TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:So-called man made climate change is snake oil hyped as a warning for the rest of us to comply with whatever the snake oil salesman says we should do. We're all SOOOO guilty.

You base that on what? The lack of 100% hard evidence that our massive energy use isn't changing the dynamics of our planet at all? Because that can't be provided, it can't be considered? You don't even find it worth considering that we *might* be impacting the planet.. And that such an impact has consequences? No offense, but I know that keeping my house cool doesn't come without a cost - it's basic physics.

There are social agendas. There are economic agendas. There is money involved. That still doesn't necessarily change anything.

To me, there are 4 camps:
1) Humans aren't contributing to climate change.
2) Humans are contributing to climate change.
3) Not sure if humans have anything to do with it.
4) The climate isn't changing. Look at this weekend, it's cold.

I find it unfortunate that a lot of social and fiscal conservatives fall into category #4. At this point, they might as well believe the world is flat, because 99.9% of the respected scientific community says that climate is changing. You're not only ignoring science, you're ignoring history... The climate has been changing for thousands of years. That's what "climate change" means to me - and it hurts my ears to hear that it's all fiction.

So that leaves the other 3 camps. I've not no solid proof on #1 or #2, although one would be wise to keep an open mind and consider because we learn new stuff every day.
If you're in camp #3:
1) Consider the consequence of humans not really being a factor and taking unnecessary action.. We clamp down the economy unnecessarily (job loss) and force some innovation that would have occurred earlier. All for nothing.
2) Consider the consequence of humans being a factor and taking action.. Likely we improve the condition of the planet and we prevent a much bigger economic melt-down than we had if we did nothing. Perhaps. Some point out that it might be moot anyway... Perhaps.
3) If humans are not a factor and we do nothing - we're no worse for wear.
4) If humans are a factor and we do nothing - well, we made a much bigger mess than we were in previously..

So, if you're not sure.. balance the risk. The odds are about 25% on those 4 choices, assuming their weighed equally.

And look there are some good things that come out of this. I like to point out that a late 1960s muscle car probably put down 400 hp and got 7mpg. Today, the same vehicle puts down 400hp and can do 20 mpg. Those "greenhouse gas" clampdowns resulted in innovation and decreased our dependance on foreign oil. We could still be driving cars that get 7mpg (if gas cost the same) and cars would cost less, but perhaps is some of it is good?

Abraham wrote:Focusing for a moment on one so-called green approach:
Ever been close to one of those wind mills?
They're absolutely enormous and require much maintenance. It's not as if once in place they get to idyllically rotate to the whims of the winds. Not so. It takes maintenance crews to keep them up to speed. Guess how the crews get to the windmill sites...?
Once their life cycle is over (after the relatively pitiful amount of energy they produce over their life cycle) whose going to remove them and at what cost?
My guess: They'll remain in place and become an ever worse eye sore/blight on the land they stand on.
Green my posterior...

Just to be clear - you're saying that they require more energy than they produce when you factor in the cost of maintenance and removal, etc? I don't actually know the answer, but it sure seems like someone would do that math.
I had a flight instructor and mechanic that was hired to maintain them. He flew himself all over the country. I think his plane got about 13 MPG - they have moving parts - definitely not maintenance free.
In terms of tearing them down, I'd assume that the worn parts can simply be service and that they substantial lifespans. Even if not, why not re-use the tower for the next wind technology?


In regard to climate change - as an engineer, even if I'm not sure that humans are changing the planet in destructive ways, I've got to weigh the costs of doing nothing versus the cost of doing something.
If people are right that there is no human factor in climate change and we do nothing, we're pretty much no worse for wear.
If people are right that that there is a substantial human factor in how much the climate is changing - and that change isn't good - we may end up in a really bad spot.

"Because they're doing it" is never a good reason in my mind.

So it sounds like there is majority agreement that the climate is changing, on this forum at least. Not everyone - but most people who are speaking up on this forum. What I don't know is how much we as a species are contributing to the problem. However, it seems unwise to me to chalk it all up to natural causes and not do anything about it because we don't know if we're contributing significantly or not... Or not do anything about it because other countries won't immediately get in line with the program.

It's like anything else - a cost/benefit analysis needs to be done. What's hard here is to determine the benefit, as it's not immediately tangible.. It might be tangible to our children or our children's children, but that's obviously a very hard sell (just look at our deficit). I don't advocate crippling the economy, but I might advocate things like tighter emissions standards that provide other fringe benefits (such as less dependance on foreign oil).

To me, completely rejecting reasonable attempts reduce things that could contribute is unwise... And I stress the "reasonable".

That sounds like a reasonable assessment with realistic questions to me...
It's much better than spinning it into a political "liberal" issue and totally discounting it.

I see. So let's discard modern scientific testing and studies on climate change because scientists got it wrong back in medieval times? Makes perfect sense to me. Ask for leeches next time you're at the doctors office.

It's interesting to me to see that people don't believe the climate is changing. I'm going to ignore all the drible about reducing the human population, it's just distracting.

The vast majority of the scientific community believes that the climate is changing (warming). I find it "interesting" to see that many conservatives don't accept it.. And there are liberals too (VM: Progressives) - but I think that denying it at this point is simply sticking your head in the sand.

The question is - how much of it is due to humans and how much of it is something else... I think that's still up for debate, but certainly "we" aren't helping the situation.

How much does the climate need to change before people start to think that it might be a real thing? However much that is, I hope it's not too much...