Schwarzenegger on alternative energy

I don’t know why he chooses to lump all that together. I only have problems with the climate change hoax.

Even calling it climate change is a misleading rebranding. It is the idea that man made CO2 causes any significant change, that I think is wrong.

• This reply was modified 8 years ago by Agamemnon.

wv wrote:

Ag, so, you think all those scientists in all those different fields, in all those countries, are wrong about humans contributing to climate change?

w
v

Yes. I think they use bad arguments and every time I learn more, I am more convinced.

If you think otherwise, it won’t bother me. Everybody can come to their own conclusion.

Yes. I think they use bad arguments and every time I learn more, I am more convinced.
If you think otherwise, it won’t bother me. Everybody can come to their own conclusion.

I’m curious. Can you explain a little?

How about starting here? Do you believe the earth is warming?

Cal wrote:

I’m curious. Can you explain a little?

How about starting here? Do you believe the earth is warming?

In the long term we are headed for a cooling. In the short term it is hard to say exactly when that will happen or if we will have some positive or negative variance before that happens. A few hundred years ago it was warmer, then we had the little ice age, then that ended. But this has nothing to do with hypothetical man made CO2 warming. imo

waterfield wrote:

The “it was warmer millions of years ago” is a myth.

No it isn’t. Earth has been cooling for at least 65 million years.

I’ve seen enough for this to be my vote, and it always will be my vote.

The overwhelming majority of scientists from all over the world, and from a wide array of fields, have arrived at the consensus view that climate change is real and human caused.

The USA is the only advanced country in the world where there is a notable percentage of people who deny this.

But then the USA is the only advanced country in the world where large corporate interests dominate what counts as news.

…

Agamemnon wrote:

Voting proves theory?

No, voting states positions.

Turns the issue into an informal poll.

So just stating a position.

I am still curious and still would like you to talk about the bad arguments that you hear Ag.

I had assumed that most people who knew something about global warming and weren’t employed by Exxon accepted global warming. It’s a very intuitive or maybe common sense theory. If you put tons of carbon particles in the air, there will be some type of impact. That’s Newton’s first law: for every action there’s an equal but opposite reaction.

I know though from my limited exposure to science that the world doesn’t always operate by rules that are intuitive. Light acts as both a particle and wave, a large percentage of the mass of the universe is made of material that we can’t see. So I am genuinely intrigued when you say that people are making bad arguments about this issue. I am constantly surprised by how many bad arguments I hear from professionals and “experts”.

And I am willing to listen and do a little reading because global warming isn’t issue that I’ve really examined before.

Can we start here? Do you believe NOAA when they say that 2016 is the warmest year ever recorded? Do you believe scientists who say that the ice caps are melting because of the warming?

wv wrote:

Would you say Humans are destroying the biosphere, Ag?

w
v

I think we are destroying fresh water and burning down the rain forest and using nonrenewable resources and polluting with waste products. I think industrial farming and food corporations are bad things. A lot of stuff is bad. In the past we could always find more stuff at other places. If we don’t eventually move off planet we will run out of stuff and die. So, we need to find a lot more energy. So, good water short term. Vast amounts of energy long term.

Agamemnon wrote:

wv wrote:

Would you say Humans are destroying the biosphere, Ag?

w
v

<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>I think we are destroying fresh water and burning down the rain forest and using nonrenewable resources and polluting with waste products. I think industrial farming and food corporations are bad things. A lot of stuff is bad. In the past we could always find more stuff at other places. If we don’t eventually move off planet we will run out of stuff and die. So, we need to find a lot more energy. So, good water short term. Vast amounts of energy long term.</span>

————–
OK, well we agree on the big-picture then.

Btw, some Murmansk news, in case you feel like moving north:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/22/murmansks-silver-lining-arctic-city-banks-on-ice-melt-for-its-renaissance

w
v

wv wrote:

bnw wrote:

Once the government stops supporting the nonsense with bags of cash watch how fast your so called scientific consensus evaporates

———
Except its not ‘the government’ that supports the climate-change-consensus. Its lots and lots and lots of different kinds of governments and organizations all over the world. Japan, Cuba, Norway, France, etc, etc.

If it were just the USA that was pushing this, it would be one thing — but its not.

w
v

And it’s not even scientists in the USA that are pushing this…they agree that anthropomorphic climate change is happening. It’s not even being debated anymore. They’ve moved way beyond that.

We are supposed to believe climate change isn’t real for one reason and one reason only: because conservative politicians say so.

Cal wrote:

I had assumed that most people who knew something about global warming and weren’t employed by Exxon accepted global warming.

No–among educated advanced first-world nations the USA has the highest percentage of deniers.

It’s a direct effect of the money being spent to try and foster doubt.

It works in the USA, nowhere else.

wv wrote:

bnw wrote:

Once the government stops supporting the nonsense with bags of cash watch how fast your so called scientific consensus evaporates

———
Except its not ‘the government’ that supports the climate-change-consensus. Its lots and lots and lots of different kinds of governments and organizations all over the world. Japan, Cuba, Norway, France, etc, etc.

If it were just the USA that was pushing this, it would be one thing — but its not.

w
v

No you’re wrong. It is governments around the world that support the manmade CO2 caused global warming in order to reap huge tax revenues from all people. You of all people should be able to see how crass the scam really is.

Cal wrote:

I am still curious and still would like you to talk about the bad arguments that you hear Ag.

I had assumed that most people who knew something about global warming and weren’t employed by Exxon accepted global warming. It’s a very intuitive or maybe common sense theory. If you put tons of carbon particles in the air, there will be some type of impact. That’s Newton’s first law: for every action there’s an equal but opposite reaction.

I know though from my limited exposure to science that the world doesn’t always operate by rules that are intuitive. Light acts as both a particle and wave, a large percentage of the mass of the universe is made of material that we can’t see. So I am genuinely intrigued when you say that people are making bad arguments about this issue. I am constantly surprised by how many bad arguments I hear from professionals and “experts”.

And I am willing to listen and do a little reading because global warming isn’t issue that I’ve really examined before.

Can we start here? Do you believe NOAA when they say that 2016 is the warmest year ever recorded? Do you believe scientists who say that the ice caps are melting because of the warming?

I didn’t see your post before, Cal. I am not going to pursue this argument/discussion. I see no benefit from doing that. Everybody is free to look and reason and come to their own conclusions. If we don’t agree, we don’t agree. Have a beer. 😉 If I am wrong, I claim it is my constitutional right to be wrong. 😉 No one has to agree with me. I want them to make a concerted effort to do their own thinking. The people here do that, that is why I very seldom argue stuff. I just say my opinion and move on.

InvaderRam wrote:

There are two doors. Behind Door Number One is a completely sealed room, with a regular, gasoline-fueled car. Behind Door Number Two is an identical, completely sealed room, with an electric car. Both engines are running full blast.
I want you to pick a door to open, and enter the room and shut the door behind you. You have to stay in the room you choose for one hour. You cannot turn off the engine. You do not get a gas mask.
I’m guessing you chose the Door Number Two, with the electric car, right? Door number one is a fatal choice – who would ever want to breathe those fumes?

i vote that everyone choose door number one and breathe deeply.

The electricity for the electric car comes from fossil fuels. The energy to produce the electric car comes from fossil fuels. Same for the energy to produce photovoltaic cells. That spare engine in your hybrid that doubles or triples the effective range of your vehicle runs on fossil fuel.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 12 months ago by bnw.