, because even if we are doing damage it is far from certain if it's permanent. Global climate change is certainly not limited to man's actions, just look at the ice ages for proof of that. There's also evidence of other extinction level events.
Global climate change, while likely real, *might* be caused by man (we don't know for sure), and the damage is far from known and we have no clue what is and isn't permanent.
Reducing oil use has far more immediate benefits anyway, such as reducing the income of middle eastern countries that aid terrorists. We are pretty much funding the terrorists, not to mention ridiculous "wars" that are all about gaining more stable sources of oil. There is also the visible impact of pollution such as smog, making places unhealthy to live.
As for companies doing things about it, you just aren't looking very carefully. Google has solar panels on the roofs of it's buildings, providing something like 30% of it's power. Google has also done some very interesting stuff in the computer power supply area, getting 90%+ efficient PSUs for their servers at a time when 80% was very rare (now ~85% is about the best you'll get out of a high end consumer PSU). I think it's HP that is building a new energy efficient data center that makes good use of natural cooling and air currents, reducing the power needed to cool it by a huge percentage. Reducing pollution might not *make* them any money, but it can certainly *save* them money in the form of reduced utility costs (which can be substantial).
While this is true, fossil records indicated a fairly consistent Global average temperature up until the industrial age. Also, Silver did not tarnish until after we started blasting carbon into the air, another point I believe is understated. I mean, c'mon, we've already changed the composition of the atmosphere to the point where elements interact differently, how much more of a stretch is it really to suggest we might be doing even more damage than that?
DShiznit wrote:
While this is true, fossil records indicated a fairly consistent Global average temperature up until the industrial age.
Uh, no they don't.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
Global average temperatures have been very *unstable* for the past millions of years. If you'll notice, the temperature scale on those graphs is also an order of magnitude larger than on the charts over the past 30 years.
Quote:
Also, Silver did not tarnish until after we started blasting carbon into the air, another point I believe is understated. I mean, c'mon, we've already changed the composition of the atmosphere to the point where elements interact differently, how much more of a stretch is it really to suggest we might be doing even more damage than that?
Also completely false. Hell, 90% of what really causes silver to tarnish (hydrogen sulfide) isn't even man made, it comes from volcanoes, salt marshland, undersea vents, and other natural sources. Have we increased it? Sure. Are we responsible for tarnishing silver? Bwahahaha, no, not even close.
Kllrnohj wrote:
DShiznit wrote:
While this is true, fossil records indicated a fairly consistent Global average temperature up until the industrial age.
Uh, no they don't.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:All_palaeotemps.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
Global average temperatures have been very *unstable* for the past millions of years. If you'll notice, the temperature scale on those graphs is also an order of magnitude larger than on the charts over the past 30 years.
So "An Inconvenient Truth" is a pack of lies then?
EDIT- maybe I should watch it again, it's been a while, maybe I'm misremembering it wrong...
DShiznit wrote:
misremembering it wrong...
I know that this is sort of a non-constructive and trollish post, but I hope that that little turn of phrase there was intentional. DShiznit wrote:
So "An Inconvenient Truth" is a pack of lies then?
EDIT- maybe I should watch it again, it's been a while, maybe I'm misremembering it wrong...
EDIT- maybe I should watch it again, it's been a while, maybe I'm misremembering it wrong...
I don't know, I've never seen it. More often than not, though, "documentaries" such as that are pushing an agenda, not digging for the truth.
For example, Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" is more accurately describing itself than the topic it is supposedly investigating. It is full of crap, and is clearly pushing an agenda.
You're probably right there, but what does Al Gore have to gain personally from getting people to reduce pollution? He's already rich as f*ck and wildly popular...
DShiznit wrote:
You're probably right there, but what does Al Gore have to gain personally from getting people to reduce pollution? He's already rich as f*ck and wildly popular...
Um, so he can become more rich, duh. "Always code as if the person who will maintain your code is a maniac serial killer that knows where you live" -Unknown
"If you've done something right no one will know that you've done anything at all" -Futurama
"Have a nice day, or not, the choice is yours." Tom Steiner
<Michael_V> or create a Borg collective and call it The 83+
<Michael_V> Lower your slide cases and prepare to be silent linked. Memory clears are futile.
But how does reducing pollution = money for Al Gore? It's like when the far left says war in Iraq = money for corporations...
DShiznit wrote:
You're probably right there, but what does Al Gore have to gain personally from getting people to reduce pollution? He's already rich as f*ck and wildly popular...
Uh, political agendas can also be about power. He could also truly believe he is correct and think he is trying to save the world.
Kllrnohj wrote:
I don't know, I've never seen it. More often than not, though, "documentaries" such as that are pushing an agenda, not digging for the truth.
The infamous hockey stick graph used there, and elsewhere has been debunked.
elfprince13 wrote:
The infamous hockey stick graph used there, and elsewhere has been debunked.
Not really. It isn't "debunked" so much as "misrepresented". The data behind it is accurate afaik, it is just being misinterpreted.
Kllrnohj wrote:
elfprince13 wrote:
The infamous hockey stick graph used there, and elsewhere has been debunked.
Not really. It isn't "debunked" so much as "misrepresented". The data behind it is accurate afaik, it is just being misinterpreted.
I've read that at least components of the proxy data used to construct the graph are now considered to be inaccurate or un-useful data.
So I should close my eyes and pretend large sections of the polar regions aren't breaking off and melting?
Just remember, centuries ago, there was such fewer amounts of ice on greenland, the vikings had large farms there. Then the little ice age happened. Now when the glaciers on greenland retreat some (They are still more so then what they were when the vikings were farming there) climate nuts freak out. Everyone just needs to chill. The world is not going to burn up in the next few decades.
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.
» Go to Registration page
» Go to Registration page
» Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next
» View previous topic :: View next topic
» View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 2 of 3
» All times are UTC - 5 Hours
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Advertisement